CBP/TRS 167/97
EPA 903-R-97-007
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel Report:
Technical Support Document
Prepared by the
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel
Technical Team
Chesapeake Bay Program
March 1997
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel Report:
Technical Support Document
Prepared October 1996
by the
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel
Technical Team
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1. RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER POLICY 1
Directive . 1
Adoption Statement . 3
Final Panel Report 5
2. DEFINITIONS 13
3. SCIENCE 21
Background . 21
Fact Sheet '. 25
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay White Paper 29
Determining Buffer Width 45
4. FINDINGS 63
Relationship to Other Bay Program Goals ; 63
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest Buffer Inventory Report 65
5. STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND GUIDELINES 123
NRCS Standards
Maryland 123
Pennsylvania (NRCS National Standard) 141
Virginia 145
USDA Forest Service Standard 157
Other References
Excerpt from: Schueler, Tom. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection.
Center for Watershed Protection: Silver Spring, MD and
MWCOG: Washington, DC. . 161
Excerpt from: NYDEC. 1986. Stream Corridor Management: A Basic Reference.
Manual. Albany, NY 203
6. PANEL PROCESS :..... 233
Panel and Technical Team Participants 234
Existing Program Analysis
Summary 237
Program and Gaps Analysis 239
Chesapeake Bay Commission Report 259
Issues 281
Challenges and Opportunities Identified in Interim Panel Report 282
Economics 285
Land Use Settings
Forest Lands 321
Agricultural Lands 327
Urban and Developing Lands 331
Federal Lands ; 337
-------
Potential Actions Presented by Land Use Teams 339
7. STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 343
Public. Involvement Process . . . 343
List of Individuals and Groups 345
Summary of Key Issues Raised by Commentators and Stakeholder Groups 347
8. LIST OF STATE/FEDERAL PROGRAM CONTACTS 357
-------
SECTION 1:
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER POLICY
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
IRECTIVENO.94-1
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
he restoration of water quality and living resources are the
principal goals of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. To achieve these goals, we agreed to reduce nutrients in the
main stem of Chesapeake Bay 40 percent by the year 2000 and to sustain this level thereafter. In 1992, we reaffirmed
these goals and also recognized the importance of the tributaries to the Bay ecosystem. We thus began to develop
tributary-specific nutrient reduction strategies to achieve water quality requirements necessary to restore living
resources in the tributaries as well as the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay. In 1993, we furthered our commitment
to these living resources by agreeing to construct migratory fish passages and remove stream blockages in the tribu-
taries to restore hundreds of miles of historic spawning areas. We now recognize that forests along waterways, also
known as "riparian forests," are an important resource that protects water quality and provides habitat and food nec-
essary to support fish survival and reproduction. Used as buffers, riparian forests provide a means of helping us achieve
our restoration goals in the tributaries.
B
ASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RIPARIAN
FOREST BUFFERS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT:
Forests have the ability to absorb and denitrify nitrogen in
surface and groundwater, and to trap phosphorus-laden
sediment and other pollutants resulting from adjacent land
uses, thereby protecting water quality.
Riparian forests provide shade, organic matter, and often
control stream bank stability, which in turn provide a range
of living resource habitat benefits, including the modera-
tion of stream temperature, support of the food web, pro-
tection of fish habitat, and sediment and erosion control.
Riparian forest buffers deliver the greatest range of ejivi-
ronmental benefits of any type of stream buffer.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RIPARIAN
FOREST BUFFERS AND THEIR POTENTIAL IN
HELPING US MEET OUR NUTRIENT REDUC-
TION GOALS REPRESENT A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY
TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE BASINWIDE
POLICY TO MAINTAIN AND RESTORE THIS VITAL
RESOURCE. A POLICY IS TIMELY FOR THE FOLLOW-
ING REASONS:
$ Since much has been done by state and federal agencies,
private landowners, and industry to improve water quality
through the protection of riparian forests, it is now appro-
priate for the Chesapeake Executive Council to adopt a
comprehensive policy addressing riparian forest buffers in
the Chesapeake tributaries.
O Much of the inventory of riparian forests has been con-
ducted or is underway, and as we leam more about the
extent and condition of these forests, a policy is needed to
guide management actions.
-------
The tributary strategies to date have identified riparian for-
est buffers as an important best management practice in
controlling nutrient loading to streams.
As we provide for migratory fish passage, it becomes even
more important to ensure favorable water quality and habi-
tat in those streams and rivers.
$ Maintaining long-term caps on nutrients in the tributaries
will require approaches that maintain ecosystem or water-
shed-scale functions, like those provided by healthy ripari-
an forests.
T
IHEREFORE, TO FURTHER OUR COMMIT-
MENTS MADE IN THE 1987 CHESAPEAKE BAY
AGREEMENT, WE WILL
Recognize the value of riparian areas in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed and commit to develop a policy which will
enhance the maintenance, restoration and stewardship of
this valuable resource.
Convene a panel or task force to recommend a Chesapeake
Bay Program policy on riparian forest buffers. To ensure
broad public input, the panel will conduct a series of work-
shops or roundtables involving landowners, federal, state
and local governments, non-profit organizations, business,
industry, scientists, and citizens.
Request the panel to consider and make recommendations,
where appropriate, for:
accepted definitions of forest buffers which address the
ecologically beneficial characteristics and functions of
riparian forests while accommodating resource manage-
ment activities appropriate within the riparian zone;
a quantifiable goal or goals, measured in acres, stream
miles or other appropriate terms, to serve as a long-term
target for the maintenance and restoration of riparian
forests, as well as a timetable for achieving this goal;
ways to strengthen communication and partnerships
while recognizing the rights and responsibilities of federal,
state and local governments, private landowners, and the
public, so as to better coordinate policy and program
actions regarding riparian forest buffers;
ways to support other stream protection efforts where
landowners or land managers are unable to implement
riparian forest buffers.
Request the panel to submit an interim report to the
Executive Council in 1995, outlining the major policy find-
ings and any appropriate recommendations, and to submit
final recommendations for a riparian forest buffer policy in
1996 for consideration by the Executive Council.
B
y this DIRECTIVE, we reaffirm our commitments made in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to restore and protect the ecological
integrity, productivity and beneficial uses of the Chesapeake Bay. In recognition of our commitments, we the undersigned agree
to further our efforts through diis directive which is hereby incorporated into the overall Chesapeake Bay Program.
FOR TOE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION
&*«^
+
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
ADOPTION STATEMENT
ON RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
n past commitments, we agreed to reduce nutrients, to restore
habitat, to improve access to thousands of miles of habitat for migratory fish, and to enhance watershed
management by developing and implementing tributary-specific pollution reduction strategies. All of these
are part of the effort to achieve bur goals for improved water quality and living resources in the Chesapeake
Bay. Building on these past commitments, we now highlight the role that conservation, restoration, and
stewardship of our riparian areas, and in particular riparian forests, play in reaching our long-term goals for
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay.
BASED ON RECOGNITION THAT RIPARIAN
FOREST BUFFERS CAN PROVIDE A RANGE
OF WATER QUALITY, LIVING RESOURCE,
AND WATERSHED BENEFITS:
In October of 1994, the Chesapeake Executive Council
adopted Directive 94-1 which called upon the Chesapeake
Bay Program to develop a policy which would enhance
riparian stewardship and efforts to conserve and restore
riparian forest buffers.
The Executive Council appointed and convened a 31-
member Riparian Forest Buffer Panel composed of federal,
state, and local government, scientists, land managers, and
citizen, farming, development, forest industry, and environ-
mental interests. The Panel represented a wide range of
viewpoints and experience and conducted an extensive
stakeholder involvement process.
The Panel was guided by a commitment to develop goals
based on sound science, to recommend flexible strategies,
to focus on voluntary incentive-based approaches, to
increase private and non-profit partnerships, to enhance,
streamline, and coordinate existing government programs,
to respect private property rights, to be responsive to
landowner needs, and to ensure stakeholder involvement.
The Panel has provided a set of overall goals, recommen-
dations, suggested actions, and technical information that
will help guide the conservation and restoration of riparian
buffers in the watershed.
T
HEREFORE, TO SUPPORT AN INTEGRATED
AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE
CONSERVATION OF RIPARIAN AREAS, WE:
Accept the report of the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel.
Adopt the proposed definition of "riparian forest buffer".
Adopt the following additional Chesapeake Bay Program
goals for states and federal agencies:
To assure, to the extent feasible, that ail streams and shorelines
wiil be.protected by a forested or other riparian buffer.
To conserve existing forests along aU. streams and shorelines.
To increase the use of all riparian buffers and restore riparian
forests on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in the water-
shed by 2010, targeting efforts where they will be of greatest
value to water quality and living resources.
' Adopt the five Policy recommendations of the Panel.
' Direct each state and the federal government to establish a
riparian buffer implementation plan with conservation and
restoration benchmarks addressing the Policy recommenda-
tions of the Panel by June 30, 1998.
-------
Maintaining and restoring buffers along all streams and shore-
lines will not be an easily-achieved goal. Furthermore, reach-
ing these goals will require engaging new partners, energizing
the public to plant trees and restore streams, working with
farmers, other landowners and local governments, .building
new relationships with industry and business, and continuing
to develop new and innovative approaches and incentives.
By these actions, we reaffirm our commitments made in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to restore and protect the eco-
logical integrity, productivity and beneficial uses of the Chesapeake Bay. In recognition of our commitments, we the
undersigned agree to further our efforts through the encouragement of voluntary effort to conserve and restore riparian
forest buffers throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Date OCTOBER 10, 1996
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LA/.
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION
ju~
-------
Final Report
oftk
e
Riparian Forest Burrer Panel
INTRODUCTION
In October 1994, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted Directive 94-1 which called
upon the Chesapeake Bay Program .to develop a set of goals and actions to increase the focus on
riparian stewardship and enhance efforts to conserve and restore riparian forest buffers. The Council
recognized that forests along waterways are an important resource that protects water quality and
provides habitat and food necessary to support fish and wildlife survival and reproduction. The
Council appointed a panel to recommend a set of policies, recommend an accepted definition of
forest buffers, and suggest quantifiable goals. The Panel was a diverse group of thirty-one members,
comprised of federal, state, and local government representatives, scientists, land managers, citizens,
and farming, development, forest industry, and environmental interests. This report contains our
principal findings and recommendations. Background material which describes in more detail the
technical basis for the recommendations and elaborates on the implementation options is available
as a Technical Support document.
The Panel adopted a set of principles to guide its deliberations. These principles formed the
basis of the Panel's work and are reflected in its recommendations:
4- Develop goals based on sound science
4 Recommend flexible strategies
+Focus on voluntary incentive-based approaches
4 Increase private ana non-profit partnerships
+ Enhance, streamline, and coordinate existing government programs
4 Be responsive to landowner needs and ensure stakeholder involvement
4 Respect private property rights
FINDINGS
Based on stakeholder input and an extensive review of the science, programs, experience, and
opportunities related to riparian forest management, the Panel found that:
4- Streams and rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed offer a great diversity of form and function.
Changes in the landscape have altered many streams and shorelines from their natural condition.
There are an estimated 111,000 miles of perennial and intermittent streams in the watershed. Small
first and second order streams are often the most critical in terms of downstream water quality and
living resources. As a result of aerial surveys, it is estimated that more than 50 percent of the Bay's
waterways are bordered with 100 feet or more of forest on each side.
-------
f A stream and its riparian area function as one. The condition of the riparian area helps determine
the quality and integrity of stream channels and habitat available for fish and other wildlife. Riparian
areas interact with the flow of surface and groundwater from upland areas and play an important role
in water quality.
f A sound scientific foundation exists to support the nutrient reduction and ecological values and
functions of riparian forest buffers and to promote their use as a management tool.
f Riparian forest buffers will contribute to accomplishing Chesapeake Bay Program goals for nutrient
reduction (especially the year 2000 cap), tributary strategies, submerged aquatic vegetation
restoration, fish passage, and habitat restoration.
f While many approaches to stream protection and riparian buffers exist, few have targeted the
conservation and restoration of riparian forests.
+ Landowners see riparian forest buffers as more permanent than other stream protection
alternatives. They consequently need additional incentives and/or more inducement to establish this
type of buffer on productive land that is generating or has significant potential to generate non-forest
income.
+ Existing programs are not adequately funded, integrated, or coordinated to effectively target
riparian forest buffers and track accomplishments.
f Although streamside vegetation of any kind is desirable, forests provide the greatest number of
benefits and highest potential for meeting both water quality and habitat restoration objectives.
There are situations throughout the watershed where it will not be possible to provide forest buffers.
In these instances, other buffers will provide some of the desired benefits.
LAND USE-SPECIFIC FINDINGS FROM STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
The Panel also recognizes that existing land uses affect the approach to buffers. Related to
these major land uses, the Panel found that:
& On Agricultural land
Riparian forest buffers are currently used as a management practice on some farm fields and pastures
and as a component of some conservation management plans. With increased effort, the promotion
of riparian forest buffers can become a part of routine farm conservation planning efforts. A
discussion of standards for their use can be found in the Technical Support document to this report.
Site-specific conservation plans must incorporate landowner objectives and the range of practices
necessary to achieve healthy and functional riparian systems. Restoration of degraded conditions and
long-term success will depend on a flexible riparian system conservation approach that examines a
farm in relation to its adjacent properties and the stream's relationship to its watershed.
Implementing successful riparian system conservation includes 1) encouraging practical management
measures that limit soil disturbance and reduce potential water quality impacts, 2) increasing shade,
habitat, and food for fish and riparian-dependent wildlife, and 3) maintaining economic viability of
farming operations.
-------
Teams such as the USDA State Technical Committees can assist in targeting, coordinating, and
tracking implementation of federal, state, and local programs for riparian forest buffers and riparian
system conservation on agricultural land.
The Panel found that successful implementation of buffers on agricultural land will require 1)
enhanced educational programs for landowners, 2) technical support and financial incentives aimed
at agriculture, and 3) public recognition of the value and importance of farm land in this rapidly
urbanizing watershed.
& On Forested Land
Riparian forest buffers in the context of forest management raise different issues than other land uses.
Because the land is already forested, efforts are focused on retaining forest land and on techniques
for its future management. On lands where forests are managed for silviculture, clearly accepted
guidelines already exist for "streamside management zones" and are widely practiced on public lands,
by industry, and by private landowners.
Forest management, which includes timber harvesting, is compatible with maintaining functioning
riparian forest buffers. Deriving income from management of riparian forests should be integrated
with a wider range of management objectives.
The success of a riparian forest buffer retention strategy relies in part on creating a favorable climate
for continued forest land ownership. Actions which will contribute to this climate include: 1)
education and voluntary participation by landowners and forestry professionals with riparian forest
buffer criteria, 2) recognition by the public that managed forests are a beneficial land use for water
quality and habitat, and 3) appropriate technical support and financial incentives for riparian forest
retention and recommended management.
The Panel found that the work underway in the forest industry, especially the Sustainable Forestry
Initiative, could and should serve as a model.
^ On Developed and Developing Lands
Implementation of riparian forest buffers in developed areas is different from agricultural or forestry
settings. First, the changes resulting from impervious cover of buildings, streets, and other
infrastructure are permanent and typically result in cumulative changes in the hydrological regime.
In contrast, the changes resulting from farming and forestry can be reversed. Secondly, the per-unit
value of developed land is significantly greater than the per-unit value of farm or forest land.
A strategy to implement riparian forest buffers on developed lands must include a recognition of these
unique considerations. For high-density urban environments, the focus should rely primarily on
education, citizen involvement, and general awareness of the importance of natural systems and
people's connection to them. Restoration should be promoted where feasible, and through local
outreach with grassroots and civic organizations. Recommendations for urban and suburban
alternatives to a riparian forest buffer must be developed for those areas where development has
already precluded the maintenance or establishment of a forest buffer.
In developing areas, there is a greater opportunity to conserve environmental benefits. Maintaining
structural, hydrological, and functional integrity of riparian systems is an essential objective of
development planning and construction.
-------
A key component to successful implementation of riparian forest buffers in developed and developing
areas is to support existing federal, state, and county laws and local ordinances. In addition, local
zoning and subdivision ordinances, comprehensive land use plans, regional or watershed-specific
stormwater management plans, and riparian system conservation plans are appropriate mechanisms.
Effective implementation of riparian forest buffers on developed and developing lands can result from
a set of guidelines that ensure consistency and clarity, but remain flexible to site-specific needs.
Specifically the Panel was impressed with approaches which: 1) allow flexibility for expansion,
contraction, and averaging with respect to buffer width criteria so as to account for the 100-year flood
plain, steepness of slope, adjacent wetlands, limited lot size, stormwater ponds, etc., 2) provide for
flexible uses within the riparian forest buffer, including freedom to harvest timber for firewood or
commercial use, consistent with state forestry harvesting guidelines, 3) promote riparian forest buffers
as part of stormwater management planning, and allow pollution removal effectiveness of buffers to
be credited in stormwater management plans and calculations, and 4) provide flexibility for
development density compensation where forest buffers are required or proposed so that developers
can establish the same number of lots on the parcel outside the riparian forest buffer as would be
allowed without a riparian forest buffer.
These findings, which are supported by background information included in the Technical
Support document, formed the basis for the recommendations which follow.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Executive Council asked the Panel to consider and make recommendations, where'
appropriate, for 1) accepted definitions of forest buffers which address ecologically beneficial
characteristics and functions of riparian forests while accommodating resource management activities
appropriate within the riparian zone, 2) a quantifiable goal or goals to serve as a long-term target for
the maintenance and restoration of riparian forests, as well as a timetable, 3) ways to strengthen
communication and partnerships to better coordinate policy and program actions, and 4) ways to
support other stream protection efforts.
DEFINITION
Clarity of definition is important, perhaps more so than consistency from one jurisdiction to the next.
The Panel recommends that the Executive Council adopt the following definition of riparian forest
buffers, to be applied throughout the Bay watershed:
Riparian Forest Buffer: An area of trees, usually accompanied by shrubs and other vegetation,
that is adjacent to a body of water which is managed to maintain the integrity of stream
channels and shorelines, to reduce the impact of upland sources of pollution by trapping,
filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals, and to supply food, cover,
and thermal protection to fish and other wildlife.
Width is an important consideration in the overall effectiveness of forest buffers. The appropriate
width of the forested buffer will vary depending on site conditions, topography, adjacent land use,
and the benefits one is trying to gain by installing a buffer. Technical guidance on buffer width can
be found in the. Technical Support document as well as various other sources.
-------
GOALS
The Panel recommends that the Council adopt one long-term and two immediate goals:
+Assure that every stream in the watershed is protected by a riparian forest or other buffer.
4- Conserve existing forests along streams and shorelines.
+Increase basin-wide riparian forest buffers through restoration benchmarks to be established by
each signatory in 1998 with the aim of accelerating the present rate of reforestation in the
riparian area. Priorities should be focused on those areas that will provide the greatest benefit.
POLICIES
Maintaining existing buffers along all streams and shorelines will not be an easily-achieved goal.
Restoring forest buffers in areas where they are most needed will also be difficult. However, the
present level of effort is inadequate, and the Executive Council is urged to enable the realization of
these goals by making adequate staff resources, technical assistance, tax relief, financial incentives,
and education programs available.
The Panel believes that adoption of five policy recommendations will help enable the signatories to
establish and develop implementation strategies. These five recommendations address the remainder
of the Panel's charge.
4- Recommendation 1: Enhance Program Coordination and Accountability
"Establish mechanisms to streamline, enhance, and coordinate existing programs
related to buffers and riparian system conservation."
Suggested actions include:
$ Establish coordinating teams to address how riparian forest buffer retention and restoration goals
are being achieved. These teams should report annually to the Chesapeake Bay Program
Implementation Committee.
$ Use federal, state, or other sources of funding to establish personnel in each jurisdiction capable
of specializing in landowner outreach and education and local program assistance for riparian forest
buffer design, establishment, management, and education.
Evaluate and modify existing federal and state cost-share and assistance programs to simplify the
process, streamline implementation, and ensure that they support a wide range of riparian system
conservation practices, including planting trees and shrubs, maintenance of plantings until
successfully established, use of temporary fencing, and development of off-stream water sources.
-------
+ Recommendation 2: Promote Private Sector Involvement
"Build partnerships with the private sector to help support the promotion and
implementation of riparian forest buffer retention and restoration activities."
Suggested actions include:
$ Establish a recognition program in each state to reward and recognize developers, farmers, and
forest landowners for riparian forest buffer accomplishments and proper riparian system conservation.
^ Establish demonstration projects which enlist industrial/corporate landowners to establish riparian
forest buffer restoration/retention on their lands,
0- Convene a workshop to explore ways to facilitate and encourage land trusts to increase the
conservation of riparian forests and riparian systems, to include provisions in existing easement
agreements for riparian forest buffer establishment and stream enhancement activities, and to track
lands protected by permanent easements.
0- Improve the ability of non-governmental partners such as private, nonprofit, and watershed
organizations to assist in landowner outreach, education, and buffer restoration efforts by establishing
grants through public/private endowments supported by multiple funding sources. Ensure an
adequate and inexpensive supply of native riparian planting materials.
^ Continuously work to involve citizen groups and volunteers in riparian forest buffer planting and
management efforts in rural and urban areas and build a cadre of private individuals who can assist
government agencies to design, organize, and implement stream improvement and riparian
restoration projects.
+ Recommendation 3: Enhance Incentives
"Develop and promote an adequate array of incentives for landowners and developers
to encourage voluntary riparian buffer retention and restoration".
Suggested actions include:
0- Compile a list of existing federal and state tax advantages, tax relief provisions, conservation
easement tax benefits, tree planting credits, and other tax options that currently exist and market
these tools to landowners.
$ Deliver to Congress an Executive Council proposal to amend inheritance tax law and provisions
that unintentionally result in conversion of forests and agricultural land to other land uses, making
opportunities for riparian forest retention difficult.
0- Create flexible state income tax incentives (such as tax credits for tree planting, retention, or
easement expenses in buffers) to promote riparian forest buffers.
-------
u
$ Enable, encourage, and, where necessary, amend legislation to ensure that local governments have
the authority to promote preferential property tax strategies.
$ Implement, within existing state land trust or conservation easement programs, mechanisms which
emphasize riparian forest buffers and riparian systems.
0 Develop strategies and tools to promote local implementation of flexible land development
practices which enhance riparian forest buffer retention, such as density compensations, pollution
removal credits for riparian forests in stormwater management plans and calculations, more flexible
use of buffer resources, and off-site mitigation or buffer trading within existing regulatory programs.
0- Encourage agencies to evaluate their regulatory and conservation programs and develop approaches
that will not penalize landowners who restore buffers.
+ Recommendation 4: Support Research, Monitoring, and Technology
Transfer
"Increase the level of scientific and technical knowledge of the Junction and management
of riparian forest and other buffers, as well as their economic, social, ecological, and
water quality values."
Suggested actions include:
^ Update state and federal technical assistance handbooks, manuals, and specifications and provide
a field handbook providing guidance on the benefits, functions, design, establishment, and
management of riparian forest buffers.
^ Develop a research agenda that addresses information needs regarding riparian forest buffers, such
as landowner concerns, economic analysis of costs and benefits, and ecological and physical
relationships.
O Conduct an analysis of riparian forest and other buffer effectiveness and targeting for nutrient
removal and living resource habitat enhancement.
^ Commit to repeating the inventory of riparian forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed at periodic
intervals, continually refining the technological capabilities and resolution of the inventory, in order
to accurately measure progress and program accomplishments against the baseline findings of the
inventory completed in 1996.
4- Recommendation 5: Promote Education and Information
"Encourage Bay signatories to implement education and outreach programs about the
benefits of riparian forest buffers and other stream protection measures."
-------
Suggested actions include:
4- Publish state directories for riparian forest buffer and stream protection and restoration assistance
programs for use by landowners, citizens, and local governments.
<> Coordinate the development of educational materials and tools (such as public service
announcements, videos, posters, fact sheets, displays, brochures, field tours; Internet homepage, etc.)
and implement a basin-wide public outreach and education program about the benefits of healthy
streams and riparian areas.
0- Initiate ongoing training and education programs as appropriate for developers, loggers, the forest
industry, consultants, and citizen groups as well as other resource-professionals and decision-makers
to communicate the importance of riparian forest buffer and riparian system conservation, methods
of protection and establishment, and the use of watershed and stream assessments.
-------
SECTION 2:
DEFINITIONS
-------
DEFINITIONS
Definitions of riparian areas and buffers vary depending on the perspectives of managers and scientists,
the various land use settings in which they are found, as well as the activities carried out in the riparian
landscape. The word "riparian11 is derived from the Latin word for bank or shore and simply refers to
land adjacent to a body of water. Most agree that riparian areas do not have fixed, linear boundaries
but vary in width, shape, and character. When we use the term riparian, we are referring to
streamsides, river banks and floodplains of perennial and intermittent streams and the shorelines of the
Chesapeake Bay.
The concept of a buffer is to provide a transitional environment capable of reducing or eliminating the
potential impacts of land uses on the adjacent body of water; e.g. impacts on the physical, chemical and
biological aspects of that environment. Buffers are especially valuable in providing "a last line of
defense" for water quality impacts that may occur on a short and long term basis. Using riparian areas
in this context means putting naturally occurring or enhanced riparian functions to work for a specific
set of management objectives.
STREAM: A perennial or intermittent watercourse having a defined natural channel (excluding man-
made ditches) which contains flow from surface and groundwater sources during at least 50% of an
average rainfall year.
Streams and rivers in the Chesapeake watershed offer great diversity of form and Junction. A
long history of changing land use means that many stream channels and shorelines have been
altered from their natural condition. This definition describes those streams which would benefit
from riparian forest buffers.
RIPARIAN AREA: The area of land adjacent to streams, rivers and other bodies of water that serves
as a transition between aquatic and terrestrial environments and directly affects or is affected by that
body of water.
A stream and its riparian area junction as one. The condition of the riparian area helps
determine the quality, health, and integrity of the stream and the habitat available for fish and
other wildlife. Because of their position in the landscape, riparian areas interact with the flow
of surface and groundwater from upland areas and play an important role in water quality.
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER: An area of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation situated between a land
use and adjacent body of water which is managed to maintain the integrity of stream channels and
shorelines, to reduce the impact of upland sources of pollution by trapping, filtering and converting
sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals, and to supply food, cover and thermal protection to fish and
other wildlife.
Riparian buffers are one of the most effective practices for pollution prevention. Forests provide
the greatest number of environmental benefits of any buffer vegetation and have proven most
successful in bringing overall water quality improvements.
-------
IH-
FOREST BUFFER WIDTH: A fixed or variable distance measured from the edge of the streambank
or shoreline within which the vegetation and land is retained and managed for the purpose of sustaining
specific or multiple buffer functions.
It is difficult to define an "ideal" buffer width suitable for all applications. Buffer widths are
determined through consideration of actual watershed and site conditions (stream sensitivity,
steep slopes, stream size , floodplains, etc.), landowner objectives (forest management,
recreation, grazing system, etc.), desired buffer Junctions (remove groundwater nutrients, filter
sediment, provide bird or fish habitat, etc.),and the potential for land use impact (cropland,
urban, roads). A primary advantage of fixed widths is ease of administration; variable-width
approaches may require extensive site investigation.
FOREST BUFFER RESTORATION: The re-establishment of a sustainable community of native trees,
shrubs and other vegetation adjacent to a body of water where forest cover had been converted to other
uses and which is capable of providing multiple buffer functions.
Replanting cultivated fields, pastures, turf lawns, or areas disturbed by construction or
development requires technical and financial investment. Restoration also provides opportunity
for public involvement. Once planted, a new buffer will begin providing some benefits
immediately. Within 10-15 years, riparian forest buffers provide a full range of water quality
and habitat values with little long-term maintenance.
FOREST BUFFER CONSERVATION: Retaining and managing existing riparian forests so that they
continue to provide the benefits of a forest buffer.
Retaining a corridor of natural forest vegetation along streams and shorelines in rural and
developing areas is a valuable aspect of local planning. Riparian forest buffers or corridors
should be designed to provide as many benefits as possible; expanding or contracting to
incorporate important ecological and physical site needs, integrate regulatory or economic
constraints, and include public use where suitable. Linking forest buffers within a watershed is
desirable.
STREAM CORRIDOR CONSERVATION: An approach to management that encourages the
protection of a stream and a continuous vegetated buffer zone from a stream's headwaters to its mouth
and integrates riparian buffers with other needed stream protection and restoration actions.
Stream valleys or "corridors" are important assets of a landowner, a community, and the public.
They contain wetlands and vegetated areas that help filter runoff and groundwater, protect water
quality, and provide critical habitat for plants, animals and fish. They also contain cultural and
historic resources, and provide prime recreational and scenic values worthy of conservation for
people. Forests represent a target vegetation for stream corridors.
WATERSHED-BASED PLANNING: An approach to resource, land use and development planning
that utilizes natural watershed instead of geopolitical boundaries in order to sustain natural stream
functions while accommodating a reasonable level of land development.
-------
Changes in a watershed such as conversion of forest to other land uses, increasing impervious
area, channelizing streams, and ditching and draining fields, and roads and subdivisions can
all have dramatic effects on stream junction as well as water quality. Sustaining the long-term
functions of a watershed and healthy, productive streams means incorporating essential "green"
infrastructure like natural stream corridors with traditional development needs.
DEFINITIONS: Background Information
"Even though they may be physiographicatty distinct, most riparian zones
cannot be dealt with as separate functional entities... rather riparian habitats
are best evaluated and managed as part of larger landscape units such as
watersheds'.
-Eugene Odum, 1971
Riparian areas are a resource with high economic and ecological values. In their natural forested state
they provide crucial fish and wildlife habitat, and help control stream stability, flow and water quality.
In addition, riparian areas are used for recreation or timber production. Many acres of riparian area
have been converted to other land uses such as cultivated agriculture, pasture, grass filter strips, lawns,
or residential, commercial, and industrial development and infrastructure. Recognizing these multiple
values and uses is essential in developing effective management and restoration strategies.
Perspectives on Terminology
understanding any concept requires knowledge of the terminology used to describe it. The definitions
of a riparian area sometimes vary depending on the perspectives of managers and scientists. The word
"riparian''is derived from the Latin word for bank or shore, and simply refers to land adjacent to a body
of water. Plant ecologists define riparian areas based on soil moisture conditions and unique plant
communities associated with wet and mesic soils. Others may define riparian areas in terms of soil
characteristics, hydrology, or landscape features. Law or policy often defines it in terms of its uses.
Consequently, riparian areas do not stop at an arbitrary, uniform distance away from a stream or
watercourse, but vary in width and shape.
Ecosystem perspectives of riparian areas incorporate concepts of geomorphology, terrestrial plant
succession, and aquatic ecology. Here, riparian areas are defined as three-dimensional zones of
influence between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The boundaries of the riparian area extend out
from the streambed or tidal shoreline and upward into the canopy of streamside vegetation. Likewise,
the functioning riparian zone may be considered to extend into the soil to the water table and incorporate
underlying hydrogeologic conditions.
With the exception of tidal marshes and emergent wetlands, nearly all riparian ecosystems of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed in their natural state were dominated by forested plant communities.
Relative to other land types, riparian areas are characterized by a combination of high species diversity,
high species density and high bio-productivity (Hunter, 1990). Natural and man-caused factors have
greatly altered riparian character and condition over time, and landscape differences, such as
physiographic region, result in differences in form and function of riparian systems.
-------
II?
These and other definitions identify several aspects of a riparian area held in common. They are: 1) an
adjacent body of water, 2) a lack of clearly defined boundaries, and 3) the role as a transition between
aquatic and upland environments. In the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, forests are the natural vegetation
which comprises the riparian zone or streamside and shoreline areas.
What is a filter strip and a buffer?
When adjoining land uses are significantly different, or where potential for conflict is serious, it is
common practice to create a buffer between them. Thus we have buffers between highways and houses,
around recreation sites, airports and bombing ranges. Generally as the density or magnitude of the
activity or the potential for conflict increases, the width of the buffer necessary to contain the negative
effects increases proportionally. In terms of a riparian area, the differences between developed or
disturbed lands and the stream or-aquatic environment are significant; the more intensely disturbed or
developed, the more the difference. Likewise the size or importance of the buffer increases as the
potential conflict created by increased yields of nutrients, chemicals, and sediment from land use
increases. Riparian buffers have been described as 'one of the most effective tools for coping with
nonpoint source pollution' (Phillips 1989).
"Filter strips "aie vegetated sections of land designed to accept runoff for pollutant removal. They are
not designed for high velocity flows, but rather low volume dispersed flows and groundwater. Filter
strips differ from "natural buffers "in that strips are not "natural" but rather designed and managed
specifically for the purpose of pollutant removal. "Enhanced natural buffers " are where the removal
capacity of a natural buffer is improved through land grading, water spreaders, planting or other
measures.
Riparian buffer strips should be designed to fulfill one or more of the following basic roles (Belt, et.al,
1992): .
f to protect fish and wildlife by supplying food, cover, and thermal protection.
+ to help prevent upland sources of pollution from reaching surface waters by trapping, filtering
and converting sediments, nutrients, and chemicals.
4- to maintain the hydrologic, hydraulic, and ecological integrity of the stream channel and
associated soil and vegetation (i.e. maintaining stream bank stability and channel capacity)
Streamside Forests
Naturally forested riparian areas have also been called "streamside forests", "'river woods", and "wet
woods", to name a few. When thinking of these areas as part of a landscape rather than in a role as
buffer, people also routinely think of stream corridors, greenways, and river parks. In each case, the
riparian area is the same resource, but its dimensions and management are defined by its desired use or
individual value to people rather than by its ecological significance.
What is a riparian forest buffer?
Buffers or filter strips may utilize a variety of vegetation types. Forested riparian buffers (or streamside
forests) are riparian buffers with a functional forest ecosystem. The use of forested zones near streams
has long been recognized as an important strategy for improving water quality while also restoring the
ecosystem. In this way, forested riparian buffers should be clearly distinguished from vegetative or
-------
grassed filter strips (commonly recommended as a BMP) because of their ability to accomplish both
water quality and ecological roles.
The riparian forest buffer may vary in size, shape, mix of vegetation, and management objectives,
however, it maintains trees over the long term as the dominant part of its plant community. Welsch
recognized the value of riparian forests in providing ecological benefits and provides a three-zone forest
buffer concept as a recommendation designed for water quality treatment and control of the stream
environment. These linear strips of forest and grass are designed as a last line of defense for the stream
from the activities we undertake on adjacent lands. The three-zone concept allows customizing with site
and landowner objectives. Benefits of the riparian forest buffer also accrue both on-site and
downstream.
Describing riparian forest buffers in different landscapes
To increase general understanding, it is sometimes useful to characterize riparian forest buffers by their
use in each of the unique land use settings in which the practice is applied.
In the Forested Landscape
This is a riparian forest buffer on forested lands. Where the landscape is managed for wood products,
the riparian forest buffer is referred to as a "streamside management zone (SMZ)" or "streamside
management area". In a forest landscape, management objectives for the forested areas closest to the
water are oriented away from timber production, toward water quality protection and habitat concerns.
Forest composition in the SMZ commonly represents a more natural diversity, rather than favoring
commercial species. SMZ widths are usually fixed but may vary from 25' to over 300', primarily
controlled by slope or biological considerations.
e Management TSHIP - a designated forest area varying in width where management
practices are modified by water quality or aquatic resources.
In the Agricultural landscape
Forests which have remained as part of agricultural areas may be managed as woodlots or family forests,
but many are limited to fragmented patches confined to wet soils or steep slopes and hilltops which
proved difficult to cultivate. Riparian forests have usually been cleared on farms managed for livestock.
These areas present the classic definition of riparian forest buffer as a water quality and habitat
enhancement BMP. Because of potentially high levels of sediments, nutrients and other chemicals
leaving the crop or pasture fields in surface or groundwater, RFBs are may be designed to serve as a
zone to buffer water quality impacts of this land use from a streams, river or bay. In addition, streams
have often been highly altered in these areas and the forest buffer supports the restoration of aquatic
habitat. Existing riparian forests are usually very narrow bands (10-25') of intermittent trees along the
bank of a river or stream. Groundwater may be drained by tiles.
Agricultural applications of forest buffers sometimes require the conversion of active cropland , but
most often are a combination of pasture, grass filter strip, and/or cultivated field. Establishing riparian
forest buffers will involve the difficult task of wholesale conversion of grass to forest where no forest
has existed for 50-250 years or the expansion of narrow existing forest strips.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer - an area of trees and other vegetation separating cropland
or pasture from as or other surface waters which is designed and managed to provide shade
and stream habitat and to trap and remove nutrients, sediments, pesticides and other chemicals
from surface runoff and subsurface/groundwater flows. RFBs are retained, enhanced or planted.
In the suburban/developing landscape
Describing riparian forests and forests in general in the suburban or developing landscape is one of
change. Retaining existing riparian forests and planning for sustaining them over the long term is the
challenge. As forests are cleared for development and runoff, temperature, edge effect, exotic plants
and pests all increase, the focus is on retaining functional riparian forest corridors. Like agricultural
areas, the potential benefits of retaining these riparian forests is equally high for future water quality and
aquatic resources. Increased nutrients from road runoff and lawn fertilizers are effectively treated by
the riparian forest buffer if stormwater designs allow watershed infiltration. Riparian forest buffers in
these areas often contribute to higher property values.
In developing areas, many communities already have subdivision or zoning rules that impose mandatory
building setbacks from lot lines. Some communities require a specific setback from the shoreline (such
as mean high tide) or streambank. Maintaining vegetated buffers that function in ways that provide
environmental benefits generally means preserving or establishing a zone of woody vegetation where
disturbance and building can be limited. To accomplish this, other lot line setbacks may need to be
reduced or a subdivision may need to alter lot size.
One key principle of modem land use planning promotes concentrating intense development in areas
where supporting infrastructure already exists. This principle focusses on infil development and
redevelopment. In many communities, these intensely developed areas may include s banks and the
shorelines or larger bodies of water. These shorelines may already have high land values and tax
burdens, creating a desire to maximize the economic return on such properties. This may precludes
giving such valuable land over to environmental uses such as a buffer.
Suburban Riparian Forest Buffer - corridors of forest bordered by parks, ballfields, roadways and
residential/commercial lawns and landscaping which are retained and managed to provide the natural
functions and values of sediment filtering, enhanced infiltration, nutrient uptake and processing,
temperature moderation, noise control, screening, aesthetics, and diverse habitat.
In the urban landscape
Forests in the urbanized landscape are highly fragmented and often dysfunctional ecosystems. Of all
the various types of urban forests, including trees in parks, along streets, and on private lots, forests
bordering streams and rivers, are probably the most valuable forests from a water quality and habitat
perspective. The fragments of riparian forest that have been protected from development often represent
the largest contiguous forests within urban areas. Refuges for songbirds and other wildlife, they can
be unique areas for appreciation of nature. From a human perspective, they provide much needed
recreational areas for urban residents through the accommodation of streamside trails.
Interest and activity in reforestation and tree planting has greatly increased over the past decade. Most
projects involve augmenting or connecting fragmented riparian forest buffers. The ability of riparian
forest buffers in urban areas to significantly improve water quality alone is somewhat limited due to the
volume and velocity of stormwater runoff. However, merging aesthetic and habitat improvement
-------
objectives with open space, vacant lot and parkland management has yielded many excellent examples
of riparian forest restoration and natural buffer creation. Riparian forest buffers have also found a place
in stormwater management in conjunction with wet ponds, wetland detention, and stream erosion
control.
Urban Riparian Forest Buffer - Corridors or strips of forest, often narrow or highly irregular in
extent or linear distance, which are protected, managed, and/or enhanced for aesthetic, habitat,
recreational, climatic, or water quality benefits within a highly impervious setting.
-------
SECTIONS:
SCIENCE
-------
SCIENCE
^\
Our knowledge of the values and functions of riparian forests has been rapidly growing over the last 15-20
years. Scientists agree on the body of knowledge indicating the critical habitat functions provided by riparian
forests. Substantial research is continuing to advance technical knowledge about the water quality functions of
riparian forests gained over the last decade. However, it is only very recently that detailed scientific research
on the water quality and ecological functions of forests have been put to use in management.
Under natural conditions, riparian forests provide a dynamic yet stable buffering system along most shorelines,
rivers, and streams in the Bay watershed. The scientific foundation of the Riparian Forest Buffer System is
based on studies of naturally-occurring riparian forests and experimental-scale grass filter strips. Although few
studies have documented the specific changes in water quality during the establishment period of a restored
riparian forest, even newly planted forest buffers are expected to sustain water quality functions over the long
term in a manner similar to the natural system.
Water Quality Functions^
> Maintains the ecological integrity and
stability of the stream environment
f Removes sediment and sediment-borne
nutrients and other chemicals
4- Removes nitrogen from surface and
groundwater
4- Controls dissolved phosphorus
^Listedfrom most common to least
common function in all riparian forests
The Consensus Report
A report just released by the Chesapeake Bay Program,
serves as a research synthesis and scientific consensus.
"Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed", by Lowrance, et.al.,
contains a review of riparian forest and vegetated filter strip
literature and helps determine the applicability of riparian
forest buffer systems as a water quality enhancement
practice. The report acknowledges that scientific questions
remain and that there is some uncertainty in predicting
generalized nutrient reductions over time due to variations
in loading rates, management, site conditions, and
hydrology on individual field sites. However, the Report
firmly supports the use of forest buffers as a pollution
prevention tool, describes and quantifies the ecological and
water quality functions of riparian forests, and discusses the
level of effectiveness predicted.
Priority Considerations
Based on current scientific knowledge, establishing and managing buffer for multiple water quality and
habitat objectives may be subject to a variety considerations useful in tageting efforts in the field.
Habitat- Riparian forests are essential habitat for fish and upland species of wildlife. Targeting for
habitat enhancement will be different than for water quality.
Gengraphir Setting - Differing hydrology and soils will affect the level of pollutant removal of riparian
forest buffers. In general terms, environmental settings where a higher percentage of the water budget
moves to streams as subsurface flow and not deep groundwater or surface runoff, will provide ideal
conditions for nutrient reduction processes. This is especially true for dissolved nitrogen, a praticularly
difficult pollutant to
-------
retain on the land. Shallow aquicludes, highly dissected landscapes, and the presence of well-developed
floodplains all indicate high potential for dissolved nutrient removal. In optimum areas, removal may
be as high as 98% declining to 0 in hydrologic systems with deep groundwater percolation or extreme
runoff efficiency. Surface runoff treatment is affected more by slope and degree of soil permeability.
In the Bay watershed, water quality benefits of riparian forest establishment and retention may be
highest in the Coastal Plain. Piedmont, and specific areas of the Valley and Ridge hydrologic provinces
Stream Si?? - Small streams (order 1-3) constitute the greatest number of stream miles and may be the highest
priority areas to reduce nutrients. Small streams also experience higher nutrient loads in relation to their flow
volume. Buffers here are expected to be highly effective for water quality.
Contiguous Ruffe. - Achieving continuity of forest buffers on the landscape could be given higher priority
than potentially larger fragmented buffers and may be considered as a specific goal.
Width - Buffer width is most affected by slope of adjacent lands, degrees of water quality or habitat
benefit desired, soils and hydrologic setting and landowner constraints. Flexible buffer widths based
on these criteria are most desired, with miriimums provided to ensure adequate control of the stream
environment.
nf negradatinn - the severity of degradation is directly related to the benefits expected from
riparian forest buffers. Streams in areas without forests, such as pastures, may benefit the most while
highly urbanized streams affected by altered hydrology may provide high wildlife and aesthetic benefits
but may not be able to provide high levels of pollution control.
Tending ratfx -Where nutrient loading is highest, pollutant removal efficiency may also be highest.
Research Gaps and Information Needs
There are many aspects of forest buffer retention and establishment which will require additional study.
Some have their resolution in monitoring management choices, not in scientific study. Specific
questions include: What are the specific environmental variables that control water quality effectiveness
of buffers and how are they quantified? How quickly do newly planted trees begin to function as a
forest? What species provide the greatest return to water quality? What is the most efficient planting
and maintenance method in agricultural areas? How do buffers function in highly developed areas? How
should buffers be integrated with stormwater planning? A listing of potential future research areas was
developed by the panel and is provided.
-------
RESEARCH NEEDS
4- What is the time required for buffers to achieve maximum effectiveness?
4- There is a need for information that is equivalent to the data in the piedmont, in order to accurately
determine priorities between provinces (coastal vs. ridge and valley).
4- Since most data currently available is limited to relatively small plots within a watershed, there is a need
for information that encompasses all the land uses in the entire subwatershed.
4- At present, there is little information on the relative benefits of the various tree species that could
constitute a forested buffer. The role of root structure and the rate of denitrification of the various
species is important to establish the balance of species in a buffer. The effectiveness of various grasses
on sites .of varying characteristics, is needed to provide planning information to achieve specific goals.
4- Establish minimal requirements for reliable site indicators of hydrological conditions..
4- Determine the benefits of including multiple tree species in a forested buffer versus a monoculture. What
is the optimal number of species under a variety of conditions such as soil types, hydrological conditions
and physiographical provence?
4- Develop data on sheet runoff and the relative effectiveness of the various types of vegetated and
engineered (level lip contouring) that can be combined with the forested buffers to increase controls.
4- Develop a nitrogen budget to determine the fate of nitrogen in these areas.
4- The hyperbaric zone surrounding the root structure is known to play an important role in controlling the
movement of nutrients through soils to the stream channel. The precise role and mechanics of this zone
should be determined.
4- The role of storm events on the stream systems or any aquatic system, has long been minimally
understood. The role of buffer strips during these events in influencing the discharge of nitrogen and/or
phosphorous is not understood.
4- Are there seasonal differences in the effectiveness of buffers? Experience at one site in Pennsylvania
suggests that there is little variation. Data from Georgia supports this observation.
4- There is a need to develop information on the load reduction of nutrients exporting various types of
buffers into the stream. This would apply to grasses, forested and any combination of the two.
4- In order to assess the benefits accrued to the stream life from the shading by the forested buffers some
effort in developing thermal models, that include various miles of riparian buffers and the diversity of
aquatic life, would provide a relative simple and reliable cost - benefit for that measure.
-------
FACT SHEET
Riparian Forest Buffers
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
1
Background
When colonists first
^^ on ^ 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 no grass
but that which grows in the marshes." This vast
forest was an important regulator of the Bay's
environment - a "living filter" that 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.
Agricultural expansion,
deforestation, and the
growth of cities removed
almost 70% of the ____^^_>i
watershed's forests by the
mid-1800's. These
changes in land use resulted in a fragmented
forest landscape that adversely impacted the Bay
and its streams and rivers, as well as its wildlife
and fish. While many forests have
What is a riparian area?
Riparian refers to the area
adjacent to £ tody of water, stream, river,
marsh, or Shoreline. Riparian areas form
the transition between the aquatic and the
5 terrestrial environment,
returned or have been replanted, less than 60%
of the Bay's original forested areas remain.
With over 13 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 area serve as a
"circulatory system" for the Chesapeake Bay.
Forests are the natural riparian vegetation in the
Bay region. Although they
comprise only about 5-10%
of the land in the
watershed, riparian areas
play an extremely
important role in
maintaining the health of
the Bay. However, 50%
or more of these streamside
and shoreline forests are
now disturbed or degraded, and more continue
to be lost. Protecting and replanting riparian
forests is one of the goals of the Bay restoration
effort.
-------
1^2^^ -«r I Riparian forests are integral
Functions and Values | to the health of the Bay and
its rivers for many reasons.
Their position in the landscape makes these forests 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 phosphorus), sediment, pesticides,
and other pollutants in surface and groundwater 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 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' of exposure without trees.
Riparian forests offer a tremendous diversity of habitat. The
layers of habitat provided by trees, shrubs, and grasses and the
transition of habitats from aquatic to upland make 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 now 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
headwaters and smaller order 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
slowed and tafiltraled in the forest,
settfing out sediment, nutrients and
pesticides before they reach
streams. Infiltration rates 10-15
times higher than grass torf and 4ft
limes higher than a plowed Reid are
common In forested areas.
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 roofs instead of
reaching the stream. Through a
process tailed denhrifkation,*
bacteria in the forest floor convert
whkh Is released into the air.
3, Canopy and Shade
Hie leaf canopy provides shade that
keeps the water coot, retaining
more dissolved oxygen, and
encourages the growth of diatoms,
nutritious algae and aquatic insects.
Th* Canopy improves air quality by
filtering dust from wind erosion,
construction or farm machinery.
4. Leaf Food
Leaves fail into a stream and are
trapped on woody debris (fallen
trees and limbs) and rocks where
they provide food and habitat for
small i>ottonwjweffing creaiures $.*
crustaceans* amphibians, insects
andsma& fish)* organisms that are
critical to t&enaquao*c food chain.
5, Stream and Habitat
Streams that travel through
woodlands provide more habitat for
fish and wildlife. Woody debris
serra as coyer for fisbwhie ...
stabfRzteg stream bottoms, thereby
preserving habitat over itot.
-------
ZT-
I
The Forest Buffer Concept
The concept behind a riparian buffer is to put the
natural benefits and functions of riparian areas to
work in non-point pollution control. When
considering the range of benefits provided and
potential effectiveness, forests are the most
effective type of riparian buffer available. These
linear strips of forest serve as a stream's last line
of defense against the activities we undertake in
managing the land, such as agriculture, grazing,
and urban development. Unlike most best
management practices, the high value of forests to
wildlife and fish helps these buffers accomplish
habitat benefits at the same time they improve
water quality.
Riparian buffers will vary in character,
effectiveness and size based on the environmental
setting, proposed management, level of protection
desired and landowner objectives. A three-zone
buffer concept has been proposed to assist
technical professionals and landowners with the
planning and design of riparian forest buffers.
The width of each zone is determined by site
conditions and landowner objectives.
ZONE 1 - The mature forest along the edge of
the water maintains habitat, food, and water
temperature and helps stabilize streambanks,
reduce flood impact and remove nutrients.
Definition of a Riparian Forest Buffer:
"^" JT! ^ - * -."
An area of frees, usually accompanied by
shrubs and other vegetation, that is ..
adjacent to a body of water which i$
managed to maintain the integrity of
stream channels and shorelines, to reduce
the impact of upland sources of pollution
by trapping, filtering, and converting
sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals,
and to supply food, cover, and thermal
protection to fish and other wildlife.
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
wildlife habitat and accommodates other desired
buffer objectives, including economic benefits to
the landowner from management of the forest
resource.
ZONE 3 - Zone 3 may contain grass filter
strips, level spreaders or other features useful in
slowing runoff, infiltrating water and helping to
filter sediment and its associated chemicals.
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest Buffer Initiative
There are a number of existing federal, state and local programs that can help protect and restore
riparian forest buffers. These programs include the use of tools such as agricultural and wetland reserve
programs, cost-share practices, conservation easements, zoning and stormwater provisions, and tax
incentives. The Chesapeake Bay Program has recognized the need for better coordination among these
programs and, in October 1996, adopted a comprehensive policy calling for more aggressive action in
conserving and restoring forests along the Bay's tributaries and shorelines. The Chesapeake Bay
Program adopted three goals and five specific poli
Goals:
To assure, to _
forested or other
J -^Tr^x^^^0 "
md tftorelines will be protected by a
,
ifB&%m forests on 2,010 miles of
*&. *^
will be of greatest
Policy reco
\rograms related to
»? ^promotj^i &nd
tottifom^jtnd[developers to
nt of
^ ,
Each of the stales and the federal g^^m^l^ill deve|p»1^|ij>len3^ltatiotr strategy for the riparian
forest buffer initiative by June 30, l^^working ;l%e|hl^"efforts by landowners, communities,
citizens and federal, state and local government to conserve and restore riparian forest buffers in the Bay
watershed will help to improve the health of our streams and rivers as well as the Chesapeake Bay itself.
for more information contact:
Chesapeake Regional
Information Service
(8OO) 662-CRIS
OR
i Chesapeake Bay Program
; 410 Severn Ave, Suite 109
V Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5700 or (800) YOUR BAY
-------
ALLIANCE
for the
CHESAPEAKE BAY
January 1996
White papers are published by the Alliance's
Public Policy Program and are intended to
provide objective, up-to-date information
about policy issues affecting Chesapeake Bay.
Riparian Forest Buffers
Prologue:
A Watershed Dependent on Trees
Since the glaciers withdrew from
Pennsylvania about 10,000 years ago,
forests have dominated the land
which today' makes up the 64,000-
square-mile Chesapeake Bay drain-
age basin. Prior to the Colonial era, it
has been said, the forest blanket was
so complete that a squirrel could
have traveled from the Atlantic Coast
to the Mississippi River without
touching the ground. That may not be
much of an overstatement, though
forest fires and Native Americans
certainly cleared openings in that
blanket from time to time.
As the dominant vegetation, trees
exerted important environmental con-
trols over the flow of water and nutri-
ents from the headwaters of the re-
gion's rivers to the Chesapeake Bay.
A complex food web evolved, inti-
mately connected .to the forest.
Leaves and twigs that fell into the
streams provided food for algae spe-
cies that thrived in the shaded water-
ways. Many insects, in turn, became
adapted to feeding on those types of
algae. The forest canopy moderated
temperatures, allowing many sensi-
tive species, such as trout, to survive.
But in a relatively short time after co-
lonial settlement, massive forest
clearing would dramatically change
the conditions to which many living
things had adapted over thousands of
years.
Introduction:
Four Centuries of
Landscape Change
In the early 1600s, William
Strachey, secretary of the James-
town colony, observed, "the land
we see around us is overgrown
with trees and woods, being a
plain wilderness, as God first or-
dained it." It is no wonder that the
region seemed so strange to Euro-
peans who had cleared most of
their large forests centuries before.
Also, Europe had only about 25
prominent tree species, while the
New World had more than 500.
Lumber quickly became one of
the first exports from the colony;
the first ship returning to England
carried a cargo of oak and cedar.
Soon, the colony became an im-
portant supplier of ship masts and
hardwood lumber. Land was
quickly cleared for farming, settle-
ments and fuel.
The rate of land clearing in-
creased rapidly through the 1800s
as demand for wood primarily
as fuel for industry grew. By
the early 1900s, only about 30-40
percent of the watershed was still
covered by forest. After the early
part of the century, forests gradu-
ally reclaimed some land, particu-
larly as previously harvested areas
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
100
S 90-
TJ
0)
I
0>
I
5
0)
o>
70-
60-
50-
30-
20-
10-
regrew and farmland was allowed
to return to forest. By the late
1970s, forest land made up 60 per-
cent of .the Chesapeake Bay wa-
tershed. Since then, the amount
has declined, largely because of
development and suburban sprawl.
As a result, today's forests are
not evenly distributed in the wa-
tershed. Much of the remaining
forest land is far inland, covering
the mountains of Pennsylvania,
Maryland and Virginia. By con-
trast, most of the forests have van-
ished in agricultural areas and rap-
idly developing urban centers
nearest the Bay, where deforesta-
tion in some counties approaches
80 percent.
For the Chesapeake Bay, that
change has major ramifications.
Acre for acre, forests contribute
less sediment and nutrient runoff pollution than any
other land use; its ability to filter water is comparable
to wetlands. The loss of forests is therefore correlated
with declining water quality in both the Bay and the
rivers and streams that supply it with fresh water. In
recent years, studies have suggested that streamside
forests can serve as highly effective filters that control
both surface runoff and in many landscapes
groundwater flow into streams. In addition, they pro-
vide shade, temperature control and food required by
many aquatic species.
Streamside forests, as a result, are being viewed as
a way to partially mitigate the loss of forests over
much of the remaining landscape. This recognition
has come after many streamside forests were cleared
for other uses. The Chesapeake Basin has roughly
100,000 miles of rivers and streams, but it has been
estimated that as much as 50 percent of the streamside
forests have been removed or severely impaired.
Bay Restoration Goals
Responding to widespread concern that the Bay's
water quality was dramatically worsening, the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency financed a seven-year
study of the estuary which concluded, in 1983, that
excess nutrients were a key problem in the Bay. That
same year, the Chesapeake Bay Program was created
as a cooperative, consensus-based effort to restore the
Chesapeake Basin Forests
1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
nation's largest estuary. Policy is set by the Chesa-
peake Executive Council, consisting of the governors
of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania; the mayor of
the District of Columbia; the administrator of the
EPA; and the chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Com-
mission, which represents the legislatures of the three
states.
The Executive Council set the direction for the
cleanup effort in the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment. It set restoration of the Bay's "living resources"
its fish, shellfish,. waterfowl and other water-
dependent species as the primary goal of the clean-
up. To achieve that goal, it called for a number of ac-
tions to improve water quality. The cornerstone was a
commitment to reduce the amount of the nutrients ni-
trogen and phosphorus entering the Bay 40 percent by
the turn of the century.
That goal was based on research and computer
modeling that indicated such a reduction would result
in a significant water quality improvement. Excessive
amounts of nutrients spur algae blooms which cloud
the Bay's water. This prevents sunlight from reaching
grass beds that provide important habitat for fish, blue
crabs and other species. When the algae dies, it sinks
to the bottom of the Bay and decomposes in a process
that depletes the water of the oxygen needed by most
aquatic dwellers. During the summer, large amounts
of the Bay's water becomes totally, or largely, deplet-
ed of oxygen, forcing species to move elsewhere.
Many of those that cannot move die.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
Into the Tributaries
After a multiyear review that verified the need for a
40 percent nutrient reduction, the Executive Council
in 1992 determined that the goal should be met by set-
ting specific nutrient reduction targets for each of the
Bay's major tributaries. That led to the development
of "tributary strategies" by each of the Bay states to
offer details of how those reductions will be achieved.
Generally, it is thought that achieving the goal will
push the envelope of technology for many nutrient
control practices, both for control-
ling "nonpoint source" runoff
from fields, lawns and streets, as
well as for "point source" dis-
charges, primarily from sewage
treatment plants.
- As a result, the past few years
have seen a surge in interest for
the use of "riparian forest buffers"
to control runoff. Though not
viewed as a pollution control tech-
nique until recently, research indi-
cates that in many landscapes, for-
est buffers can be highly effective
in controlling phosphorus and ni-
trogen. And because forests are
the natural landscape for the Bay
watershed, forest buffers also help
to re-create the water quality con-
ditions needed for native aquatic
species to thrive from the algae
at the bottom of the food chain to
the fish at the top.
Recognizing that riparian fo-
rests "deliver the greatest range of
environmental benefits of any type of stream buffer,"
the Executive Council in 1994 called for the creation
of a policy to guide the maintenance and restoration
of forested riparian buffers in the Bay watershed. Not
only would forest buffers help improve water quality,
the Council said, but they would help fulfill other
goals, such as creating the water quality conditions in
river and streams that will be needed to support mi-
grating shad, herring and striped bass as fish passages
are constructed.
Forested riparian buffers will also play a key role in
the Bay Program's long-range goal of capping nutri-
ent inputs at the 40 percent reduction levels after the
turn of the century despite the increased growth and
development expected in the watershed. "Maintaining
long-term caps on nutrients in the tributaries will re-
quire approaches that maintain ecosystem or wa-
tershed-scale functions, like those provided by
healthy riparian forests," the Council said in its direc-
tive.
Forested Riparian Buffers
Exactly what constitutes a riparian forest buffer
will vary from landscape to landscape. The term itself
is still evolving, but it is based on two definitions.
The phrase "riparian area" refers to the land adjacent
"We now recognize that forests
along waterways, also known as
'riparian forests,' are an important
resource that protects water
quality and provides habitat and
food necessary to support fish
survival and reproduction. Used as
buffers, riparian forests provide a
means of helping us achieve our
restoration goals in the tributaries."
from the 1993 Chesapeake
Executive Council directive on Riparian
Forest Buffers
to streams, rivers or water bodies that directly affects
or is affected by the water. The area serves as a
transition between aquatic and upland environments.
A "buffer," meanwhile, is an area managed to reduce
the impacts of an adjacent land use.
A "forest riparian buffer" is a combination of the
two. It refers to a forested area situated between a
stream and the adjacent land use which is managed to
help maintain the hydrologic and ecological integrity
of stream channels and shorelines; prevent upland
sources of pollution from reaching surface waters by
trapping, filtering and converting sediments, nutrients
and chemicals; and protect fish and other wildlife by
supplying food, cover and temperature control.
With more than 100,000 miles of widely differing
streams winding through the Bay watershed, there is
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
Benefits of Riparian Forest Buffers
Leaf Food
Leaves fall into a stream and are
trapped 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 small fish) which
are critical to the aquatic food chain
Filtering Runoff
Rain and sediment that runs off
the land can be slowed 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 times higher than a plowed
field are common.
Canopy and Shade
The leaf canopy provides shade
that keeps the water cool, retains
more dissolved oxygen and
encourages the growth of diatoms,
beneficial algae and aquatic insects
The canopy improves air quality
by filtering dust from wind erosion,
construction or farm machinery.
Fish\Wildlife Habitat
Wooded stream corridors provide
the most diverse habitats for fish and
other wildlife. Woody debris provides
cover for fish while preserving stream
habitat over time. Forest diversity is
valuable for birds.
Nutrient Uptake
Fertilizers and other pollutants that
originate on land are taken up by
tree roots. Nutrients are stored in
leaves, limbs and roots instead of
reaching the stream Through a
process called "denitrification",
bacteria in the forest floor convert
harmful nitrate to nitrogen gas,
which is released into the air.
no "one size fits all" description of an ideal riparian
forest buffer. Instead, a three-zone buffer concept has
been developed to help technical professionals and
landowners customize buffer planning for widely var-
ying landscapes. The three-zone buffer provides a
framework in which water quality, habitat and land-
owner objectives can be accomplished. The three
zones consist of:
Q Zone 1, a permanent tree buffer immediately ad-
jacent to the stream bank which exerts the most con-
trol over the stream environment.
Q Zone 2, a managed forest immediately upslope
from Zone 1 which is the primary area for the remov-
al of pollutants carried in surface runoff and shallow
groundwater.
Q Zone 3, a herbaceous or grass filter strip, or oth-
er control measure, upslope from Zone 2 which helps
to protect the forested buffer and slow runoff to im-
prove the sediment trapping ability in Zone 2.
This highly flexible system can be adapted to maxi-
mize environmental benefits for a wide variety of ge-
ologic and geographic conditions while taking land-
owner objectives into account. Zone 3, for example, is
compatible with uses that range from suburban lawns
to stormwater management to pasture. Zone 2 may
shrink or expand to reduce pollution runoff and to
meet landowner objectives such as improving wildlife
habitat or providing recreational opportunities such as
bike paths. Managed timber harvests could take place
in Zone 2, and may even be desirable as growing trees
will uptake more nutrients than mature ones.
This mix of techniques helps compress a number of
-------
33
Riparian Forest Buffers
Of all physiographic regions,
the inner coastal plain probably
represents the maximum poten-
tial for nonpoint source control
in riparian forest buffer sys-
tems. Most excess rainfall en-
ters streams through subsurface
runoff or shallow groundwater
and therefore moves in or near
the forest buffer root zone
where nutrient removal is very
high. Forest buffers will be
highly effective in controlling
most paniculate surface runoff
as well, though dissolved phos-
phorus removal takes place at a
lower rate. Because this region
is often flat, many agricultural
areas have drainage systems.
For forest buffers, to be effec-
tive, those systems must be
modified to encourage flow
through the buffer.
INNER COASTAL PLAIN
1
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of sediment
and sediment-borne
pollutants
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
High, moat water
moves in or near
root zone.
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Bypass due to artificial
subsurface drains.
Organic* In Zone 2.
Convert concentrated
flow to sheet flow.
Control of dissolved f in
surface runoff and
groundwater is limited.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Important on all streams. Rapid
restoration of dentrffication
function. Ground cover In Zone 3.
Restore In all areas. Enhance
existing forest with Zone 3
speaders.
Restore in areas with major P
load in surface runoff. Enhance
existing forest with Zone 3.
Outer Coastal Plain
Well drained upland: Aside
from lands immediately adja-
cent to streams, excess rainfall
sinks farther into the ground
and therefore enters the
streams through their bottoms,
never coming into contact
with the root zone. As a result,
there is little nitrate removal
from groundwater. In this
area, Zone 1 vegetation is par-
ticularly important because
trees immediately adjacent to
small streams offer the most
potential for root systems to
intercept the deeper ground-
water before entering small
streams. Management actions
in this area might include the
selection of trees that would
have roots most likely to make
that connection. If the roots
can reach the groundwater, ni-
OUTER COASTAL PLAIN FLOW SYSTEM
Well-Drained Upland
10-40m
^^%!%%%%%^^
Aquiclude
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of sediment
and sediment-borne
pollutants
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
Low, primarily
removal from
shorter flow paths.
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Bypass flow due to deeper
aquifers. Long flow paths
surface in stream channels.
Concentrated flow must
be converted to sheet flow.
Dissolved P control is
limited. Focus on P load in
surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Concentration on headwater
areas. Zone 1 important for
nitrate removal.
On larger streams, focus on
nltenng eroded sediment.
Enhance functions of Zones 2 & 3.
Increase vegetation uptake
and accretion. Enhance
existing forest and grass strips.
Continued on page 11
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
habitat and pollution-control functions into a relative-
ly narrow strip of land. Conceptually, planners gener-
ally consider a buffer width of 75 to 100 feet on each
side of the stream adequate to achieve all of those
functions. The width of each zone may vary from
landscape to landscape. In general, wider buffers will
help increase runoff control, particularly on steep
slopes. In areas where wide buffers are not practical,
even narrow wooded buffers perhaps only 25 feet
can provide some habitat benefits such as stream-
bank stabilization, food supply for aquatic organisms,
and shading. On the narrowest headwater streams, the
overall buffer width needed for water quality may
also be narrower.
Applying the System
To help assess the effectiveness of riparian forest
buffers in various settings, the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram formed a special team of scientists in 1994 to re-
view available research about forest buffers and their
impact on habitat and water quality. In August 1995,
their work resulted in a consensus document, "Water
Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed."
The team concluded that in almost all settings, the
forest buffer system will help control the stream envi-
ronment and substantially improve habitat for aquatic
species. In most places, buffers will prove to be an ef-
fective means to control surface runoff and many
types of runoff-borne pollutants as well, though effec-
tiveness will vary from landscape to landscape. Con-
trolling groundwater pollutants varies widely, depend-
ing on the geologic setting.
The scientists rated the four major functions per-
formed by riparian forest buffers from their most
common and widespread role, to their least effective
function. Those were, in descending order of effec-
tiveness:
Q Control of the stream environment. This includes
controlling stream temperatures and the amount of
light reaching the stream; expanding habitat diversity;
stabilizing the streambank against the effects of ero-
sion; and enhancing the food web.
Q Control of sediment and sediment-borne pollu-
tants. Forests are highly effective at trapping and fil-
tering sediments and any accompanying pollutants
(such as paniculate phosphorus or nitrate) that are
contained in the runoff. Debris on the -forest floor
slows the water, allowing sediment to settle. Slope
and soil permeability are the greatest factor in deter-
mining effectiveness of sediment trapping; areas with
steep slopes may require wider buffers. Buffers can
trap 80-90 percent of the sediment as long as manage-
ment actions are taken to disperse concentrated runoff
flowing into the forested area.
Q Control of nitrate in shallow groundwater. In ar-
eas where groundwater moves in short, shallow paths
to the stream, passing through the root zone of the ri-
parian forest buffer system, nitrate removal can be ex-
tremely high, on the order of 90 percent. In areas
where groundwater flows in longer, deeper paths to
larger streams, the root zone will be bypassed and ni-
trate removal may be minimal.t)0f all the forest buffer
functions, this one is most sensitive to the geographic,
geologic and land use1 settings.
Q Control of dissolved phosphorus. While buffers
are effective at controlling paniculate phosphorus
linked to the sediment, they are less effective at con-
trolling dissolved phosphorus. Most dissolved phos-
phorus is immediately available to organisms when it
reaches the water. To increase dissolved phosphorus
retention, efforts to trap fine sediments need to be
coupled with the use of vegetation that increases
phosphorus uptake into plant tissue. Fortunately, dis-
solved phosphorus makes up a very small portion of
the Bay's pollution problem.
The scientists reviewed forest buffer effectiveness
for pollution control within each of the major physio-
graphic regions found in the Chesapeake Bay wa-
tershed, and offered their best professional judgments
of how riparian forest buffer systems would perform.
Riparian Forest Buffers:
% Reduction of Nutrients and Sediment*
Level
High
Medium
Low
Sediment
85-95
65-85
40-65
Nitrogen Phosphorus
68-92 70-81
45-68 50-70
15-45 24-50
* General approximations for 100-foot forest buf-
fer system. Actual levels will vary by land use and
site conditions. Based on loadings from agricultu-
ral lands, performance in field studies rated as
high removed total N in the range of 23-66 #/acre/
year and total P in the range of 1-3 #/acre/year
from adjacent fields. Expected level of function is
based on mature forest in Zone 1 & 2.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
Major Hydro-Physiographic Regions in the Chesapeake Watershed
Regions' by Percent of Watershed
Valley & Ridge/Appalachian 28%
Piedmont/Valley & Ridge-Limestone/Marble 12%
Valley & Ridge-Sandstone 20%
Piedmont-Schist/Gneiss 15%
Piedmont-Thin Soil/Triassic Shales 8%
Inner Coastal Plain 13%
Outer Coastal Plain (see inset) 4%
Poorly drained uplands and surficial confined region 1.5%
Well drained uplands 1.5%
Inner coastal plain (see above)
Poorly drained lowland, fine grained lowland and
coastal wetland/beach region (tidal influence) 1%
-------
RipariuForatl
Riparian Forest Buffers
The Three-Zone Concept: A Tool to Guide Forest Buffer Planning
A three-zone system has been developed to help
plan riparian forest buffers. This three-zone concept
is intended to be highly flexible in order to achieve
both water quality and landowner objectives.
Zone 1: This represents the inner core of the buf-
fer, stretching upland from the edge of the stream. Its
primary purpose is to stabilize the streambank and
provide habitat for aquatic organisms. The roots of
trees in Zone 1 hold together the soil to resist the ero-
sive force of flowing water. This also keeps sediment,
and any nutrients bound to it, out of the stream.
Roots and fallen logs slow stream flow. This not
only provides additional protection against erosion,
but also creates pools that form unique "microenvi-
ronmcnts." Pools support species of macroinverte-
brales different from those in riffles only a few feet
away. As a result, the presence of trees is directly re-
lated to greater biodiversity in the stream ecosystem.
Roots and submerged tree limbs also provide im-
portant habitats for macroinvertebrates, supporting
even greater densities of the insects than can be found
on the rocky stream bottom. This fallen debris also
traps leaves, twigs, fruit seeds and other material in
the stream, allowing it to decay and be used by
stream-dwelling organisms. As the canopy is re-
moved, there is not only less material, but the litter
that remains breaks down more rapidly. Litter seems
to be trapped and consumed in a relatively small area,
so an upstream forested area does little to "subsidize"
an unforested area downstream. This supports the
need for a continuous streamside forest where possi-
ble.
The leafy canopy of the trees provides shade that
helps to control water temperature. Maximum sum-
mer temperatures in a deforested stream may be 10-
20 degrees warmer than in a forested stream. That is
significant as temperature changes of orily 4-10 de-
grees usually alter the life-history characteristics of
macroinvertehrates that form an important part of the
food web.
In addition, shaded streams support algae commu-
nities dominated by diatoms a type of algae fa-
vored by many species throughout the year while
areas getting more direct sunlight are dominated by
filamentous algae. This change, at the very bottom of
the food web, is critically important. While crayfish
and a few insect species will consume filamentous al-
gae, most macroinvertebrate species cannot because
they have evolved as specialists for scraping diatoms
from the bottom.
While Zone 1 will improve habitat along all
streams, its greatest impact will be along smaller
streams where the canopy completely covers the wa-
ter surface, providing maximum control over light
and temperature conditions. Trees in Zone 1 will aid
in filtering surface runoff and, in some landscapes,
can help remove nutrients carried in the groundwater.
Zone 2: Located immediately upslope from Zone 1,
the primary function of Zone 2 is to remove, trans-
form, or store nutrients, sediments and other pollu-
tants flowing over the surface and through the ground-
water. Widths of Zone 2 can vary.
In areas where shallow groundwater flows through
the root zones of trees, large amounts of nitrate can be
removed before the water enters a stream. This results
primarily from plant uptake and denitrification in the
soils. Nitrate removal in these areas can be high on
the order of 90 percent. In areas where the groundwa-
ter flows deeper, much of this benefit will be lost as
most of the water bypasses the root zone and enters
the stream directly through the sediment.
Regardless of whether shallow groundwater flows
through the root zones, all Zone 2 forest buffers will
remove surface-borne pollutants. Debris from the
trees slows and traps sediments in the runoff, giving*
the nutrients they carry time to infiltrate into the
ground where they may be stored or removed through
natural processes. Studies have found that Zone 2 can
remove 50-80 percent of the sediment in runoff from
upland fields. Generally, the upland edge of the Zone
Continued on page 10
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
Continued from page 9
2 forest traps the largest share of coarse sediments
while finer sediments will drop out as the water
flows through the remainder of the buffer. Fine
sediments carry larger amounts of nutrients and
pollutants, so their concentrations are distributed
over a wider area. This makes the width of Zone 2
critical.
Whether they are pulled from shallow ground-
water or infiltrate into the soils from surface run-
off, nutrients are removed in zone 2 through a va-
riety of mechanisms. The most obvious process is
plant uptake, as all plants must absorb nutrients to
grow. In addition, forests provide large amount of
decaying organic material that is necessary to fuel
the microbial processes in Zone 2 soils that re-
move nutrients. There are three main ways those
processes work:
Q Microbes in the soil can take up nutrients and
store them until they die, at which time the nutri-
ents are released in a mineralized form that is less
biologically available to other organisms and
more readily stored in the soil. If managed to fos-
ter accumulation of this material, Zone 2 may sup-
port significant long-term nutrient storage.
Q Denitrification takes place under the proper
conditions when certain denitrifying bacteria con-
vert nitrate to nitrogen gases. Denitrification is
carried out by anaerobic microbes, organisms
which survive in water or soils usually wet-
lands without oxygen. The large amount of
decaying organic material on the ground in fo-
rested buffers depletes oxygen in the soils, and
there is usually enough moisture in riparian areas
to support the microbes needed for denitrifica-
tion. Even drier forest soils commonly have
small pockets which support these bacteria. De-
nitrification rates will vary depending on site
conditions.
Q Microbes use organic compounds as food
and, though various reactions, change them so
they are degraded to simpler compounds or syn-
thesized into microbial biomass. Riparian forests
appear to support a variety of microbial degrada-
tion mechanisms, though the management strate-
gies that would promote them are not understood
at this point.
Several factors will affect Zone 2 effectiveness
at controlling surface runoff .Runoff mvjgt,ba,a5fl'
aged to encourage "sheet" flows across the buffer.
Buffers must also be wide enough to trap and hold
sediments coming from adjacent land uses; if the
buffer becomes overloaded with sediment, the ex-
cess will no longer be trapped and will simply
wash into the stream. And the ability of Zone 2
forests to remove nutrients in groundwater will
vary dramatically from landscape to landscape,
depending oh whether the groundwater comes
into contact with the root zone.
Most Zone 2 studies have been made in exist-
ing or "natural" riparian forests. Scientists believe
that even greater nutrient removal can be achieved
in riparian buffers that are specifically managed
for this function. Such management could include
planting trees, such as bottomland hardwoods,
which grow well in "well-watered" conditions and
absorb large amounts of nutrients, or, through
management techniques that promote soil condi-
tions conducive to microbes that promote denitri-
fication or nutrient storage.
Zone 3: Located immediately upslope of Zone
2, Zone 3 contains grass filter strips or other con-
trol measures which help slow runoff, filter sedi-
ment and its associated chemicals, and allow wa-
ter to infiltrate into the ground. Grass filter strips
help to protect the wooded areas and sets the stage
so the forest buffer can perform at its maximum
potential. Effective sediment trapping in Zone 2
requires that runoff entering that portion of the
buffer be in the form of sheet flow. Zone 3, there-
fore, acts to spread out the flow and prevent run-
off from adjacent land uses from eroding channels
into the buffer.
Several studies show that grass filter strips are
highly effective at reducing sediment runoff, with
removal rates of 50 percent or more. Also, the fil-
ter strips are highly effective at removing sedi-
ment-bound nutrients such as phosphorus, but less
effective at removing dissolved nutrients. Over
time, the removal efficiency decreases as grass is
smothered by deposited sediment. Generally, the
narrower the filter strip, the shorter its effective
life. As a result, grass filter strips require periodic
maintenance which includes the removal of sedi-
ment, reestablishment of vegetation, and removal
of channels. In urban areas, infiltration trenches
and stormwater control measures may be common
in Zone 3.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
trate removal could be about
as effective as buffer systems
in other landscapes. Regard-
less of the groundwater situa-
tion, buffer systems in this
area would still provide sedi-
ment control .capacity similar
to the Inner Coastal Plain. Be-
cause of the lower water ta-
bles, well-drained uplands
may have more capacity to
store dissolved chemicals in
groundwater.
Poorly drained upland/
surficial confined: Groundwa-
ter is slightly higher here than
in the well-drained upland but
lower than the inner coastal
plain. As a result, the effec-
tiveness of nitrate removal
from the groundwater is be-
tween those two extremes.
Surface runoff control woujd
still be effective, but removal
of dissolved chemicals would
probably be less than in the
well-drained upland because
the higher groundwater level
limits storage. Agriculture in
this region is commonly asso-
ciated with artificial drainage,
which requires integration into
the buffer system.
Shorelines: Tidally influ-
enced areas are unique be-
cause groundwater discharges
are affected by tidal move-
ments. Also, unlike most of
the Bay watershed, marshes
are the natural shore vegeta-
tion in many of these areas. At
sites where marshes are not
the natural shoreline, forest
buffers can help stabilize the
banks. Shorelines and cliffs
are unique areas where special
management may be needed.
In most areas, the water table
will be completely under the
root zone, minimizing vi
Continued from page 6
OUTER COASTAL PLAIN FLOW SYSTEM
Poorly Drained Upland/Surficial Confined
Aquiclude
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of aedlment
and sediment-borne
pollutanta
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
Medium/High
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Lower loadings. Lower
rates of removal In
head-water areas.
Less surface runoff but
similiar efficiencies as in
other CP systems.
Dissolved P control is
limited. Focus on P load
in surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Restore first In headwaters then
larger streams. Rapid restoration
of dentrification function.
Enhance vegetation in broad
existing areas. Restore in
headwaters.
Increase vegetation uptake
and accretion. Enhance
existing forest and grass strips.
OUTER COASTAL PLAIN FLOW SYSTEM
Shorelines
2-1 Om
Aquiclude
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of aedlment
and sediment-borne
pollutants
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
Low/Medium
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Depth to water-tables.
Bank erosion due to
unstable soils.
Convert concentrated flow to
sheet flow. Bank stability limits
usefulness in some areas.
Dissolved P control is
limited. Focus on P load
in surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Limit practice to areau without
.marsh wetlands down slope.
Enhance vegetation uptake.
Restore/enhance in all areas.
Limit to wider Zone 3 In
some areas. Enhanos Zone 3.
Increase vegetation uptake
and accretion. Enhance
existing forest and grass strips.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
The Piedmont contains
rich soils which can be quite
deep. The effectiveness of a
riparian forest buffer's ability
to remove nitrate from the
groundwater hinges on the
depth of those soils and the
underlying bedrock. In areas
with thin or finely textured
soils and short flow paths to
streams through shallow
groundwater or surface seep-
age characteristics com-
mon in the Virginia Piedmont
nitrate removal would be
high, as in the inner coastal
plain.
Piedmont areas with deep-
er soils are likely to have
longer flow paths which al-
low water to sink deeper into
the ground before entering
the stream, in some cases by-
passing the forest buffer.
These areas are characterized
by two different types of bed-
rock: gneiss/shist and marble.
Areas with primarily shist
bedrock would achieve mod-
erate nitrate removal as
groundwater would be forced
to move laterally toward
small streams. Some ground-
water would either seep up
toward the surface before
reaching the stream or would
pass through the root zone of
the buffer, while some flow-
ing more deeply would by-
pass the buffer. In areas with
deep soils underlaid by mar-
ble, nitrate removal would be
minimal as much of the
groundwater would move
through the porous marble
layer and into regional aqui-
fers. Riparian forests are
most valuable here in flood-
plains and valley bottoms.
PIEDMONT FLOW SYSTEM
Thin Soils/Triassic Shales
2-5m
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of aedlment
and sediment-borne
pollutant*
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
High
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraint!)
Lower loadings than ICP
Valley shapes control
local flow paths.
Slope of non-floodplain
areas. Volumes of surface
runoff.
Control of dissolved P in
surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Select deeply rooted vegetation,
restore small and large streams,
seepage areas.
Restore in areas. Function
dependent on Zone 3 in first
few years. Enhance Zone 3.
Restore in areas with large
surface runoff P loads.
Increase infiltration.
PIEDMONT FLOW SYSTEM
Schist/Gneiss Bedrock
10-30m
Bedrock
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of sediment
and sediment-borne
pollutants
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
Medium
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
More flow 'into regional
aquifers, bypassing
. riparian zone.
Slope of non-floodplain areas.
Sediment loads in stream
flew from valley sides.
Control of dissolved P in
surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Select deeply rooted
vegetation. Restore in
seepage areas.
Restore in areas with erosion
impacting streams. Enhance
existing forests with Zone 3
Restore in areas with large
surface runoff P loads.
Increase infiltration.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
Sediment control in areas
characterized by thin soils and
flatter terrain would be similar
to that of the inner coastal
plain, with the removal of
sediment and paniculate nutri-
ents being fairly high, while
control of dissolved phosphor-
us would be fairly low. In hil-
lier areas of the Piedmont,
sediment control will depend
on how effectively Zone 3 is
managed to spread out the run-
off and prevent it from cutting
channels into the forest, allow-
ing water to pass rapidly
through the buffer. Steeper
slopes in riparian areas may
limit both the sediment filter-
ing capacity and the retention
time of water, possibly requir-
ing expansion of Zone 3 and/
or Zone 2.
PIEDMONT/VALLEY & RIDGE FLOW SYSTEM
Marble/Limestone Bedrock
T
10-30m
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of sediment
and aedlment-bome
pollutants
Removal of dissolved .
phosphorus
Expected Level
Low
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Most (low into regional
aquifers and into large
rivers.
Slope of non-floodplain areas.
Sediment loads in stream
flow from valley sides.
Control of dissolved P in
surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Oentrification focus. Select
deeply rooted vegetation.
Restore in seepage areas.
Restore in all areas with erosion
impacting streams. Enhance
existing forests with Zone 3.
Restore in areas with large
surface runoff P loads. Increase
infiltration and fine sediment filter.
The Valley and Ridge prov-
ince is characterized by folds
in topography. Ridges of hard-
er, more resistant rock lie par-
allel to softer rock worn down
over time to form the lowlands.
Streams are intimately con-
nected to this topography,
flowing on belts of soft rock
which rarely cross mountain
ridges. Where they do, they
cross at right angles, forming a
distinctive "trellised" drainage
pattern. Springs and seepage
areas are common and the wa-
ter table is often close to the
surface in near-stream areas.
This area is characterized by
larger streams that drain the
main valleys, with smaller, and
often steeper, streams draining
the ridges. Forested riparian
buffers have proven highly ef-
fective in controlling water
Valley and Ridge/Appalachian
VALLEY & RIDGE FLOW SYSTEM
Sandstone/Shale Bedrock
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwater
Removal of sediment
and sediment-borne
pollutants
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
Medium/High
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Presence of seeps and
floodplains. Valley
configurations.
Sediment loads in stream
flow from valley walls.
Slopes of non-floodplams.
Control of dissolved P in
surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Select for vegetation uptake
especially early in growing
season. Deeply rooted.
Restore in all areas with stream
erosion. Enhance Zone 3 to
control sediment.
Restore in areas with large
surface runoff P loads.
Increase infiltration.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
temperature and sediment deliv-
ery to streams in forest and ag-
ricultural settings in the Valley
and Ridge, but knowledge of
the removal of nutrients from
groundwater is less certain.
This is primarily because of dif-
ferences in geology. Water flow
in Valley and Ridge areas with
limestone bedrock is complicat-
ed and quite variable over time.
There is often little potential for
removing nitrate from ground-
water as water will flow
through cavernous openings in
the rock to deep aquifers. From
there, groundwater will eventu-
ally flow into the bottom of
larger streams or rivers, bypass-
ing riparian buffer zones alto-
gether. Valley and Ridge areas
with sandstone/shale bedrock
have greater potential for
groundwater nitrate removal as
the hard bedrock keeps water
moving laterally in the shallow
soils toward the streams. Seep-
age and near-stream areas pro-
vide opportunities for substan-
tial nitrate removal, while
valley floodplains where
groundwater discharge occurs
will likely be areas for forest
buffers to influence water quali-
ty. Surface runoff control
would face the same issues as in
hilly portions of the Piedmont.
VALLEY & RIDGE/APPALACHIAN FLOW SYSTEM
Low Order Streams
10-30m
Water Quality Function
Removal of nitrate
from groundwiter
Removal of sediment
and sediment-borne
pollutants
Removal of dissolved
phosphorus
Expected Level
Medium/High
High/Medium
Medium/Low
Critical Constraints
Residence time of water.
Presence of seeps and
floodplains.
Sediment loads in stream
flow from valley walls.
Slopes of non-floodplains.
Control of dissolved f in
surface runoff.
Restoration/ Enhancement
Select deeply rooted vegetation
for uptake. Zone 1 is important
for removal.
Restore in all areas with stream
erosion. Enhance Zone 3 to
control sediment.
Restore in areas with large
surface runoff P loads.
Increase Infiltration.
Management considerations
To be most effective, riparian forest buffers need to
be planned and implemented on a watershed scale.
This allows for a continuous forested buffer linking
the headwaters with downstream areas. Protecting
headwaters is particularly important because forest
buffers affect water quality primarily as water moves
toward the stream; downstream buffers will have pro-
portionally less impact on polluted water already in
the stream. Watersheds that have the highest stream
densities the number of streams relative to the size
of the watershed will get the greatest water quality
benefits as most surface and groundwater will flow
through the buffer before reaching the stream.
Riparian forest buffers exert the greatest control
over small streams (Order 1-3). Not only will much of
the water entering the stream pass through the buffer,
but the tree canopy also covers the entire waterway,
providing shade and litter inputs. As the stream wid-
ens and the canopy no longer shades the entire sur-
face, the buffer can still filter nutrients flowing toward
the stream. Forest buffers along wider streams will
also provide such benefits as streambank stabilization;
mitigation of flood damage; provision of coarse
-------
Riparian Forest Buffers
Stream Orders
First order
basin
lei c
Community type*
5 or higher
Key
A-Active channel or water body
B-Stream banks and adjacent area flooded on an annual basis
C-Riparian zone of influence-zone of vegetation directing
affecting or affected by the stream or water body
D-Uplands
(Note that A. B and C make up the complete riparian zone.
In some cases, portions ot 0 may be included in a ripanan buffer.)
Stream orders are a simple numbering
system used to classify the drainage net-
work of a watershed. Order 1 streams are
the first channels in the headwaters to ex-
hibit a defined bed and banks. Most are
only 1-21 in width. Two order 1 's join to form
an order 2 and so on.
In most watersheds, over 90% of stream
miles are order 1-3 headwater streams.
Patterns of drainage vary due to geology,
slope, and climate.
The quality of water (nutrients, sediment,
and temperature) is affected most by the
condition of headwater streams (order 1-
4). Riparian forest buffers may exert their
greatest influence here as the majority of
water flows through the shaded riparian
zone.
Riparian forests may provide the greatest
opportunities to enhance fish habitat on
mid-order streams (3-6) and shorelines
where there is sufficient large woody de-
bris, stream structure and flow to support
fish and other aquatic life.
Larger streams and rivers (order 6+) are
often characterized by well-defined flood-
plains or adjacent wetlands. Wider buffers
may be needed here to allow meandering,
as well as improve channel stability, water
quality, and wildlife corridors.
-------
43
Riparian Forest Buffers
woody debris and leaf detritus, habitat and stream
structure; and shading to cool a portion of the channel
and the groundwater recharging the streams. These
functions will occur regardless of stream size. Provid-
ing a continuous stream corridor is therefore desirable.
It's unclear how quickly newly established riparian
forest buffers impact water quality. Based on the
coastal plain, which has received the most intensive
research, newly planted buffers would have a substan-
tial impact within 5 to 10 years in areas where wetland
soils existed in the past. Within 15 to 20 years, buffer
systems would provide their full range of benefits.
Once established, a forest buffer should provide
water quality and habitat benefits indefinitely but may
require maintenance. In areas particularly on steep
slopes actions will be needed to assure that runoff
does not carve gullies that allow water to rapidly flow
through the buffer. In some areas, primarily buffers
with older trees, periodic selective harvesting may be
required as growing trees will absorb more nutrients
than mature ones. Efforts may also be needed to con-
trol invasive plants, particularly nonnative species,
which can limit tree growth and diminish the habitat
quality for aquatic species.
For best results, the three zones should be integrat-
ed. The width of the buffer will vary depending on the
site conditions and landowner objectives. As a mini-
mum, establishing contiguous forest buffers of even
narrow (Zone 1) width to link existing forested areas
or buffers should be considered a high priority to pro-
vide continuous streamside habitat. If only a minimal
forest buffer is possible, efforts should be made to en-
sure it is wide enough to sustain a forest community
and forest soil conditions over the long term.
Conclusion
In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, riparian forest
buffers will enhance or restore stream habitat in any
setting, and will improve water quality in the vast ma-
jority of areas. For fish, wildlife and people, they are
one of the most valuable investments landowners, and
the public, can make for the Bay.
In recognition of their significant role in Bay resto-
ration efforts, the Chesapeake Executive Council
asked that recommendations for a riparian forest buf-
fer policy be developed for its 1996 meeting. The pol-
icy, developed with input from government agencies,
landowners, scientists, nonprofit organizations, busi-
ness, and others, ensures that the improvements in ri-
parian forest protection, restoration and stewardship
take place by setting quantifiable goals for riparian
forest restoration in the watershed and a timetable for
reaching that goal. To promote forest buffer protec-
tion and restoration, the policy explores ways to im-
prove communication and build partnerships among
federal, state and local government agencies, as well
as with private landowners and the public to coordi-
nate existing programs and provide additional incen-
tives.
Ultimately, success in enhancing riparian forests
and buffers will depend as much on cultivating a
stewardship ethic among landowners and other
"stakeholders" as it will on planting trees. Determin-
ing how policies that will promote riparian forest
buffers should be incorporated into local government
land use plans, how to integrate economic values of
buffers into decision-making, and the development
of incentive and educational programs needed to
promote riparian forest buffer maintenance and res-
toration throughout the watershed will be the chal-
lenge. With such cooperation, the tributaries will
carry cleaner water into the Chesapeake and pro-
vide an avenue for many of the Bay's fish species to
travel upstream and thrive for generations to
come.
ALLIANCE
for the
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Production of this White Paper was funded by the Chesapeake Bay Program as a public
education service. Technical assistance was provided by USDA's Forest Service and
Agricultural Research Service.
For more information about riparian forest buffers in the Bay watershed, contact:
l-800-YOUR-BAY
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group of citizens, scientists,
corporations, trade groups, environmental groups and others from throughout the
Chesapeake Bay watershed: from Owego, N.Y., through Lancaster, Pa., to Williamsburg, Va..
and from Harpers Ferry, W.Va., beyond Washington, D.C., to the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
The Alliance does not lobby. It is committed to hands-on restoration, public policy
research, and education and information services. It puts the collective talents and resources
of its diverse membership to work directly on watershed restoration.
For more information about the Alliance, call the Chesapeake Regional Information Service,
1-800-662-CRIS.
-------
Determining the Width of Riparian Buffers
There is substantial agreement in the scientific community about the value of using vegetation to
buffer valuable aquatic resources from the potential impacts of adjacent human use of the land.
There is also general agreement that the greatest range of buffer benefits are provided when natural
vegetation, like forests, are the target vegetation (Lowrance, et.al., 1985; Lowrance, et.al, 1995;
Schueler, 1995; Fail, et. al., 1986; Karrand Schlosser, 1978; Desbonnet, et.al, 1994; Correll,
Jordan and Wellef, 1994; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984). However, there is often little agreement and
much continuing research and debate over how to best achieve the level of protection needed and how
to best delineate and manage a buffer. Of all questions related to practical use of riparian buffers,
determining of the appropriate width of a buffer is certainly the most frequently discussed.
One of the important factors which determines the effectiveness of a buffer is its size or effective
width. Buffers which are too small may still place water quality or aquatic resources at risk. They
may also present problems with sustainability over the long term. Buffers that are larger than
needed, may unnecessarily restrict use of a portion of the land. Therefore, the need to determine
"minimum" widths has been a primary focus of resource agencies and local governments for many
years. Complicating the picture further, buffer size requirements are typically established by political
acceptability and compromise rather than on scientific merit. It is likely that these debates will
continue.
DISCUSSION OF BUFFER WIDTH CRITERIA
Various approaches and formulas have been devised to determine and evaluate the needed width of
a riparian buffer. Establishing criteria that are scientifically based should be the goal of resource and
conservation agencies. Four criteria are generally discussed for determining the adequate width of
riparian buffers for protection of streams. They are:
1) the existing or potential value of the resource to be protected,
2) site, watershed and buffer characteristics,
3) the intensity of adjacent land use, and
4) the specific water quality and/or habitat functions desired.
If necessary, these scientific criteria can then be modified by the management objectives or
constraints of a given landowner or land management agency. In this way, scientific criteria guide
width decisions but are modified by socioeconomic variables where the risk and benefits of the
decisions can be identified and discussed.
For example, when a 75' wide buffer is determined appropriate but is reduced to 25* by constraints
imposed by land use, the risk of reduced water quality functions and potential sustainability should
be identified. Likewise, when a decision is made to choose warm-season grasses over forest as the
target buffer vegetation, reductions in stream stability, flood mitigation, groundwater nutrient
removal and aquatic/terrestrial habitat should be identified. In simple terms, smaller buffers may be
adequate when the buffer is in good condition, the resource values may be low, site conditions are
1
-------
ideal, the adjacent land use has a low potential for impact, and/or the desired buffer functions are
few. Conversely, larger buffers are necessary for high value water resources that are adjacent to
intense land uses with poor quality buffer condition and/or a high level of multiple buffer functions
is desired (Castelle, et. al., 1994).
SITE AND
WATERSHED
CHARACTER
VALUE OF
THE
RESOURCE
INTENSITY
OF
ADJACENT
LAND USE
DESIRED
BUFFER
FUNCTIONS
Landowner Objectives/Constraints
RECOMMENDED
BUFFER WIDTH
Figure 1: Schematic of Width Decision Criteria
Science-based Criteria
Decisions about buffer width can be made using professional judgement in choosing among the
following criteria. Four criteria are discussed for which data may be available to support an
informed decision. These criteria can form a "checklist' for buffer width determination.
1) Existing or Potential Resource Value
In general terms, smaller buffers are adequate when the stream, wetland, shorezone or lake is of
relatively low functional value. Although the determination of "value" can involve subjective
judgement, scientific information can be applied to assist in this assessment. For example, states
routinely rate the value of fish habitat based on potential natural condition or the target species being
managed. The Chesapeake Bay Program has identified priorities for stream blockage removal based
on value to migratory fish (US EPA-CBP, 1995). Streams in watersheds providing municipal water
supply or recreational use would likewise be considered of high functional value. Aquatic systems
with a high disturbance regime or one that is dominated by non-native species may be considered of
lower functional value. Conversely, degraded watershed, water quality, or habitat conditions may
also be used as a criteria for increasing buffer width if desire for improvement of condition has been
-------
specified. The designated uses of water or specific fish or wildlife species needs should be considered
when buffers are established as a component of watershed restoration rather than protection
strategies.
2) Watershed, Site, and Buffer Characteristics
Site characteristics are most important when evaluating
performance in pollutant removal. This is because reliable
generalizations about the role of riparian buffers as nutrient and
sediment filters can be based on the condition of the soil in the
buffer area (including plant, animal, and microbial communities
present) and the route and rate of surface and groundwater
movement through the buffer. However, these characteristics are
complex, interrelated, and not always apparent to the field
observer. For example, judgements about water quality
performance of a buffer in the Coastal Plain may be made on
observations of surface storm runoff, not recognizing that 50-80% of nitrogen loads are carried by
subsurface water flow (Lowrance, et.al., 1995). Site factors are also discussed later in desired buffer
functions, but some general comments can also be made.
Site Criteria affecting
Buffer width
watershed condition
slope * stream order
soil depth and credibility
hydrology * floodplains
wetlands * streambanks
* vegetation type
* stormwater system
Table 1: Site Factors that enhance or limit pollutant removal
effectiveness of buffers (adapted from Schueler, 1995).
Factors that enhance effectiveness
Slopes less than 5%
Contributing Flow length < 150'
Seeps, high water table -subsurface flow
Permeable, but not highly sandy soils
Level spreaders or runoff dispersal
Organic matter, humus or mulch layer
Entry runoff velocity less than 1.5 fps
Routinely maintained
Deep rooted vegetation
Forest and dense grass cover (6"high)
Factors that reduce effectiveness
Slopes greater than 5 %
Overland flow paths over 300 feet
Flow path to deep or regional groundwater
Compacted soils
Concentrated storm flow
Snowmelt, ice conditions, low organic soil
Entry runoff velocity more than 5 fps
Sediment buildup at entrance
Shallow root systems
Tall bunch grass, Sparse vegetative cover
-------
Slope - slope has the greatest influence over sediment removal and is often a determinant in the rate
and nature of water flow. In general terms, steep slopes increase runoff velocity and the volume of
surface runoff. Buffers are often expanded to include steep slopes on small streams or buffer widths
are increased on steeper slopes to' provide a lower risk of impact from adjacent land use. For forestry
practices in Maryland for example, a minimum SO* buffer width is modified for slope by adding 4
feet for each % of side slope.
Stream Order - to design an effective stream buffer system, it is important to understand spatial
connections between the stream and its watershed. Stream order is a useful tool to classify elements
of the stream network. Headwater streams, defined as first or second order, are generally short in
length but comprise 75% or more of the total stream and river miles. In general terms, buffers have
the greatest potential for control over water quality when adjacent to low-order streams. Lower order
streams are small in size and have less contributing area per unit volume of water. Smaller buffers
may be adequate to maintain the desired level of protection.
As stream order increases, the contributing area and volume of water available to the buffer zone may
also increase, potentially diminishing the relative capability of the buffer to filter and remove
pollutants as a % of total loading. This does not mean that the buffer's effectiveness in treating
upslope pollutants may be compromised, only that the magnitude of control exerted over the water
in the stream diminishes. An example of this type of relationship is portrayed in Figure 1. Likewise,
as stream order increases so does stream size, thus decreasing the ability of streamside trees to
provide control of water temperature. The importance of the buffer zone in flood mitigation, on the
other hand, may increase with stream order, whereas, critical fish habitat may be maximized by
streamside trees in low to mid-order streams.
Flood Control
'Sediment Control
Nutrient Removal
Streambank Stabilization
Fish Habitat
Aquatic Food Web
Water Temperature Moderation
12345 6
Figure 2. Effect of stream order on variations in buffer function.
-------
Target Vegetation and Condition - In simple terms, adequate buffers may be smaller if they are
designed properly and maintained in good condition. Most riparian buffers use adapted or enhanced
natural vegetative systems. Therefore, buffers in better condition (e.g. dense native vegetation,
undisturbed soils, healthy microbial community, etc.) are likely to provide a variety of functions
more effectively. Common sense alone also tells us to look to the natural ecosystem for guidance in
maintaining and restoring riparian functions. Although a number of vegetation types can be used to
meet these specific buffer functions and provide multiple benefits, in the Chesapeake Bay region, as
in much of die eastern United States, these benefits are amplified by or require a streamside zone that
is forested. Forests provide the greatest range and number of potential environmental benefits, and
therefore, should be promoted as the target vegetation whenever possible in a hierarchy of vegetation
types. These benefits are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Benefits of Riparian Buffers that include woody vegetation.
Benefits of Riparian Buffers
Benefit
Greatly enhanced by
or rcauirine Forest
4- Protection from Streambank Erosion
4- Increased removal of nitrogen
4- Removal of Phosphorus and sediment
4- Reduce downstream flooding
4- Provide thermal protection
+ Provide food and habitat for wildlife
4- Provide food and habitat for fish and amphibians
4- Foundation for present or future greenways
4- Increases urban/suburban property values
4- Provides corridor for conservation
4- Preserve "right-of-way" for lateral movement
4- Enhances potential for stream restoration
4- Reduces watershed imperviousness V
4- Reduces small drainage complaints
4- Protects associated wetlands
Incorporation offloodplains and wetlands - Buffer width is often expanded to incorporate sensitive
landscape features such as floodplains and wetlands. Including the entire floodplain width is
desirable but often difficult. Additional areas such as stormwater ponds and buffer infiltration areas
will often be incorporated in buffer layout in urban areas.
-------
so
Continuity - Achieving contiguous buffers on the landscape along a stream system may be given a
higher priority than increased width in areas where aquatic and terrestrial habitat goals are important.
Soils - Along with hydrology, soil characteristics are important in determining potential for removal
of nitrogen and pollutants carried by sediment such as phosphorus and some pesticides. Primary
considerations are soil texture, depth to water table, and organic matter content of soils. Moderate
to well-drained soils have the greatest ability to infiltrate large amounts of water that may enter the
buffer as surface flow, thus promoting deposition of sediment and related pollutants. Conversely,
moderate to fine-textured soils have superior potential to create conditions favorable for extensive
denitrification.
Since denitrification is carried out by anaerobic microbes, soil conditions must be wet enough to
allow oxygen depletion to occur. The large amount of decaying organic material on the ground and
in upper soil layers in forested buffers helps to deplete oxygen supply and "fuel" the denitrification
process. Although denitrification rates and duration vary depending on site conditions, even drier
forest soils commonly have pockets which support these bacteria (Myrold and Tiedje, 1985). Under
more poorly drained, higher organic matter soil, denitrification may proceed at relatively high rates
in the top meter of soil. At better drained sites, denitrification depends on the cycling of plant
biomass back to the surface in litter fall. Here denitrification will not be uniform but still active in
surface soil (Ambus and Lowrance, 1991). A combination of soil properties which provide a
gradation of coarse to finer grained materials closer to the water body seems ideal. Sites with a depth
to water table of 3-15 feet meters will allow maximum root penetration by woody plants and sustain
uptake of nutrients and chemicals in solution below the surface. The water table need only be present
for a portion of the year.
Hydrologic Soil Groups are often used as criteria for determining buffer width and are commonly
available in county soil survey reports. Buffers are established to include all soils in Hydrologic
Group D and any Group C soils subject to frequent flooding. However, these guidelines are less
reliable in dealing with intermittent streams in Hydrologic Groups A & B where other minimum
criteria may be more applicable (Welsch, 1991).
3) Intensity of Adjacent Land Use
Generally, when the density, intensity, magnitude or potential impact of the activity increases, the
width of the buffer necessary to contain the negative effects increases proportionally. The differences
between developed or disturbed lands and the aquatic environment are significant; the more intensely
developed or disturbed, the more significant. Likewise, the size or importance of the buffer increases
as the potential yield of nutrients, chemicals, sediment and runoff from adjacent land use increases
(Phillips, 1989). Table 3 illustrates how these loading can vary by land use. However, it is clearly
recognized that a number of desired buffer functions, such as nutrient removal, are reduced in urban
areas as impervious surface increases. Increased watershed runoff efficiency reduces base flow to
the stream and limits fee total volume of water passing through the buffer. Buffer widths prescribed
in urbanized areas are often increased to account for the risk of future encroachments and to
anticipate future changes in stream morphology due to increases in stormwater runoff (Heraty, 1993).
-------
51
This stream "right-of-way" approach is useful in development site planning (Schueler, 1995).
Maintaining larger wooded corridors along streams and rivers in urban planning help preserve open
space and offset general forest loss in a watershed. It often most economical to consider this
approach at the onset of land use change.
Table 4. Nutrient loading delivered to edge of stream as used
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model.
Land Use
Forest
Pasture
Urban
Cropland
Total N
(Ibs/acre/year)
3.56
7.37
9.19
14.89
Total P
(Ibs/acre/year)
0.07
0.42
0,75
1.38
Lowrance, et.al. (1986) described a relationship of buffer area to contributing area treated of 3:1 in
agricultural areas with high nutrient loads. This ratio may be higher where potential impacts are
less. Likewise, smaller buffers may be adequate where the magnitude of impact from land use is also
low, e.g. parklands, haylands, or low-density development. Welsch (1991) prescribes a buffer strip
width that is one third the distance from streambank to top of pollutant source area. The intent is to
create a buffer between field and stream which occupies approximately 1/3 of the source area. This
is reduced to 1/5 of the drainage area for lakes and ponds.
4) Desired Buffer Functions
One of the most important scientific criteria for determining buffer size requirements is to evaluate
the specific functions that a buffer needs to provide under site-specific conditions (Castelle, et.al.,
1992). A search of the literature clearly suggests that buffer sizes necessary for adequate performance
of specific buffer functions vary widely. Accordingly some judgement and setting of priorities is
nearly always necessary to attain a desired minimum buffer width for a desired set of functions. The
following is an overview of some important buffer functions and discussion of their relationship to
width. Scientific references for these discussions are extensive (NCASI, 1992; Shisler et.al., 1987;
Lowrance, et.al., 1995; Wong and McCuen, 1982; Young, et.al., 1980; Lowrance, 1992; Lynch,
et.al., 1985; Dillaha, et.al, 1989; Doyle, et.al, 1977, Dillaha, 1993).
Sustainability -Inevitably when discussing riparian buffer establishment, the concept of "anything
is better than nothing" will be raised. This is probably an accurate assessment when it comes to
maintaining the functions of stable streambanks and making some improvements in stream or
shoreline habitat, however, it is important to recognize that for a riparian area to serve the water
-------
52-
quality functions of buffering impacts from adjacent land use, a "critical mass" or sustainable width
is essential. Buffers of less than SO* have proven increasingly difficult to maintain as effective filters
in the field except on small low order drainages..
Sustainability should be a key consideration of buffer layout and design, prior to making substantial
investments or assumptions about expected buffer performance. Sustainability like other functions
will be determined by site characteristics and adjacent land use. For example, very narrow buffer
strips of 15-25* are generally inadequate for sediment or nutrient reductions except on small, low
order streams (Dillaha, 1993). Narrow forest strips may provide shade and bank stability but may
not sustain a forest ecosystem capable of accumulating organic matter and providing the water
storage necessary for desired levels of nitrogen removal. These narrow strips are also far more
susceptible to damage from floods.
Excess nitrogen removal - Determining the ability to provide nitrogen removal should consider; 1)
the pathway by which nitrogen enters the buffer zone (e.g. surface runoff, deep or shallow
groundwater, atmospheric deposition), and 2) the potential for transformation of nitrogen within the
buffer strip due to site conditions. By filtering and absorbing runoff and reaching groundwater
within the rooting zone, nutrients such as nitrogen (and dissolved phosphorus) are processed in plant
uptake or transformed by denitrification. The denitrification process converts excess nitrogen
r-
Wildlife Habitat
Flood
Control
"I Sediment Control
Nutrient Removal
Streambank Stabilization
Aquatic Food Web
Water Temperature Moderation
0 25 50 75 100 150 200 250
Buffer Width (feet)
Figure 3. Range of minimum widths for meeting specific buffer objectives.
8
-------
S3
compounds into nitrogen gas which is released into the atmosphere. Microbes use organic
compounds as food, degrading them into simpler compounds or synthesizing them into microbial
biomass. Riparian forests in particular, support a variety of microbial degradation mechanisms,
though the specific conditions that promote them are not yet well understood (Correll, 1996).
Although the focus of many studies is often placed on surface flow, it is important to recognize
interactions with water traveling as shallow or deeper groundwater. Groundwater carrying nitrogen
passes through or surfaces within the riparian zone where it can be acted upon by biological processes
in the buffer strip. One should pay close attention to both localized and regional flow paths in
determining this function. Lowrance, et. al. (1995) describe the variety of hydro-physiographic
regions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and how they affect nitrogen processing. Where conditions
for water storage, vegetative uptake, and denitrification are ideal, widths as small as 35* may provide
substantial removal of the nitrogen passing through the buffer.
Processes of denitrification occur under a wide range of conditions but will be most intense in the
wetter streamside area, whereas, the uptake of nitrogen by vegetation will begin at the upslope edge
of the vegetation. Woody plants enhance buffer functions through aggressive uptake of nitrogen in
plant biomass, accumulation of organic matter, root-fungal interactions, and moisture retention (Fail,
et.al., 1986). In this way, some reductions in overall buffer width may be possible when forests
occupy a substantial portion of the buffer system. Efficiency will depend on residence time (affected
by width) and nutrient load. In nearly all documented studies, most nitrogen removal occurred in
the first 35-90' of forest. Nitrogen reductions of 25 to over 90% of total loadings have been shown
in field studies (Lowrance, et.al., 1995).
Reduction of sediment and phosphorus - Vegetated buffers improve water quality by trapping
sediment and debris, by stabilizing streambanks, and by promoting infiltration of runoff. Vegetation
forms a physical barrier to movement and mechanically traps associated sediment. Roots maintain
soil structure and prevent erosion of soil. Reducing flow rates and disrupting channelized flow by
providing resistance is the role of vegetation, thus allowing more time for infiltration and settling of
sediment. Because nearly 90% of phosphorus is carried to streams attached to soil particles or
organic matter, reducing sediment transport helps to reduce phosphorus loads. The ability of
vegetation to colonize sediment and rapidly use available phosphorus is a related function.
Reductions in soil loss by 40-70% from lands using riparian buffers is typical.
Prevention of channelized flow is the primary concern for sediment removal and is significantly
affected by slope. Most studies show buffer widths of 50-100 feet for adequate removal. While
small buffers remove small amounts of sediments, the relationship between buffer width and sediment
removal is not linear. Beyond efficiencies of 80% removal, disproportionately large buffer widths
are required for incrementally greater sediment removal. Except under conditions of excessive
channelized flow and steep slopes, buffer widths in excess of 150* did not show additional returns.
Maintaining vegetation cover sufficient to reduce flow is key. Dillaha (1993) found that of the 35
or more grass filter strips he inspected after 3-5 years of use less than 10% continued to be effective
due to channelized flow and sediment build-up at the field edge of the filter strip. The combination
of grass filter strips with a forested buffer zone are especially efficient in performing this function.
-------
Reduction of pesticides Generally speaking, buffer strips of 45' or more have proven effective
in reducing some pesticide contamination of streamflow. Factors which affect pesticide transport
in buffer zones are similar to those affecting nutrients. Most pesticides in common use are adsorbed
to soil particles or carried in runoff and subsurface flow. Organic pesticides are subject to microbial
breakdown processes common in organically rich riparian forest environments. For example, buffers
are an effective tool prescribed for protection of water supplies from atrazine.
Moderation of water temperature - Forested riparian buffers provide shade cover, thereby
helping to lower water temperatures during summer and lessen temperature decreases in winter. Lack
of shade has a direct effect on water quality and aquatic life. Elevated temperatures are a catalyst
for water quality problems by accelerating or increasing the impacts of non-point source pollution
by robbing oxygen from the system. Small streams flowing through exposed reaches, can increase
as much as 1.5 degrees F for every 100* of exposure to summer sun. Maximum temperature
fluctuations for daily peaks can be as much as 12-15 degrees higher and ambient temperatures of 6-8
degrees higher are not uncommon. The removal of streamside trees is one of the most significant
causes of degradation for streams in the United States (Sweeney, 1992).
The ability of a buffer to provide shade is directly proportional to height of the vegetation and
bankfull width of the stream. Even 15-25' buffers can provide adequate shade for small streams.
50-75* forest buffers are sufficient to ensure favorable conditions for trout and buffer widths along
slopes can decrease with increasing tree height with no loss of shading. Aspect is also an important
consideration. Grass filter strips along streams are generally unable to provide cover sufficient to
moderate water temperature.
Preserving stream channel integrity and bank stability - Vegetation in the riparian area exerts
a strong control over the condition and stability of the stream and its banks (Belt, 1992; Gregory,
et.al., 1991; Lowrance, et.al, 1995; Karr and Schlosser, 1978; Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney, 1993). In
the eastern United States, trees often defined the physical characteristics of stream channels. Trees
anchor streambank soils through dense root mass and large roots provide physical resistance to flow
energy. Woody debris, anchors channel substrate and determines bar formation, stores large amounts
of stream bed sediment and gravel, helps control sinuosity and provides channel structure through
pool/riffle or step formation. Until recently the value of this large woody debris was misunderstood
and much was removed throughout the country. It is likely that the direct effect of buffer width on
this function is limited. Only that vegetation within 25' of the stream channel will provide a
powerful role in stabilization. However, increasing buffer width will continue to indirectly enhance
stream stability by providing additional protection and stability during extreme flood events and as
a physical barrier to human impact.
Moderation of storm flows and runoff - Stream corridors and natural forest vegetation helps to
reduce the downstream effects of floods by dissipating stream energy, temporarily storing flood
waters, and helping to remove sediment loads through incorporation in the floodplain. On a given
site, a vegetated buffer zone that resists channelization is effective in decreasing the rate of flow, and
in turn, increasing infiltration. Forests provide as much as 40 times the water storage of a cropped
field and 15 times that of grass turf. These increases in storage are largely due to the forest's ability
10
-------
to capture rainfall on the vast surface area of the leaves, stems and branches, the porosity and water
holding capacity of organic material stored on the forest floor and in the soil, and the greater
transpiration rates common to the associated community of vegetation. Forests are being evaluated
more frequently for their role in reduction of water volume for stormwater management (Schueler,
1995; Herson-Jones, Heraty, and Jones, 1995).
Increasing width to incorporate the floodplain also increases the potential efficiency of water storage
from upstream flow during storm events. Providing flood storage buffers where possible along
smaller streams in a watershed may provide a valuable approach to downstream flood reduction
(River Restoration Project, Ltd., 1996). However, once the entire floodplain is included within the
buffer zone, the effect of buffer width on flood peak reductions is negligible.
Providing aquatic habitat and food - Leaf litter is the base food source in most stream
ecosystems and streamside trees are critical in establishing this aquatic food web. Small fish, some
amphibians, and most aquatic insects rely primarily on leaf detritus (dead leaf material) from trees
as food. Studies have shown that when streamside trees are removed, many aquatic insects decline
or even disappear, and with them, native fish, birds, and others species that may depend on them.
Some insects are adapted to specific tree species and are unable reproduce or even survive when fed
the leaves of grasses, non-native or exotic species (Sweeney, 1993).
Large woody debris also creates cover and habitat structure for fish and other aquatic species in
streams and rivers as well as providing important functions in shallow water estuarine habitat. Here
it may serve as a nursery area or refuge for fish, crabs and other organisms. This function is
noteworthy in the Chesapeake Bay since the decline of submerged aquatic vegetation. Although the
portion of the buffer nearest the waterbody exerts the greatest influence over this function, increasing
buffer width provides support and sustainability. This is especially true when considering the need
to provide long-term woody debris recruitment, diversity of vegetation for leaf detritus, and refuge
for species during high water. The presence of trees is directly related to greater biodiversity in the
stream ecosystem (Gregory et. al., 1991).
Provides terrestrial habitat corridors - The first question asked about providing habitat is,
"habitat for what?". Riparian areas have the potential to provide rich habitats for a wide diversity of
wildlife species. Species such as turtles, pheasant, turkey, wood ducks, great blue herons,
woodpeckers, raptors, tree frogs, salamanders, songbirds, and many mammals require trees for
breeding, nesting, feedings, and escape habitats. Even narrow forest strips will provide essential
habitats for some of these species. However, the width and character of buffers will vary to meet the
needs of particular species. A mixture of grasses and forbs, especially tall species, will provide
suitable habitat for some game birds. In all cases, maintaining forests as a component of the buffer
greatly enhances the diversity and abundance of birds and other wildlife (Pais, 1994)..
Buffers also provide transition zones between upland and aquatic environments. Although buffers
alone will not provide needed migratory songbird habitat, studies have shown that even narrow 100'
corridors increased neotropical bird abundance when they connected small patches of remaining
11
-------
5U>
forest. To provide corridors for movement of many larger mammals such as deer and bear, or to
provide reliable breeding habitat for migratory songbirds, larger buffer widths (100-300*) are needed.
Landowner-Based Criteria
Riparian buffers can also be designed to provide additional human benefits such as recreation,
aesthetic enjoyment, as well as sites for hunting, fishing or observing nature. Buffers can provide
the foundation for future greenways or be designed to provide recreational access. In addition, buffer
width may be expanded to provide an economically-viable unit for future timber harvest or provide
sufficient land base to sustain other secondary products derived from compatible activity within the
buffer.
Landowner concerns most often serve to constrain the width of a buffer. These decisions may be
due to economic considerations, livestock watering and pasture management, operation of adjacent
farm fields, competing uses, or existing developments. As decisions are made, landowners should
be aware of the potential changes in desired buffer functions that occur and the compromise of long-
term values. This is especially important when buffers are being used within the context of overall
nutrient management plans. In most cases, a buffer width can be determined which will meet
landowner needs while also providing an adequate array of buffer functions.
APPLICATION
Given the practical need for simplicity, the operable question is how these multiple criteria can be
incorporated in field applications. The problems related to using multiple criteria are not effectively
addressed in the scientific literature. Most often, states or local agencies use an approach where
multiple buffer criteria are simply stated as separate requirements and their interpretation is left to
field staff. This approach has considerable merit, but results in inconsistency. There are several
other methods with potential where multiple criteria are combined into a single requirement. One
example is the cartographic modeling approach used in conjunction with a CIS (Dick, 1991). Here
multiple criteria are expressed in spatial terms and mapping of buffer widths capable of meeting the
criteria are displayed. For example, if temperature moderation is desired, a level of shading needed
for the stream can be determined. Extension of this approach to multiple resource values and desired
functions would be possible if additional criteria can be determined and expressed in spatial terms.
Another approach, maximum protection, evaluates each of several criteria and then adopts the
greatest width so as to accommodate all desired functions. A variation on this approach commonly
used is to utilize average widths in the same manner. A regional method might also be used to set
a recommended buffer width. For example, buffer widths could be determined based on a set of
criteria and desired function for selected stream reaches within a region. Then by evaluating the
statistical probability of occurrence for various stream types within a watershed, a regional buffer
width could be selected to meet the criterion a prescribed percent of the time (Belt, et. al, 1992).
Approaches of this kind are also useful in prioritizing or targeting areas for protection or restoration.
12
-------
The last and perhaps simplest approach may be to determine a minimum width that will meet a
majority of the multiple desired functions with the target vegetation and provide a limited number
of additional site criteria which will allow for modification and flexibility based on site conditions.
Fixed Minimum Vs. Variable Width Buffers
There are two principal ways by which most buffer widths are defined: the width may be set as a
fixed distance usually measured from the stream bank on each side of the stream or the width may
be variable depending on specific natural or man-made features adjacent to the waterway. Minimum
width buffer strips are usually promoted primarily because of they are simple to implement and
administer. Because minimum widths are most often arrived at by compromise or by considering
an average of desired functions, it is likely that minimum width buffer strips may provide more than
adequate protection in some areas, and inadequate protection in others. Where political compromise
has resulted in very narrow buffer widths, people may be given a false perception that a stream is
protected when serious risk may still exist. Fixed buffer widths in use across the country range from
25 to 300 feet or more (Herson-Jones, Heraty, and Jones, 1996).
Variable width approaches to buffers usually attempt to integrate buffer functions with site-specific
conditions. In this way the width of the buffer depends not only on the minimum width needed for
a specific function or set of functions, but also on the sensitivity and characteristics of the stream and
watershed in which it is located. Adjacent slope, soil type, presence of wetlands and floodplains,
mature forests or special habitats, scenic or cultural features, recreation use, and other local aspects
of significance may be considered in determining buffer width. Buffer expansion and contraction as
a characteristic of design width is promoted especially in urban settings (Schueler, 1995). A range
of adequate widths may be provided (Coughlin, et.al, 1992). Although, variable width approaches
are likely to be more science-based, they inevitably require extensive site investigation and
evaluation, and ultimately more difficulty in monitoring and administration. Often a combination of
these approaches is used. For example, a minimum width is determined and specific criteria for
expansion and contraction are specified.
THE 3-ZONE FOREST BUFFER PLANNING MODEL
The concept of the Riparian Forest Buffer is to put the natural water quality functions of the riparian,
forest to work in pollution control. A 3-zone planning model has been proposed by the Forest Service
(Welsch, 1991) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 1996) as an excellent way
to organize the planning and management of riparian forest buffers in both rural and urban settings.
This three zone concept is a flexible approach that incorporates water quality, habitat functions as
well as landowner objectives into determinations. Each zone has specific intended functions but all
zones function together as an integrated system.
Zone 1 represents the inner core of the buffer, stretching upland from the edge of the stream. Its
primary purpose is to stabilize the streambank, provide habitat for aquatic organisms, and help reduce
flood impacts. Shade helps to moderate stream temperatures, leaves provide food to the aquatic
system, roots and fallen logs create habitat. Zone 1 also aids in the filtering of surface runoff and
13
-------
flood flows and in utilizing nutrients carried in groundwater that is discharged to the stream, as well
as hyporheic flow (Hill, 1996). A minimum width of 15-35' is recommended for Zone 1.
Located immediately upslope from Zone 1, the primary function of Zone 2 is to remove, transform,
or store excess nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants flowing over the surface or through the
groundwater. Infiltration and sediment deposition are the primary mechanisms for treating surface
flow. Zone 2 must be wide enough to trap and hold sediment coming from adjacent land uses while
the ability to remove nutrients in groundwater will vary from landscape to landscape depending on
whether the groundwater comes in contact with the root zone and if soil conditions promote
denitrification as previously discussed. Another role of Zone 2 is to protect and sustain the viability
of Zone 1. Widths of Zone 2 can vary from 25-200 feet..
Zone 3 is located on the outer edge of the buffer closest to the adjacent land use with potential to
impact the stream. A grass filter strip or other runoff control measure is recommended (NRCS
technical standard specifies Zone 3 under a separate filter strip practice). The primary function of
Zone 3 is to slow runoff, filter sediments and its associated chemicals, and allow water to infiltrate
into the ground. In urban areas, infiltration structures or stormwater control measures may also be
common in Zone 3. A 20-30 foot grass filter strip is commonly used in Zone 3.
Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1 Stream Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Figure 4. Hie 3-Zone Buffer Concept
14
-------
CONCLUSION
The scientific literature would clearly support that there is no "ideal" buffer width for all applications
in all areas. A number of criteria are appropriate for consideration in determining adequate buffer
widths in an ecosystem context. Evaluating a combination of factors such as site and watershed
characteristics, functional resource value, intensity of land use and desired buffer functions all
provide considerations from a scientific viewpoint. Because most buffers are established on private
lands or public lands managed for a variety of uses, landowner/manager and public
constraints/objectives are also considered.
Many agencies rely predominantly on stream rating systems to establish minimum buffer sizes. Most
minimum widths are determined by functional resource value alone or a specific intended use or
group of uses rather than by site-specific factors. By looking at one function alone or one site
criteria, application is simplified but most of the scientific information available may be ignored.
The most commonly prescribed minimum buffer widths for use in water quality and habitat
maintenance are approximately 75-100*. The scientific literature appears to support that buffers of
less than 35 feet can not sustain long-term protection of aquatic resources with an acceptable level
of risk regardless of site. To provide an array of functions then, buffers should be a minimum of 35-
100* in width under most circumstances. Buffer widths toward the lower end of the range appear
to provide some physical and biological components of the stream ecosystem especially on small
streams. While buffer widths at the upper end of the range are likely to provide protection of
physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the aquatic resource.
REFERENCES
Ambus, P., and R.Lowrance, 1991. Comparison of denitrifirafinn in two riparian soils. Soil
Science Society American Journal, 55:994-997.
Belt, G.H., J.O'Laughlin, and T.Menill, 1992. Design of Fnn»st Riparian Buffer Strips for
the Prntprtinn of Water Qualify; Analysis of Scientific T Jteratiire. University of Idaho,
Report No. 8, Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Policy Analysis Group.
Castelle, A.J., C.Connelly, M.Emers, E.D. Metz, S. Meyer, M.Witter, S.Mauermann,
T.Erickson, and S.S. Cooke, 1992. Wetland Buffers; Use and Effectiveness Publication
92-10, Adolfson Associates for Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,
Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Connelly, 1994. Wetland and Stream Buffer Sire
Requirements . A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23:878-882.
Correll, D.L., 1996. Buffer znnes and water qualify protection; general principles. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Buffer Zones, N. Heycock, ed., Oxford,
England, 8/28-9/2, 1996.
15
-------
Correll, D.L., T.E.Jordan, and D.E. Weller, 1994. Coastal riparian forests: their role In
filtering agrif nltiiral drainage, pp, 67-72, in: Altered, Artificial and Managed Wetlands,
Agriculture and Forestry, J.Kussler and C.Lassonde (eds), Assoc. of State Wetlands
Managers.
Coughlin, R. E., J.R. Denworth, J. Keene, and J.W. Rogers, 1992. CnMlng r.mwth- Building
Better Communities and Protecting nnr Countryside, PA Environmental Council,
Philadelphia, PA.
Desbonnet, A., P.Pogue, V.Lee, and N.Wolff, 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Cnnsfal Zone.
Coastal Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064, Narragansett, RI, University of Rhode
Island, PP.71.
Dick, R.C., 1991. Cartographic Modeling of riparian buffers. In M.Heit and A. ShOTtreid,
editors, CIS Applications in natural resources, CIS World, Inc. Ft Collins, CO.
Dillaha, T.A., R.B.Reneau, S.Mostaghimi, and D. Lee, 1989. Vegetative filter st rip*
agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of ASAE 32:513-519.
Dillaha, T.E. , 1993. Development nf a Buffer Zone F.valnation Model/Procedure, Report to
the Virginia Council on the Environment Coastal Resources Management Program by
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University, Blacksburg, VA.
Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, and D.C. Wolff, 1977. Effectiveness of forest and grass hmffer
strips in improving the water qualify of manure polluted runoff. ASAE Paper 77-2501,
ASAE, St. Joseph. MO.
Fail Jr., J.L., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd, 1986. Riparian forget communities and their role
in nutrient conservation in an agricultural wafprshpri American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture U(3); 114-121.
Fail, J.L., Jr., M.N. Hamzah, B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd, 1986. Ahovg and below ground
hiomass, production, and element accumulation In riparian foreqfo of an pgrlmlfiiral
waffirshed. pg. 193-224, In D.L. Correll (ed.) Watershed research perspectives.,
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins, 1991. An Mnsystfan
lvi» of riparian ffireas. Bioscicnce 41:540-551.
Heraty, M., 1993. Riparian huffier progranisi a giiMp to dpvrfoping and Implgmpnting a
riparian buffer program a.
-------
101
Herson- Jones, L., M. Heraty, and B. Jones, 1996. Riparian Buffer Strategies for nrhan
watersheds. Metropolitan Council of Governments, Environmental Land Planning Document
Series, No. 95703, Washington, DC.
Hill, A., 1996. TV potential rnlp nf ill-stream and hypnrhpir environments as buffer »nnes
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Buffer Zones, N. HEYCOCK, ed.,
Oxford, England, 8/28-9/2, 1996.
Karr, J. and I.J. Schlosser, 1978. Water resources and the T .and- water Interface. Science 201;
229-234.
Lowrance, R., L.S. Altier, J.D. Newbold, R.R. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J.M. Denver, D.L.
Correll, J.W.Gilliam, J.L.Robinson, R.B.Brinsfield, K.W. Staver, W.Lucas, and A.H.
Todd 1995. Water Quality Functions nf Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed US EPA Publication # 903-R-95-004, CBP/TRS 134/95,
Annapolis, MD.
Lowrance , R.R., R. Leonard, and J. Sheridan, 1985. Managing riparian ecosystems tn rnntrnl
nnnpnint pollution. Journal of Soil and water Conservation No. 40; 87-97.
Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.O. AsmuSSCn, 1984. Nutrient cycling in an agricultural
watershed. J. Environmental Quality, 13:27-32.
Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. MuSSallem, 1985. Rest management prartirre fnr
controlling nnnpnint .source pollution on forested watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 40:164-167.
Myrold, D.D., and J.M. Tiedje, 1985. Fstahlishment nf denitrification rapacity in soil?
Effect's of farhnn nitrate, and moisture. Soil Biol.Biochem. 17:819-822.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., 1992. The effectiveness nf hnffer
stripy for Ameliorating off-site transport of sediment, nutrients, and pesticides fmm
siiviniitiirai pperatinns. Technical Bulletin No. 631, New York, NY.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1996. Riparian Forest Buffer Terhniral Standard
NRCS - Watershed Center, Seattle, Washington.
Pais Richard 1994. Wildlife Corridors in the Siihiirhan Fnvirnnment, Proceedings of
Conference: "Riparian Forest Buffers: Restoring and managing a vital Chesapeake Resource,
October 5-6, 1994, Ellicott City, MD , Chesapeake Bay Program.
Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll, 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed;
Ohservations nn the rnle nf a riparian fnrret. Ecology 65(5); 1466-1475.
17
-------
1*2-
Phillips, J.D., 19R9- Nonpoint source pnllntinn rnnfrnl effectiveness nf riparian forests along
a costal plain river. Journal nf Hyrirnlngy 1 10-77 1-
Schueler, T., 1995. Site Planning for TTrhan Stream ProtectionT Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments and Center for Watershed Protection, Publication # 95708,
Environmental Land Planning Series, Washington, DC.
Shisler, J.K., R.A. Jordan, and R.N. Wargo, 1987. roastal Wetland Buffer delineation.
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Div. of Coastal Resources, Trenton, NJ.
Sweeney, B.W., 1992. Streamside forest's and the physical, chemical, and trophic
characteristics nf Piedmont streams in eastern North America,. Water Science Tech.
26:2653-2673.
Sweeney, B.W., 1993. Effects nf streamside vegetation nn marc,roinvt>rti»hrafe communities
of White Clay Creek in F-astern North America. Proceedings of Philadelphia Academy
of Natural Sciences No. 144; pp.291-340.
The River Restoration Project, Ltd., 1996. River Restoration Project at Cnleshill. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Buffer Zones, N. Heycock, ed., Oxford, England, 8/28-
9/2, 1996.
Welsch, D., 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, !Pub.
No. NA-PR-07-91, USDA Forest Service, Radnor, PA.
Wong, S.L. and R.H. McCuen, 1982. The design nf vegetative, buffer strips for runoff and
sediment control. Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program, Univ. of MD, College
Park, MD.
Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson, IQgQ. Effectiveness of vegetated hiiffer strips
in controlling pollution from feedlot ninoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 9:484-497.
US Environmental Protection Agency - Chesapeake Bay Program, 1995. A Framework for
Habitat Restoration. C. Bisland, ed., Living Resources Subcommittee, Annapolis, MD.
18
-------
SECTION 4:
FINDINGS
-------
1*3
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER BAY PROGRAM GOALS
The 40% Nutrient Reduction Goal
Among the most serious problems facing the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries is an excess of nutrients,
nitrogen and phosphorous, caused by human activities In the land. To alleviate this problem the historic
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement set a goal to achieve "by the year 2000 at least a 40 percent reduction
of nitrogen and phosphorous entering the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay". This reduction in nutrients
will result in a significant improvement in dissolved oxygen in the waters of the mainstem of the Bay.
Improved oxygen levels will, in turn, significantly improve conditions for living resources such as crabs,
oysters, striped bass and Bay grasses.
Directive Q4-1 Riparian Forest Buffers clearly relates to achieving the goal of 40 percent reduction in
nutrients. Riparian buffers are a valuable best management practice for maintaining and improving
water quality. Riparian forests have been shown to be especially useful in removing nitrogen in surface
and groundwater, and trapping phosphorous-laden sediment and other pollutants resulting from adjacent
land uses, thereby protecting water quality. In fact studies have shown dramatic reductions of 30 -98
percent in nitrogen and phosphorous in surface and groundwater after passing through a riparian buffer.
The Joint Tributary Strategy Statement
In 1992, the EC committed their jurisdictions to a goal of developing tributary-specific nutrient
reduction strategies. In these amendments, the EC also pledged that the Tributary Strategies would
include a permanent cap on nutrient inputs. A "cap" implies that even in the face of increased
population and development in the Chesapeake region, nutrients entering the Bay must remain at a level.
of 40 percent less than they were in 1985,. This goal implies that nutrient reduction techniques must
be dynamic and long term. It also warrants incresed attention on approaches that restore or maintain
watershed or ecosystem-scale functions, like those provided by riparian forest buffers.
e Q4-1 Riparian Forest Buffers provides a means of achieving restoration goals in the tributaries.
Directive 94-1 states that the tributary strategies to date have identified riparian forest buffers as an
important best management practice in controlling nutrient loading to streams. Maintaining long-term
caps on nutrients in the tributaries will require approaches that maintain ecosystem or watershed-scale
functions like those provided by health riparian forests.
SAV Goals
Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is an important indicator of Bay health. SAV beds provide shelter
and nursery areas for many species of fish and wildlife and are important as a food source to many
species of ducks, geese and swans. A clear and obvious link has been observed between water quality
conditions and the survival and health of critically important SAV. Riparian forests and the values they
provide are clearly beneficial to shallow water habitats and support SAV recovery. These relationships
may be stronger when looked at in individual tributary rivers and embay men ts.
Directive Q/4-1 : Riparian Forest Rnffers states that riparian forests provide shade, organic matter and
often control bank stability, which in turn provide a range of living resource habitat benefits, including
the moderation of stream temperature, support of the food web, protection of fish habitat and sediment
and erosion control. Riparian forests support SAV growth in many ways. Riparian forests are capable
-------
of removing excess nutrients from the water, which otherwise encourages the growth of deleterious
algae blooms.Woody debris enhances shallow water habitats. Riparian forests also stabilize
streambanks and filter runoff thereby reducing sediment input into streams and the Bay..
Fish Passage Goals
In Directive 93-4, the EC recognized the importance of fish passages in restoring spawning habitat to
migratory fish in the Bay watershed. To ensure the continued progress of the Fish Passage Goals
Strategy, the EC agreed to seek the necessary funding and to commit resources to carry out the
implementation of the policy. The EC committed to a ten year target for opening 1356.75 miles of fish
spawning habitat in the major tributaries to the Bay and a five year goal to first open 582.05 miles.
Directive Q4-1; Riparian Forest Buffers states that as the EC provides for migratory fish passage, it
becomes even more important to ensure favorable water quality and habitat in those streams. Riparian
buffers are instrumental in improving water quality and for providing tremendous diversity in habitat;
but they also offer many benefits to migratory fish. Forested streams and rivers provide suitable
spawning habitat for shad, herring, alewife, perch and striped bass. 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. The decline of these species is partly due to destruction of habitat, which for
some, like shad and herring, extends well into small streams.
Habitat Restoration Goals
The Executive Council is committed to restoring habitats in four areas: fresh water tributaries and
streams for anadromous fish; shallow water for crabs and ducks; open water for fish and shellfish and
lastly inlands and islands for waterfowl and birds. Riparian Forests are a key habitat of focus in the
restoration of freshwater streams and rivers and shallow water habitats.
Directive Q4-1 Riparian Forest Buffers recognizes that riparian forest buffers are capable of improving
water quality and providing habitat. Riparian forest buffers remove sediment, pesticides, excess
nutrients and other pollutants from surface and groundwater thereby improving the water quality. The
leaf canopy of the riparian forest buffer provides shade which maintains cool water temperatures that
are necessary for aquatic species and SAV. Leaves also provide food for small bottom dwelling
creatures which are critical to the aquatic food chain. Woody debris serves as cover for fish while
stabilizing stream bottom and increasing the diversity and amount of habitat for aquatic organisms.
The Toxics Reduction Strategy
The goal of the Toxics Reduction Strategy is a Chesapeake Bay free of toxics through reducing or
eliminating the input of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to levels that result in no
toxic or bioaccumulative impact on the living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health.
Pesticide Management is a key component of the Toxics Reduction Strategy.
Directive 94-1 Riparian Forest Buffers identifies one of the key capabilities of riparian forest buffers
is their ability to intercept surface runoff, subsurface flow and deeper ground water flows for the
purpose of removing or buffering the effect of pesticides or other chemicals from upland land use.
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER INVENTORY
Final Report
31 December 1996
Rick L. Day
Paul L. Richards
Robert L. Brooks
Land Analysis Laboratory
Department of Agronomy
College of Agricultural Sciences
and
Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center
School of Forest Resources
and
Environmental Resources Research Institute
The Pennsylvania State University
116 Agricultural Sciences and Industries Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1615
Submitted To:
The Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, MD
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the extent of forest cover adjacent to streams
and rivers throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed using a geographic information
system (GIS) approach. The intent was to use existing GIS datalayers that were readily
available through federal or state agencies with understanding regarding limitations of data
resolution and accuracy. The aim was to provide information useful primarily for broad-
scale targeting and decision-making for policy while providing a watershed-scale
assessment of riparian forest buffer status that could be refined in future efforts. The
benefits of the completed project were to:
Determine the extent and location of riparian forest at watershed, state and
subwatershed scales.
Provide a GIS land use layer that is compatible for state and Bay Program use.
Produce information useful as a tool for resource managers for targeting forest
buffer and habitat restoration projects.
Provide a foundation of base information useful for future monitoring and more
detailed surveys.
OBJECTIVES
In order to satisfy the above goals, the following specific objectives were formulated:
Develop a GIS land use/land cover layer of riparian forests, using EMAP satellite-
derived data, for the entire Bay watershed with separate files for each state and
subwatershed within the Bay watershed.
Use digital EMAP land use and stream network data to inventory riparian forest
buffer conditions within 100 feet and 300 feet of each stream in the; Bay watershed
Prepare statistical summaries of land use and forest buffer conditions within
subwatersheds, states and the entire Bay watershed.
Conduct a verification of the inventory through air-photo analysis and field
INVENTORY.
-------
PROCEDURE
Database Development
The following GIS data for the entire Bay watershed (Figure 1) were obtained, and
assembled into overlapping ARC/INFO GIS coverages:
Hydrology- A digital streams layer (Figure 2) for the entire Bay watershed that was
compiled from data from various sources by USGS-Water Resources Division
in LeMoyne, PA. It was provided by the Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
Source data varied with each state. The New York portion was 1:100000
scale. Pennsylvania was 1:24000 scale and contains a higher density of
streams that includes intermittent streams. Virginia, Maryland and West
Virginia were 1:24000 scale but did not contain intermittent streams. There
were no stream attributes except for length.
Watershed Boundaries - Databases consist of four layers consisting of 8-digit hydrologic
units for the entire Bay watershed (Figure 3) (provided by the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office), and 11-digit watershed boundaries for Virginia (Figure
4), Maryland (Figure 5), and Pennsylvania (Figure 6) (provided by the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service).
Land User/Land Cover - EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (EMAP)
level 2 land use data (Figure 7) were obtained from the Chesapeake Bay
Program Office. The data are in raster format, with 25 meter cells derived
from classified Thematic Mapper satellite data. The data were classified into
the following land use categories:
Low intensity developed
High intensity developed
Wooded
Herbaceous vegetation
Exposed soil
Water
No data
All data layers were georeferenced to UTM zone 18, datum NAD 1927.
Automated Buffer Inventory
In this study, an automated method was developed to conduct the inventory. Several
logistical requirements affected the algorithm structure. The size of the input stream
coverage (NBAYHYDRO) consisted of over 186,000 features occupying over 70
-------
(ft
4800000.000.
4680000.000. _
4560000.000. _
4440000.000
4320000.000. _
4200000.000
4080000.000_ _
0.000
2050102
2050101 I. j
( 2050103
C, 2050104 \ 2050105 \_
2050205
120000.000
240000.000
360000.000
480000.000
F1gure3
Index to 8 digit watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay
Projection UTM, Zone 18
SO railo
-------
4680000000.
45fiOOOO.ODD_ _
4440(XX).000_ _
120000.000
240000.000
4Ronon.ono
Figure 4
Index to 11 digit watersheds in the Chesapeake
Bay portion of Pennsylvania
Projection UTM, Zone 18
-------
4320000.0004-
420(XXX).OOQ_L
120000.000
240000.000
360000.000
4K(XXX)(XX>
FigureS
Index to 11 digit watersheds in the Chesapeake
Bay portion of Maryland
Projection UTMJZone IS
26 miles
-------
4320UOO.OOQL _
4200000.000. -
4IMUOUO.OOUL -
0.000
120000.000
240000.000
360000.000
4*0000.000
Figure 6
Index to 11 digit watersheds in the Chesapeake
Bay portion of Virginia
Projection UTM, Zone 18
33 miks
-------
megabytes of disk space. Because of its size, the streams coverage was divided into
quadrangle sized tiles for processing (Figure 8a). Arcs in the input stream coverage were
originally digitized at lengths much greater than the resolution (300 ft or less) required for
this study, consequently, a new stream coverage composed of smaller stream segments,
less than or equal to 300 ft. was created. Land use for each stream segment also had to
be reported relative to each side of the arc (right or left).
Because of the long processing time, FORTRAN programs were written to perform tasks
where Arc/Info AML macros were less efficient. As a result of these comparisons,
FORTRAN programs were written, compiled and executed to carry out all of the tasks
described above except for looking up the land use at locations along the orthogonal and
generating and attributing the final streams coverage.
The automated algorithm worked as follows (Figure 8b-d). Each stream was divided into
segments 300 feet or less. For each segment, an orthogonal axis, centered on the stream
segment, was calculated based on the orientation of the stream segment. Each orthogonal
axis extended on both sides of the stream segment for 300 feet and was traversed in 50
foot increments on both sides of the stream segment. At each 50 foot interval, the UTM
x,y coordinate location is determined and the land use is obtained from the gridded EMAP
land use datalayer. Orthogonal axes with forested land use continuous from the midpoint
of the orthogonal are identified and statistics on land use are compiled on an orthogonal
axis by orthogonal axis basis. To be considered buffered 300 ft on both sides, all
contiguous locations along the orthogonal axis must be forested. This information is then
used to create a new stream coverage (Figure 8e) consisting solely of 300 ft (or less)
stream segments with the statistics of each orthogonal linked to it in its stream attribute
table.
Once all of the quadrangles in the Chesapeake Bay were processed (1320 quadrangles
total), the output stream coverages for each were appended together to form one large
stream coverage. This coverage was clipped to component watersheds in order to obtain
statistics on the total stream miles and relative percentages of various buffer conditions.
Since the length of stream segments comprising the final stream coverage vary, yet each
have one orthogonal segment with associated 13 land use observations, a length-weighted
approach was used to adjust for stream segment length when calculating all statistics.
Data were summarized for one and both sides of the stream for :
. streams with 300 feet of forested buffer on both sides
streams with 100 feet of forested! buffer on both sides
streams, with 300 feet of forested buffer on one side only
streams with 100 feet of forested buffer on one side only
land; use distribution witMn the entire 300 foot buffer
* land use distribution within the entire 100 foot buffer
-------
In addition to land use statistics within each buffer, land use data was also summarized for
each subwatershed. This was done to provide information that could be useful in
evaluating potential pressures, associated with land use, that may be exerted on streams.
Summary statistics were compiled for the entire Bay, each state and each watershed.
Validation and Accuracy Assessment
Validation and accuracy assessment was conducted through comparison of results from
the automated inventory procedure with those determined through air-photo
(Pennsylvania and Virginia) and digital orthophoto interpretation (Maryland).
Approximately 103 quarter-quadrangle areas were randomly selected throughout the Bay
watershed (Figure 9). For Pennsylvania and Virginia, NAPP 1:40000 scale black and
white (1991-1993) air photos were obtained from the USGS EROS Date Center
corresponding to each quarter-quadrangle (Table 1). Streams in the aerial photographs
were examined for forested riparian buffer conditions using a magnifying stereoscope.
Buffer widths were measured after determining the approximate scale of the aerial
photograph through distance comparisons between known features on 1:24000 scale
topographic maps and corresponding distances between the same features on the aerial
photograph. Streams with less then 100', 100-300' and greater then 300' forested buffer
were coded on quadrangle maps. The quadrangle map was then digitized, attributed and
compared with the streams coverages created by the automated algorithm using EMAP
data. In general, the minimum buffer segment marked on quad sheets was at least 1.00m in
length with some minor exceptions.
In Maryland, Maryland DNR personnel conducted similar interpretations but used
available digital orthophotos overlaid with digital streams data in their GIS. Data were
sent to Penn State and statistical comparisons with the algorithm were completed.
Forested buffers were defined as areas with at least 30% canopy coverage, unless houses
or lawns were obvious below the canopy. Minor roads or the occasional opening in the
canopy (single house, minor clearing) were ignored. Major roads, highways, and railroads
were considered to be breaks in the buffer width. In Pennsylvania and Virginia,
photointerpreters cross-checked several segments of each other's work in the initial stages
of the project to insure uniformity in the photo interpretation process.
After the photo-interpreted streams were digitized and attributed with buffer conditions,
the total length of streams comprising a particular riparian buffer category was calculated
in each quarter quadrangle for the aerial photography and the automated algorithm. To
insure a fair comparison, care was taken to exclude all streams in the quality control
coverages that did not have a counterpart in the streams analyzed by the automated
algorithm. Differences in buffer conditions as determined from the two methods were
determined for each of the quarter quadrangles and summarized statistically. Absolute and
relative differences were calculated.
-------
Table 1. Quadrangles evaluated for quality control and method applied.
Quad ID iQuadrangleName
: *
177 [EAST TROY
178 {ULSTER
195 {MARSHLANDS
197 IANTRUM
199 JBLOSSBURG
205 IWYALUSING
217 JWHARTON
221 {LEE FIRE TOWER
228 {SKUNK
268 {DENTS RUN
271 {KEATING
273 JRENOVAEAST
285 j SWEET VALLEY
289 JAVOCA
296 {DEVILS ELBOW
310 JBENTON
311 JSTILLWATER
340 {FREELAND
355 {WOODWARD
363 JSHUMANS
364 {NUREMBURG
374 JANDY RIDGE
375 {PORT MATILDA
406 | BEAVER SPRINGS
407 {RICHFIELD
408 IDALMATIA
410 | KLINGERSTOWN
424 {BELLEVILLE
433 {TOWER CITY
438 JCRESSON
451 {HALIFAX
461 jMARTINSBURG
486 JORBISONIA
505 JSCHELLSBURG
506 {BEDFORD
513 JROXBURY
526 {NEW HOLLAND
546 {YORK
562 {WILLIAMSON
564 JWAYNESBORO
574 JHOLTWOOD
593 j BLUE RIDGE SUMMIT
602 JDELTA
608 {BARTON
649 IKEEDYSVOJLE
67i IROMNEY
727 JSUDLERSVILLE
748 JBELTSVILLE
755 JCENTREVJLLE
State
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Pa.
Md.
Md.'
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
!. Md.
Method
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
2
2
2
2
2 ;
2 .
2
2
Quad ID {Quadrangle Name
671 {ROMNEY
727 JSUDLERSVULE
748 IBELTSVILLE
755 JCENTREVILLE
756 {PRICE
850 {BRANDYWINE
969 {NINEPIN
998 JWNEY POINT
709 {STEPHENSON
775 IMIDDLEBURG
808 {THOROUGHFARE
837 JLURAY
841 jEFERSONTON
874 JCASTLETON
903 JHARRISONBURG
935 {MONTEREY SE
942 IMCGAHEYSVILLE
946 {MADISON MILLS
951 {SALEM CHURCH
975 {DEERFIELD
988 JBELMONT .
1010 {WARM SPRINGS
1020 icHARLOTTESVILLE WEST
1022 JKESWICK
1028 {LADYSMITH
1092 j LEXINGTON
1094 jMONTBELLOW
1098 JSCHUYLER
1101 [PALMYRA
1111 {AYLETT
1127 {STROM
1 133 jEORKS OF BUFFALO
1136 {SHIPMAN
1140 IARVONA
1151 IKING AND QUEEN COURT HOUS
H55 jiRviNGTON
1169 ! BIG ISLAND
1171 {AMHERST
1182 JMIDLOTHAN
1198 JCRAIG SPRINGS
1214 JHILLCREST
1215 JCUMBERLAND
1226 JTOANO
1229 {WARE NECK
1243 JAPPOMATTOX
1257 JCHARLESCITY
1269 {GREEN BAY
1278 {DISPUTANIA NORTH
State
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Md.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
.V*.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Va.
Method
2
.2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Method 1 - Forest buffer evaluated using NAPP aerial photographs
Method 2 - Forest buffer evaluated using Maryland DNR digital orthophotos
-------
A field inventory of riparian forest buffer conditions was conducted for limited sites to
further validate the air photo and automated approach. Results of this analysis will be
provided as an Addendum to this report.
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Table 2. summarizes riparian forest buffer conditions for each state within the Bay
watershed. Table 3 summarizes buffer conditions for the 54 8-digit hydrologic units
within the Bay watershed. Table 4 summarizes land use distribution within the 100 and
300 foot buffers and entire watershed for each 8-digit hydrologic unit. Figures 10-13
illustrate relative forest buffer conditions for all 8-digit hydrologic units.
Tables 5 and 6 summarize riparian forest buffer and land use conditions for each 11-digit
subwatershed in Maryland. Figures 14-17 illustrate relative forest buffer conditions for 11-
digit subwatersheds in Maryland.
Tables 7 and 8 summarize riparian forest buffer and land use conditions for each 11-digit
subwatershed in Pennsylvania. Figures 18-21 illustrate relative forest buffer conditions for
11-digit subwatersheds in Pennsylvania.
Tables 9 and 10 summarize riparian forest buffer and land use conditions for each 11-digit
subwatershed in Virginia. Figures 22-25 illustrate relative forest buffer conditions for 11-
digit subwatersheds in Virginia.
According to Table 1, approximately 52.8% of streams in the Bay watershed have at least
300 ft. of forest buffer on at least one side of the stream. Approximately 40 % of the
streams in the watershed have forest buffers less than 100 ft. on both sides of the stream.
Buffering conditions among the Bay states varies less than 10 % in all categories. Some of
the variability among states may be due to variability in streams data that occur in the Bay
streams coverage. The coverage is a combination of streams data from different sources
and scales and may be impacting the results.
Highest percentages (60-75%) of adequately buffered streams were associated with
watersheds in the unglaciated high plateau region (north central Pennsylvania). Heavily
farmed watersheds of the coastal plain, as well as watersheds containing the metropolitan
areas associated with Baltimore and Washington had lower percentages of buffered
streams. Low percentages (0-15%) of poorly buffered streams were found in watersheds
located on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake bay and Delmarva Penninsula. Watershed
B27 (Pleasant Run) in Virginia had the honor of being the most inadequately buffered
watershed in the Chesapeake Bay (no streams buffered 300' on any side).
Although a rigorous assessment was not conducted, casual comparison of the data and
quality control quadrangles in the valley and ridge portion of the Bay watershed suggests
some relationship between the degree of buffering and the scale and order of the stream.
-------
Table 2. Riparian forest buffer statistics for each state in the Chesapeake Bay'watershed.
State
Delaware
Maryland*
New York1
Pennsylvania
Virginia *
West Virginia
Chesapeake Bay Total
Stream length
miles '/
1091; 1.0
16756! 14.9
8015 j 7.1
47585: 42.2
34381J 30.5
49361 4.4
11 2784 j 100.0
Both sides 300'
miles '/»
326! 29.8
4487! 26.8
2006! 25.0
17720 ! 37.2
11971! 34.8
1840! 37.1
38350J 34.0
Both sides 100-300'
miles %
572 j 52.4
8032! 47.9
3744 1 46.7
26938! 56.6
17857! 51.9
2582! 52.1
59726J 53.0
One side 300'+
miles %
S58J 51.2
7658! 45.7
3699! 46.2
26750: 56.2
18216; 53.0
2671 ! 53.9
59553; 52.8
One side 100-300'
miles %
638J 58.5
9050: 54.0
4353J 54.3
30450 1 64.0
20065 j 58.4
2913! 58.8
67470! 59.8
Both sides < 100'
miles %
453J 41.5
7706 1 46.0
3662 1 45.7
17135! 36.0
143161 41.6
2042: 41.2
45314: 40.2
NOTES: I. Does not include the District of Columbia
2.1:100,000 scale streams only. Does not include intermittant streams.
3. Mixed 1:100,000 and 1:24000 scale streams. Not all areas include intermittant streams.
Page 1
-------
Table 3. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 8-digit hydrologic units in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Watershed
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA
CHENANGO
OWEGO-WAPPASENINO
TIOGA
CHEMUNG
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-TUNKHANNOCK
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA
UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
SINNEMAHONINO
MIDDLE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
BALD EAGLE
PINE
LOWER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
LOWER SUSQUEHANNA-PENNS
UPPER JUNIATA
RAYSTOWN
LOWER JUNIATA
LOWER SUSQUEHANNA-SWATARA
LOWER SUSQUEHANNA
UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY
CHESTER-SASSAFRAS
GUNPOWDER-PATAPSCO
SEVERN
CHOPTANK
PATUXENT
BLACKWATER-WICOMICO
NANTICOKE
POCOMOKE
SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC
CACAPON-TOWN
CONOCOCHEAGUE-OPEQUON
HUCcode
2050101
2050102
2050 103
2050104
20501 OS
2050106
2050107
2050201
2050202
2050203
, 2050204
2050205
2050206
2050301
2050302
2050303
2050304
2050305
2050306
2060001
2060002
2060003
2060004
2060005
2060006
2060007
2060008
2060009
2070001
2070002
2070003
2070004
Stream length
miles %
3399
2226
1786
1824
1500
4498
3478
3379
2183
1428
1480
1893
3994
3459
1942
2465
2962
3834
5063
263
1981
2162
702
1739
1770
1031
1451
1172
2033
2476
1984
4038
2'.96
1.94
1.56
1.59
1.31
3.92
3.03
2.94
1.90
1.24
1.29
1.65
3.48
. 3.01
1.69
2.15
2.58
3.34
4.41
0.23
1.73
1.88
0.61
1.51
1.54
0.90
1.26
1.02
1.77
2.16
1.73
3.52
Both sides 300' +
miles %
801
662
426
487
314
1176
1349
2068
1466
995
643
1062
1627
746
849
939
1067
911
946
2
347
629
197
212
678
71
349
277
788
1080
982
1238
23.6
29.7
23.9
26.7
20.9
26.1
38.8
61.2
67.1
69.7
43.5
56.1
40.7
21.6
43.7
38.1
36.0
23.8
18.7
0.8
17.5
29.1
28.1
12.2
38.3
6.9
24.1
23.7
38.7
43.6
49.5
30.7
Both sides 100' -300'
miles %
1573
1115
782
942
660
2243
2136
2598
1707
1129
875
1324
2346
1417
1220
1383
1617
1735
2119
9
845
1185
312
518
1124
187
658
447
1003
1483
1353
2031
46.3
50.1
43.8
51.7
44.0
49.9
61.4
76.9
78.2
79.1
59.1
70.0
58.7
41.0
62.8
56.1
54.6
45.3
41.8
3.5
42.7
54.8
44.5
29.8
63.5
18.2
45.3
38.1
49.3
59.9
68.2
50.3
One side 300' +
miles %
1554
1102
773
928
655
2235
2117
2737
1733
1151
888
1366
2349
1357
1229
1419
1606
1621
1934
9
749
1140
308
460
1079
169
637
448
1045
1530
1392
1971
45.7
49.5
43.3
50.9
43.7
49.7
60.9
81.0
79.4
80.6
60.0
72.1
58.8
39.2
63.3
57.6
54.2
42.3
38.2
3.3
37.8
52.7
43.8
26.5
60.9
16.4
43.9
38.2
51.4
61.8
70.2
48.8
One side 100' -300'
miles %
1856
1270
907
1105
775
2625
2393
2821
1806
1188
972
1436
2608
1727
1366
1576
1843
2063
2517
13
972
1340
342
606
1230
225
739
495
1112
1633
1491
2321
54.6
57.0
50.8
60.6
51.6
58.4
68.8
83.5
*. 82.7
83.2
65.7
75.9
65.3
49.9
70.3
64.0
62.2
53.8
49.7
4.9
49.1
62.0
48.8
34.9
69.5
21.8
50.9
42.3
54.7
65.9
75.1
57.5
Both sides < 100'
miles %
1544
956
879
718
726
1873
1084
559
377
239
508
457
1386
1731
576
888
1118
1771
2546
250
1009
822
359
1 132
541
806
712
677
922
844
493
1717
45.4
43.0
49.2
39.4
48.4
41.6
31.2
16.5
17.3
16.8
34.3
24.1
34.7
50.1
29.7
36.0
37.8
46.2
50.3
95.1
50.9
38.0
51.2
65.1
30.5
78.2
49.1
57.7
45.3
34.1
24.9
42.5
-------
Table 3. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 8-digit hydrologic units in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Watershed
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH
SHENANDOAH
MIDDLE POTOMAC-CATOCTIN
MONOCACY
MIDDLE POTOMAC-ANAOOSTIA-OCCOQUAN
LOWER POTOMAC
GREAT WICOMICO-PIANKATANK
RAPIDAN-UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK
MATTAPONI
PAMUNKEY
YORK
LYNNHAVEN-POQUOSON
WESTERN LOWER DELMARVA
UPPER JAMES
MAURY
MIDDLE JAMES-BUFFALO
RIVANNA
MIDDLE JAMES-WILLIS
LOWER JAMES
APPOMATTOX
HUCcode
2070005
2070006
2070007
2070008
2070009
2070010
207001 1
2080102
2080103
2080104
208010S
2080106
2080107
2080108
2080109
2080201
2080202
2080203
2080204
2080205
2080206
2080207
Stream length
miles %
1666
1135
449
1826
2225
1690
2731
1066
1923
2102
1626
2473
616
1482
813
3137
1051
3357
1000
1525
2819
2505
1.45
0.99
0.39
1.59
1.94
1.47
2.38
0.93
1.68
1.83
1.42
2.15
0.54
1.29
0.71
2.73
0.92
2.92
0.87
1.33
2.46
2.18
Both sides 300'
miles %
'' 479
381
72
386
437
415
1157
408
477
851
892
1000
147
88
35
1540
403
1403
272
536
795
1115
28.8
33.5
16. 1
21.1
19.6
24.6
42.4
38.2
24.8
40.5
54.8
40.4
23.9
5.9
4.3
49.1
38.3
41.8
27.2
35.1
28.2
44.5
Both sides 100'
miles % ^',
658
516
131
866
963
825
1618
543
786
1211
1200
1443
243
206
111
1951
576
2026
463
857
1306
1654
39.5
45.5
29.2
47.5
43.3
48.8
59.3
50.9
40.9
57.6
73.8
58.3
39.5
13.9
13.7
62.2
54.8
60.3
46.3
56.2
46.3
66.1
One side 300'
miles %
649
520
138
804
852
783
1637
563
785
1246
1228
1481
267
209
106
1998
584
2092
477
883
1339
1696
38.9
45.9
30.7
44.0
38.3
46.3
59.9
52.8
40.8
59.3
75.5
59.9
43.2
14.1
13.0
63.7
55.5
62.3
47.6
57.9
47.5
67.7
One side 100'
miles %
751
573
167
1023
1151
954
1751
590
914
1339
1288
1591
290
271
144
2114
639
2258
543
978
1498
1820
45.1
50.5
37.2
56.0
51.7
56.5
64.1
55.3
47.5
63.7
79.2
64.3
47.1
18.3
17.7
67.4
60.8
67.3
54.3
64.1
53.1
72.7
Both sides < 100'
miles %
915
562
282
803
1074
736
980
477
1009
763
338
882
326
1211
669
1023
412
1099
457
547
1321
685
54.9
49.5
62.8
44.0
48.3
43.5
35.9
44.7
52.5
36.3
20.8
35.7
52.9
81.7
82.3
32.6
39.2
32.7
45.7
35.9
46.9
27.3
-------
Table 4. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 8-digit hydrologic units in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Watershed
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA
CHENANOO
OWEOO-WAPPASENINO
TIOGA
CHEMUNO
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-TUNKHANNOCK
UPPER SUSQUEHANNA-LACKAWANNA
UPPER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
SINNEMAHON1NG
MIDDLE WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
| BALD EAGLE
[PINE
LOWER WEST BRANCH SUSQUEHANNA
LOWER SUSQUEHANNA-PENNS
UPPER JUNIATA
RAYSTOWN
LOWER JUNIATA
LOWER SUSQUEHANNA-SWATARA
LOWER SUSQUEHANNA
UPPER CHESAPEAKE BAY
CHESTER-SASSAFRAS
GUNPOWDER-PAT APSCO
SEVERN
CHOPTANK
PATUXENT
BLACKWATER-WICOMICO
NANTICOKE
POCOMOKE
SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC
CACAPON-TOWN
CONOCOCHEAGUE-OPEQUON
HUCcode
2050101
2050102
2050103
2050104
2050105
2050106
2050107
2050201
2050202
2050203
2050204
2050205
2050206
2050301
2050302
2050303
2050304
2050305
2050306
2060001
2060002
2060003
2060004
2060005
2060006
2060007
. 2060008
2060009
2070001
2070002
2070003
2070004
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb expo water
1.9! 0.1 1 2.6
3.3 1 0.1 j 2.0
: :
1 6! 0.41 4.7
: :
0.5! O.OJ 3.4
3.3! 0.3 1 4.7
:
0.0: 0.0 i 1.6
1.8J 1.9J 5.8
: :
2.0! 0.0: 1.5
3.5J 0.0! 0.5
0.1J 0.0 1 0.7
0.1 i 0.1 1 3.1
1.6| O.OJ 0.8
O.Oi 0.1 ! 2.3
0.8j O.lj 1.8
02J OOl 2.9
1.8J 0.0 1 0.9
0 l': 00* 09
59.2! 35.2i 0.0! 1.1
59.9J 33.8J O.OJ 0.8
.529! 396! 0 l! 07
66.5! 29.0J O.Oj 0.5
S3.2J 37.7J O.OJ 0.8
58.8:38.1: 0.0: 1.5
61.9! 25.9= 1.4! 1.3
83.9! 8.0! 3.8i 07
89.7! 5.5! 0.3! 0.4
90.6J 7.1 ! 0.5; i.o
: : :
709! 244: 07! 06
82.4 i I4.6J O.lj 0.4
65.9! 30.7! 0.1 S 1.0
53.8J 40.2J 1.4J 1.9
72 7! 23 7! 02! 03
68.1 1 27.3J O.l| 1.8
66 9l 31 3l O.ll 07
0.4! 0.9i 6.9i 466! 43.4! 0.3! 1.4
: . :
20! 06: 5.2
0.0 j O.lj 6.4
0.6 i 0.1 j 2.4
O.OJ 5.6| 16.4
0.0 ! 2.2J 18.2
0.3 j 0.2J 1.5
0.0: 1.3| 9.9
0.4! 0.2! 1.5
3.4! O.OJ 0.8
: :
2.9: O.Ol 1.2
7.8J O.OJ 2.9
o.o! o.o ! 0.8
.0.1J 0.3! 4.2
29 5 ! 60 2 1 0. 1 ! 24
11.3J 60. ij 0.4! 21.6
30.2J 6I.OJ O.l! 5.7
38.3J 35.4J 0.4; 3.9
48.4J 19.9J 0.2! 11.1
28.3J 61.51 0.1: 8.2
46.5! 36.3! O.lj 5.8
38.4! 57.6! O.Ol 1.9
: : :
48.fl! 44.1J O.OJ 3.6
:
68.6:26.9: 0.1: 0.3
70.2! 17.6J 0.9] 0.6
79.9= 18.8! O.OJ 05
47.8! 47.0! 0.1! 0.6
Land use statistics for the 300' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb expo
0.8
2.6
1 J
0.3
2.0
0.0
1.3
1.7
3.1
0.1
07
1.2
0.0
0.5
0 1
0.8
0.1
0.1
1 l
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.9
2.1
1 4
0.0! 4.5! 51.3! 35.9
O.OJ 3.4J 53^9! 34.8
: : :
00! 66! 474! 394
0.0| 7.6j 57.5; 30.1
0.0! 7.l! 48.3 j 36.1
0.0: 3.0: 54.7: 33.8
0.2! 5.9! 64.0! 18.5
O.o! 1.9! 84.7i 3.2
0.0 1 1.3! 84.1 ! 6.8
: ; :
.0.0! 1.5J 84.0J 7.1
00! 40! 647! 25.2
0.0j 1.9J 76.6! 14.8
0.0! 3.3! 63.1 ! 26.9
O.OJ 2.1 j 46.2 j 38.5
00! 38! 684! 23.4
O.OJ 1.4 j 62.6 1 29.6
O.O! 1.4! 589: 33.6
0.0
0.0
n i
0.0
0.0
0.0
03
04
0.0
0.0
ni
0.0
0.0
water
6.2
5.1
4 8
4.0
62
7.4
5?
5.3
3.5
5.7
3 '6
4.0
53
0.2 1 10.0
00! 2 2
0.1! 4.7
00! 4.8
O.l! 6.7! 48.7! 35.6! 01
00: 44! 444*! 41 7
: : :
O.OJ 3.7! 5.4J 48.2
O.O! 2.3 ! 43.1J 34.2
O.lj 11.0J 55.2J 21.8
O.l! 12.9! 47.7! 10.7
: : :
O.O! 0.7! 28.4! 49.1
O.l! 5.4! 64.6J 19.4
: : :
O.Oj 1.6! 19.9! 62.2
0.0: 0.9J 47.l! 45.6
02
6.5
7 ^
0.3! 42.3
O.lj 20.0
0.4J 8.7
0.3! 26.4
0.2! 21.0
O.lj 9.9
O.OJ 15.8
OOl 5.4
O.OJ 0.6! 41.2! 40.6! 0.2
: : : :
0.0! 39! 56. l! 356! 01
. j ...^ .... __ .r_ _
7.6! 0.0| 5.9J 65.9| 17.0
oo! o.o! i si 746? 3on
01
0.0! 3.1! 53.9! 39.5
0.4
00
01
15.4
3.0
3.1
3 9
33
Land use statistics for the 100' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb expo
0.8! O.I
2.6
1 5
0.1
ni
0.3! 0.0
20! 0.3
o.o! o.o
1.3
1.7
1.5
00
3.l! .0.0
:
0.1 j 0.0
02J 0.2
1.2
0.0
0.5
0 1
0.8
0.1
01
1 i
o.o
0.0
0.1
00
0.0
0.0
0.6
04
O.Oj 0.2
0.3! 0.1
0.0 ! 2.6
o.o! 2.0
0.2! 0.5
0.0: 0.5
:
0.0 1 0.6
0.9! 0.2
2.1
1.4
0.0
0.0
7.6J 0.0
oo! on
01
ni
4.5! 54.11 32.2
00
3.2J 56.6J 31.5J 0.0
6 8! 502! 36 \'i 00
7.5J 60.4; 26.2 0.1
66! 51.0! 32.9! 00
3.o! 57.7! 29.7
5.7J 67.7! 15.4
1.6! 84.0! 2.3
1.3 1 83. l! 6.4
1.4J 83.5J 6.6
3 7! 65 6! 22.9
1.8J 76.2J 13.5
3.4! 65.0! 23.6
1.9 j 49.2! 34.0
3 4: 70 O! 20.9
: :
1.3 j 63.7! 27.0
1.2! 61.5! 30.3
6.3J 52.7! 30.5
44! 48 7J 356
3.4J 5.0J 45.0
2.2J 47.9! 28.0
10.4J 59.2! 18.1
11.8J48.7J 9.4
0.6i 31. l! 45.0
4.8J 686I 153
1.4J 20.5J 60.4
0.7! 50.4J 42.0
0.5j 42.3J 39.3
4.8! 55.0! 34.5
6.0J 66.0J 16.1
1 5: 75 l! 17.9
2.9! 56.8! 36.2
0.1
1 8
17
0.2
0.1
06
0.1
0.1
1.3
0 1
water
7.2
5.9
5 2
5.1
71
8.5
4.8
74
4.9
6.8
5.2
5.9
6.5
11.6
14
O.lj 6.3
0.1 i 58
0.4
02
0.4
O.I
0.3
0.2
0?
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.4
00
0 1
8.1
9.4
46.1
21.6
9.3
27.8
22.4
10.8
17.1
5.9
15.6
4.2
3.8
5.5
38
; nodaia - EMAP data unavailable
! low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - woody
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 4. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 8-digit hydrologic units in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
Watershed
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH
SHENANDOAH
MIDDLE POTOMA&CATOCTIN
MONOCACY
MIDDLE POTOMAC-ANACOSTIA-OCCOQUAN
LOWER POTOMAC
GREAT WiCOMICO-PlAMKATANK
RAPIDAN-UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK
MATTAPONI -
PAMUNKEY
YORK
LYNNHAVEN-POQUOSON
WESTERN LOWER DELMARVA
UPPER JAMES
MAURY
MIDDLE JAMES-BUFFALO
RIVANNA
MIDDLE JAMES- WILLIS
LOWER JAMES
APPOMATTOX
HUCcode
2070005
2070006
2070007
2070008
2070009
2070010
2070011
2080102
2080103
2080104
2080105
2080106
2080107
2080108
2080109
2080201.
2080202
2080203
2080204
2080205
2080206
2080207
Land use statistics Tor the entire watershed
nodat
00
0.0
low high
03' 32
0.1J 2.0
0.2 i 0.1
0.0
1.8
1.4! 8.7
wood herb expo water
51 2
57.7
44.8: 00: 0.5
39.7: O.l! 0.4
39.4 57.0; 0.2; 1.4
39.5: 49.1: 0.0: 1.3
0.0 i 0.2 j 4.6 1 36.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
9.8
no
5.4
00
28
00
0.0
3.6
3.3
5.6
248
0.3 3.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
04
7.2
0.1
0.1
2.0
0.9
2.4
0.8
1.3
8.2
353
57.8! 0.2 1 0.4
30.1! 0.2! 4.0
: "~\ :
58.0
27.6! O.l! 10.2
: :
58.8: 29.7: 0.2: 9.3
507
58.2
67.9
59.8
45.6
29.1! 19.6
1.2
02 29
0 1
U.I
01
0.8
1.6
0.3
28
3.0
5.4
114
76.1
706
69 5
48.0: O.l! 0.3
33.6! O.l! 5.7
29.8! 0.0! 1.5
35.4: O.l! 3.2
26.2! O.I! 19.5
: :
23.3: 0.5| 10.4
55.5J 0.4! 9.5
16.6J 0.1 j 0.5
26 fl! O.o! 03
: :
219: 00! OS
61.5! 34.6! 0.0; 0.7
58.2! 34.1 1 O.Oj 1.4
12.5 1 49.0
3.0
26.5! 0.2! 6.5
60.6 31.7! 0.0! 1.2
Land use statistics for the 300' Buffer
nodat low high
00- 00: 36
O.OJ O.OJ 3.0
wood herb expo
442= 434: 0.0
50.4 ! 43. l| 0.2
0.2! 0.0! 1.5! 37.8! 47.1] 0.1
O.Oj 0.1 j 4.8
0.0! 0.0! 3.8
0.0: 0.2: 13.8
O.Oj O.Oj 2.3
0.0! 0.0: 1.1
i :
O.l! 0.0 ! 1.0
o.o! o.o! 1.3
o.o! o.o! 0.9
O.l! 0.0: 0.9
o.o! o.o! 4.0
4.3! O.l! 16.4
o.o! o.o! 0.3
3.5J 0.0! 2.8
00: 00: 5.9
: :
50.1J 39.8! 0.0
45.5! 47.71 0.2
51.3: 26.2! 0.2
61.9! 16.7; 0.2
water
6.4
3.2
13.1
4.5
2.7
6.0
18.7
50.3! 20.9! 0.9! 26.8
45.3! 51.31 0.1
2.2
61.2? 19.5J 0.2! 17.8
76.6! 15.7! 0.0
6.8
63.7J 22.6J 0.3? 12.4
47.3! 25.3! 0.0! 23.2
20.6 ! 21.3J 0.2
18.21 37.8J 1.0
67.1:23.2! 0.1
60.2: 31.5! 0.0
23: 0.0: 2.1! 665: 21.1: 0.1
: :
0.0! 0.0! 2.6! 54.8! 37.1; 0.0
0.1J O.OJ 2.9J 62.6! 25.5! 0.0
2.0! 0.0! 5.6J 53.4; 17.2J 0.2
: :
i :
2.4! 0.0! 1.7: 70.6! 18.9! 0.0
32.5
42.6
3.2
2 1
58
5.4
8.8
21.1
6.2
Land use statistics for the 100' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb expo water
00? 0.3! 3.9! 44.81 42.9! O.o! 8.0
O.OJ O.lj 3.4
50.6! 40.0J 0.2J 5.8
0.2! O.l! 1.3 37.6146.2! O.l! 14.5
O.lj 0.4: 4.1 55.0: 35.5J O.Oj 4.7
O.OJ O.l! 3.6
0.0: 2.0! 12.3
O.Oj 0.3! 2.0
0.0: O.Oj 0.9
o.i; o.o! i.O
0.0 j 0.0 1 1.2
0.0 i 0.0! 0.8
O.lj 0.0! 0.8
o.o! o.i; 3.3
50.4J 41.8J 0.2 j 4.0
Sl.il 23.4! 0.2! 6.5
63.0) 14.1) 0.3 j 20.3
50.1: 17.7S 1.1: 30.2
47.1 J49.0! 0.2! 2.7
62.0 j 16.8J 0.3J 19.8
78.6! 13.0! 0.0; 7.6
64.2: 19.9J 0.5j 14.5
46.8! 23.8! 0.0! 25.9
4.3J 4.8! 14.4J 20.1 ! 19.7: 0.2J 36.4
0.0! 0.3! 0.2
3.6J O.lj 2.7
18.1 i 34.5; 1:2! 45.8
67.3 j 22.0! O.l! 4.2
00: oil 5.7! 60.8! 29.9! oo! 33
23: 01: 1.8:67.1:21.7! 01! 67
; . :
o.o! o.o; 2.3
O.l! 0.2J 2.5
54.7! 36.2! O.l! 6.7
64.0! 23.3! O.OJ 10.0
2.0; 0.6! 4.8; 53.8J 14.6J 0.2! 24.0
::;:::
2.4! 0.2! 1.4! 72.4! 16.2! 0.0 i 7.3
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low low intensity developed
intensity developed
wood - woody
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 5. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland
ID
1
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Watershed
BROAD CREEK
POCOMOKE SOUND
LOWER POCOMOKE RIVER
UPPER POCOMOKE RIVER
DIVIDING CREEK
NASSAWANGO CREEK
TANGIER SOUND
BIG ANNEMESSEX RIVER
MANOKIN RIVER
LOWER WICOMICO RIVER
MONIE BAY
WICOMICO CREEK
WICOMICO RIVER HEAD
NANTICOKE RIVER
MARSHYHOPE CREEK
FISHING BAY
TRANSQUAKING RIVER
HONGA RIVER
LITTLE CIIOPTANK
LOWER CHOFFANK
UPPER CIIOPTANK
TUCKAHOE CREEK
EASTERN BAY
MILES RIVER
WYE RIVER
KENT NARROWS
LOWER CHESTER RIVER
LANGFORD CREEK
CORSICA RIVER
SOUTHEAST CREEK
MIDDLE CHESTER RIVER
UPPER CHESTER RIVER
Md-lD
2120205
2130201
2130202
2130203
2130204
2130205
2130206 .
2130207
2130208
2130301
2130302
2130303
2130304
2130305
2130306
2130307
2130308
2130401
2130402
2130403
2130404
2130405
2130501
2130502
2130503
2130504
2130505
2130506
2130507
2130508
2130509
2130510
Stream Length
miles %
62.0J 0.33
150.8! 0.80
:
201. 8j 1.07
I25.8J 0.67
57.4 1 0.30
60.2! 0.32
j
215.1! 1.14
115.7J 0.61
204.4! , 1.08
i
206.91 1.10
73.2J 0.39
44.4! 0.24
62.6: 0.33
404.4! 2.14
291.7J 1.55
499.1! 2.64
246.6! 1.31
212.2J 1.12
222.7J 1.18
603.0 j 3.20
539.7J 2.86
352.1J 1.87
104.8J 0.56
133.6! 0.71
175.2! 0.93
49.9J 0.26
201.0! 1.06
93.3! 0.49
65.4! 0.35
99.8! 0.53
88.6: 0.47
219.9! 1.17
Both sides 300'+
miles %
19.3: 26.3
9.8! 31.5
69.3 ! 42.5
56.7; 31.2
40.9 j 26.4
34.9] 6.5
0.5! 34.4
6.0J 45.0
23.9J 71.2
15.1 j 57.9
3.3! 0.2
. 6.1J 5.2
14.3; 11.7
50.6! 7.3
60. l! 4.5
10.9; 13.8
22.1 j 22.9
6.1; 12.5
4.8! 20.6
I5.6J 2.2
100.9! 9.0
5 1.3 j 2.9
0.71 2.1
5.2J 2.6
1I.5J 18.7
O.I! 14.6
9.4 j 0.7
6.8J 3.9
9.8! 6.6
14.1] 0.3
7.9! 4.7
42.2! 7.3
Both sides 100-300'
miles %
37.8! 54.4
30.2J 66.4
126.2; 61.0
72.8! 61.0
49.9J 35.4
44.4! 20.0
2.8J 62.5
17.4 j 57.8
50.0J 86.9
47.9J 73.8
6.0J 1.3
14.3J 15.0
32.2! 24.5
101.0J 23.2
136.3J 8.2
28.6! 32.3
58.7! 51.4
8.8J 25.0
ll.OJ 46.7
78.3J 5.7
245.HJ 23.8
124.6J 4.2
3.9! 5.0
18.3J 13.0
44.7! 45.5
2.0J 35.4
33.7! 3.7
25.4J 13.7
32.4! 25.5
50.7! 3.9
31.5J 16.8
108.8J 27.2
One side 300'+
miles %
36.7J 30.7
29.1J 63.9
127.9 62.5
72.8
59.3
50.2 37.2
44.3! 19.3
2.6 63.4
17.9 57.9
48.4 87.4
41.3J 73.7
5.9J . 1.2
12.6
29.5
97.2
128.3
26.0
15.5
23.7
19.9
8.1
28.3
:
54.3! 47.2
9.7J 24.0
12.3! 44.0
63.7J 5.2
217.8
105.5
3.6
15.2
36.5
22.0
4.6
5.5
10.6
40.4
1.9! 30.0
29.7
20.1
3.4
11.4
23.5 . 20.8
40.2 3.8
25.6 14.8
94.3 j 21.6
One side
miles
43.1
37.7
138.8
75.5
51.3
46.2
4.2
22.3
59.1
55.8
6.8
16.7
100-300*
59.7
75.1
65.2
69.6
37.5
25.0
68.8
60.0
89.4
76.7
2.0
19.2
36. ij 28.9
117.4
27.0
154.8J 9.3
37.0
37.6
72.9; 57.6
11.3
14.6
101.9
278.7
147.5
5.7
23.8
55.2
29.0
53.1
7.4
29.5
5.3
6.6
16.9
51.6
3.2J 41.9
41.1
29.9
36.0
5.5
17.8
31.5
58.0! 6.4
36.1
124.2
20.5
32.1
Both sides < 100'
miles %
18.8 j 40.3
1 13.0; 24.9
63.1 34.8
50.3
30.4
6.1: 62.5
14.0
210.9
75.0
31.2
93.4 j 40.0
i
145.3
151.2
66.4
27.7
10.6
23.3
98.0
80.8
J
26.5[ 71.1
287.0] 73.0
136.9 1 90.7
462.0: 62.4
173.8; 42.4
200.9 71.0
208.1
46.9
50 1.1 1 92.6
261.0J 70.5
204.6; 94.7
99.0! 93.4
109.9; 83.1
120.0
46.7
139.8
48.4
58.1
94.5
63.4 82.2
i
29.3! 68.5
41.7
93.6
. 52.4 1 79.5
95.6 j 67.9
-------
Table 5. Riparian.forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland
ID
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Watershed
KENT ISLAND BAY
LOWER ELK RIVER
BOHEMIA RIVER
UPPER ELK RIVER
BACK CREEK
LITTLE ELK CREEK
BIO ELK CREEK
CHRISTIANA RIVER
NORTHEAST RIVER
FURNACE BAY
SASSAFRAS RIVER
STILLPOND-FA1RLEE
BUSH RIVER
LOWER WINTERS RUN
ATKISSON RESERVOIR
BYNUMRUN
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
SWAN CREEK
Gl/NPOWDKR RIVER
IjOWER GUNPOWDER FALLS
BIRD RIVER
LITTLE GUNPOWDER FALLS
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
PRETTYBOY RESERVOIR
MIDDLE RIVER BROWNS
BACK RIVER
BODKIN CREEK
BALTIMORE HARBOR
JONES FALLS
GWYNNS FALLS
PATAPSCO RIVER - L.N. BR.
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
Md-ID
2130511
2130601
2130602
2130603
2130604
2130605
2130606
2130607
2130608
2130609
2130610
2130611
2130701
2130702
2130703
2130704
2130705
2130706
2130801
2130802
2130803
2130804
2130805
2130806
2130807
2130901
2130902
2130903
2130904
2130905
2130906
2130907
Stream Length
miles %
34.1! 0.18
95.5J 0.51
76.41 0.41
81.7: 0:43
29.4; 0.16
39.5! 0.21
26.2 j 0.14
l.o; o.oi
11 6.3 i 0.62
4I.8J 0.22
I43.8J 0.76
110.6! 0.59
49.4J 0.26
21.9: 0.12
56.4J 0.30
25.4J 0.13
39.5; 0.21
36.1 j 0.19
67.3; 0.36
49.1 j 0.26
35.3; 0.19
78.9! 0.42
:
426.4; 2.26
I36.4J 0.72
35.2J 0.19
89.2 1 0.47
25.9J 0.14
163.2! 0.87
93.2J 0.49
109.0 1 0.58
220.7J 1.17
350.3! 1.86
Both sides 300'+
miles %
0.5
24.6
15.1
14.1
II.8J 8.9
332
19.2
5.4; 1.5
12.9
13.4
0.2
46.0
11.9
16.2
11. 1
. 18.6
6.3
19.7
8.7
12.3
13.4
2.6
25.7
15.5
40.7
18.3
32.5
51.1
20.7
39.6
28.4
11.3
10.0
37.6
28.7
34.9
15.9! 34.2
3.4
32.5
31.1
37.2
174.4! 3.9
36.0
0.2
3.2
1.6
2.1
21.2
18.0
32.5
9.8
41.2
40.9
26.4
0.5
:
3.6
76. Ij 6.2
110.9
1.3
Both sides
miles
2.6:
41.2J
35.3J
48.5 i
I2.7|
27.4 j
21.2
0.5 !
74.5J
24.3 i
51.3;
39.1:
31.2]
13.3
38.3
I6.5i
17.8
25.3
9.3
100-300'
49.5
50.8
35.6
49.5
7.5
43.2
46.2
59.4
43.2
69.2
80,7
53.8
64.1
58.1
35.7
35.3
63.2
60.9
68.0
26.3 j 65.1
11.4
45.0
56.5! 70.0
288.4! 13.8
74.3! 53.5
1.6
14.1
5.1
11.9
44.8
32.4
71.6
67.7
54.4
4.5
44.4) j 15.8
I26.7J 19.5
222.7
7.3
One side 300'+
miles %
1.8; 36.0
41.2! 40.3
33.2J 29.0
50.4: 42.9
11.9
5.4
25.2: 43.2
20.9 43.4
0.5 61.7
72.7
40.3
22.3i 63.7
;
44.7J 79.7
34.6
29.5
12.8
36.9
53.4
62.5
53.4
31.1
15.6 31.3
17.6
24.1
10.4
59.8
58.4
65.5
26.2 61.4
11 .Oj 44.5
53.8! 66.7
278.5; 15.5
75.0! 53.4
2.0
31.1
11.7 68.2
5.3
10.5
40.8
65.3
55.0
5.7
40.3 { 13.1
125.0J 20.5
215.3J 6.4
One side
mites
3.2
46.4
:
42.6
52.8
14.5
30.8
22.9
0.6
100-300'
55.1
58.2
40.8
56.5
9.2
48.6
55.7
64.6
80.7! 49.2
27.8 j 78.0
62.9 j 87.4
46.2
59.5
34.4 j 69.4
15.4
42.9
18.4
19.0
27.5
12.2
29.8
13.5
62.0
318.1
86.3
2.4
18.8
66.7
43.7
41.7
69.7
70.2
76.1
72.7
48.2
76.2
18.1
60.7
38.4
78.5
5.9J 74.6
15.2: 63.3
52.0
54.0
142.1
250.1
6.9
21.1
22.8
9.3
Both sides < 100'
miles %
31.0
49.1
33.8
28.9
44.9
41.8
59.2
43.5
15.0J 90.8
8.7
3.3
0.4
51.4
44.3
35.4
35.6J 50.8
13.9
80.9
64.4
15.0
6.5
13.5
6.9
20.4
8.6
55.1
19.3
21.7
17.0
108.2
50.1
32.8
22.0
12.6
40.5
30.6
33.3
56.3
58.3
30.3
29.8
23.9
27.3
51.8
23.8
81.9
39.3
61.6
70.4: 21.5
20.0
148.1
41.2
55.0
25.4
36.7
93.1
78.9
78.6 j 77.2
100.2
! 90.7
-------
Table 5. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland
ID
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Watershed
PATAPSCO RIVER - S. BR.
MAGOTHY RIVER
SEVERN RIVER
SOUTH RIVER
WEST RIVER
WEST CHESAPEAKE BAY '
PATUXENT RIVER - FERRY LDG. TO MOUT
PATUXENT RIVER - RT. 214 TO FERRY LD
WESTERN BRANCH
PATUXENT RIVER - UPPER
LITTLE PATUXENT RIVER
PATUXENT RIVER - MIDDLE
ROCKY GORGE DAM
BRIGHTON DAM
POTOMAC RIVER - L. TIDAL
POTOMAC RIVER
ST. MARY'S RIVER'
BRETON BAY
ST. CLEMENT BAY
W1COM1CO RIVER
GILBERT SWAMP
ZEK1AH SWAMP
PORT TOBACCO RIVER
NANJEMOY CREEK
MATTAWOMAN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - U. TIDAL
POTOMAC RIVER - MO CTY.
PISCATAWAY CREEK
OXEN CREEK DR.
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ROCK CREEK
CABIN JOHN CREEK
Md-ID
2130908
2131001
2131002
2131003
2131004
2131005
2131101
2131102
2131103
2131104
2131105
2131106
2131107
2131108
2140101
2140102
2140103
2140104
2140105
2140106
2140107
2140108
2140109
2140110
2140111
2140201
2140202
2140203
2140204
2140205
2140206
2140207
Stream Length
miles %
203.6
1.08
85.7J 0.45
173.5
131.5
80.7
220.5
763.3
234.6
110.1
161.9
186.2
111.8
121.6
0.92
0.70
0.43
1.17
4.04
1.24
0.58
0.86
0.99
0.59
0.64
177.8J 0.94
256.3
71.7
1.36
0.38
174.4] 0.92
80.5
81.3
187.9
0.43
0.43
1.00
101.0 0.54
241.8
89.8
138.4
158.6
36.9
198.4
70.1
9.8
1.28
0.48
0.73
0.84
0.20
-
1.05
0.37
0.05
166.2 1 0.88
52.5 1 0.28
20.9
! 0.11
Both sides 300'+
miles %
555
5.3
32.2
43.5
13.7
86.5
285.9
22.7
16.5
34.5
31.7
27.3
6.1
18.6
78.9: 33.1
37.2
84.6
54.4
45.1
17.0
39.2
37.5
33.6
51.7J 33.8
59.1
39.6
27.3
67.7
33.0
27.9
64.8
52.8
52.3
29.2
40.3
42.6
33.3
15.5
38.1
38.8
154.4] 41.0
40.7
73.6
82.7
10.4
50.0
29.7
0.9
39.4
18.3
34.3
34.5
52.3
63.8
45.4
53.'2
52.2
28.1
25.2
6.8! 42.4
Both sides 100-300'
miles %
120.1
18.2
62.7
61.8
27.4
118.1
430.0
152.6
66.7
123.5
106.0
80.0
85.3
48.1
40.4
57.4
63.6
59.0
21.3
36.1
47.0
33.9
53.6
56.3
65.1
60.6
112.3J 76.3
64.6
34.8
94.7
46.5
41.4
98.5
76.7
202.3
58.8
91.0
114.0
19.3
110.9
53.0
4.1
78.9
37.0
13.5
57.0
71.5
70.1
63.2
25.2
48.6
54.3
57.7
50.9
52.4
76.0
83.7
65.5
65.8
71.9
52.2
55.9
75.6
One side 300'+
miles %
113.8! 43.8
i
16.7
60.3
37.0
56.7
60.3 1 61.5
26.2 55.9
120.7J 19.5
425.8' 34.7
145.1
64.2
45.8
32.5
1
119:7: 54.7
95.7
55.8
74.4 61.8
85.0
102.8
64.9
58.3
74.0
51.4
37.3 ! 66.5
' 95.0
69.9
46.4] 57.8
40.2J 25.3
96.3 ! 52.0
75.6J 54.5
198.7J 57.7
58.7J 49.5
92.5
51.3
115.5 74.8
18.0
82.2
112.7J 65.4
49.9
3.2
66.9
72.9
71.7 48.9
32.4J 56.8
11.3 71.2
Ohe side
miles
138.3
21.8
71.2
65.0
31.1
127.8
461.0
100-300'
H
55.8
49.5
64.4
71.4
68.0
25.4
41.1
170. ij 49.4
74.6
38.5
132.31 57.9
120.9
89.2
60.4
72.5
93.1! 67.7
126.ll 81.8
75.1
65.0
38.6J 79.7
100.7
49.4
43.9
105.5
81.7
76.6
70.9
29.3
53.8
57.7
210.8 61.3
63.2
95.8
122.8
22.8
132.2
57.6
4.7
91.6
40.2
14.9
54.0
56.1
80.9
87.2
70.3
69.2
77.5
61.8
66.6
82.2
Both sides < 100'
mites %
65.2
63.9
102.3
66.5
49.6
92.8
302.3
44.2
50.5
35.6
28.6
32.0
74.6
58.9
64.5 50.6
35.5
29.5
61.5
42,1
65.2! 39.6
22.7
27.5
28.5! 32.3
51.6
18.2
181.2! 35.0
33. ij 20.3
73.7J 23.4
31.2 29.1
37.4
82.4
19.3
31.0
70.7
46.2
42.3
38.7
26.7 46.0
42.6 43.9
35.7
14.1
66.2
12,5
5.1
74.6
12.3
6.0
19.1
12.8
29.7
30.8
22.5
38.2
33.4
17.8
09
-------
Table 5. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland
ID
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
128
130
131
132
133
134
Watershed
SENECA CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER
LOWER MONOCACY RIVER
UPPER MONOCACY RIVER
DOUBLE PIPE CREEK
CATOCTIN CREEK '
POTOMAC RIVER
ANTIETAM CREEK
MARSH RUN
CONOCOCHEAQUE CREEK
LITTLE CONOCOCHEAQUE
LICKING CREEK
TONOLOWAY CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - AL CTY.
LITTLE TONOLOWAY CREEK
SIDELING HILL CREEK
FIFTEEN MILE CREEK
TOWN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - L.N. BR.
EV1TTS CREEK
WILLS CREEK
GEORGES CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - U.N. BR.
SAVAGE RIVER
DEEP CREEK LAKE
MAIN BAY WATERSHED
CONOWINGO DAM
L. SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
DEER CREEK
OCTORARO CREEK
Md-ID
2140208
2140301
2140302
2140303
2140304
2140305
2140501
2140502
2140503
2140504
2140505
2140506
2140507
2140508
2140509
2140510
2140511
2140512
2141001
2141002
2141003
2141004
2141005
2141006
5020203
2999
2120204
2120201
2120202
2120203
Stream Length
miles %
195.7
119.3
743.0
1.04
0.63
3.94
518.7J 2.75
410.2
209.5
194.9
230.7
2.17
1.11
1.03
1.22
16.3! 0.09
89.4
0.47
20.4 i 0.11
39.8
3.8
123.9
23.5
32.7
81.4
125.5
340.6
73.6
107.2
117.9
219.4
244.3
8.7
140.1
34.8
73.3
0.21
0.02
0.66
0.12
0.17
0.43
0.67
1.81
0.39
0.57
0.62
1.16
1.29
0.05
0.74
0.18
0.39
266.9 j 1.41
66.2
0.35
Both sides 300'+
miles %
60.1; 9.3
:
7.7: 23.7
151.5J 34.8
i
118.3: 32.6
47.2 j 30.7
35.0J 6.5
24.0 i 20.4
27.9 1 22.8
I.OJ 11.5
2.2: 16.7
4.8J 12.3
25.1 1 12.1
0.8J 5.9
38.3 j 2.4
II.5J 23.6
23.8J 63.1
66.0 j 20.5
58.9 1 30.9
129.8; 48.8
22.7: 72.9
48. ij 81.1
61.2J 46.9
88.5 j 38.1
:
lll.OJ 30.8
1.1; 44.9
0.2J 51.9
14.8J 40.4
19.3 1 45.4
94.2J 12.8
20.8 ! 0.1
Both sides 100-300'
miles %
124.7J 41.5
34.2 i 47.5
327.2
220.6
70.4
64.7
152.9! 63.7
81.1
64.2
67.6
28.7
44.0
42.5
2.5 j 37.3
11.6! 38.7
9.1
33.0
33.6 29.3
2.7
15.3
61.4J 13.0
:
I8.7J 44.6
28.2J 84.5
73.0
70.4
87.3 1 49.6
I87.4J 79.8
36.2: 86.3
67.7
89.6
85.9 69.6
126.9! 55.0
130.7
49.1
2.4 63.1
1.4J 72.9
2 1.3 { 57.8
39.9
169.7
44.0
53.5
27.7
1.0
One side 300'+
miles %
112.4J 32.6
32.8J 43.2
301.3J 61.7
199.3 ! 54.1
124.2J 57.5
71.9J 27.5
68.7J 40.6
58.1
2.1
10.4
8.6
34.5
2.8
71.8
19.0
38.4
30.3
34.3
35.2
25.2
12.8
11.6
42.3
28.4 1 86.8
i
74.2 j 73.3
89.9 1 57.9
193.2) 81.0
38.4
70.4
87.1
87.0
91.1
71.6
135.2; 56.7
133.1
2.5
52.1
65.7
2.1 73.9
21.8J 61.6
37.2 1 54.5
163.6J 28.3
42.3J 1.5
One side 100-300'
miles %
139.6J 47.8
45.5 55. h
389.0! 76.5
263.4J 71.1
190.1J 71.3
98.0! 38.2
87.8J 52.4
83.5
3.3
16.3
10.9
35.9
50.8
46.4
46.8
45.1
36.2
3.2 j 20.2
79.6 1 18.2
20.4! 53.6
29.2 1 90.2
J
75.5 83.2
96.9
212.3
64.2
87.0
42.1 89.2
75.5 92.8
92.1
141.7
77.2
62.3
135.2
2.6
2.9
22.7
57.2
70.4
78.1
64.6
43.8 55.3
192.5 30.1
49.7 2.0
Both sides < 100'
miles %
56.1! 52.2
I
73. 8j 44.9
354.0; 23.5
255.3 1 28.9
220.0J 28.7
111.4! 61.8
107.1
147.2
47.6
49.2
13.0 53.6
73.1 53.2
9,5j 54.9
3.9
0.6
44.3
3.1
3,5
63.8
79.8
81.8
46.4
9.8
5.8 16.8
28.6 1 35.8
128.4! 13.0
3I.5J 10.8
31.7J 7.2
25.8J 22.8
77.6J 37.7
109.1
6.1
137.3
12.1
29.6
42.8
29.6
21.9
35.4
44.7
74.4J 69.9
16.5] 98.0
-------
Table 6. Land use data wihin 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland.
ID
1
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Watershed ,
BROAD CREEK
POCOMOKE SOUND
LOWER POCOMOKE RIVER
UPPER POCOMOKE RIVER
DIVIDING CREEK
NASSAWANGO CREEK
TANGIER SOUND
BIG ANNEMESSEX RIVER
MANOKIN RIVER
LOWER WICOMICO RIVER
MONIE BAY
WICOMICO CREEK
WICOMICO RIVER HEAD
NANTICOKE RIVER
MARSHYHOPE CREEK
FISHING BAY
TRANSQUAKING RIVER
HONGA RIVER
LITTLE CHOPTANK
LOWER CHOPTANK
UPPER CHOITANK
TUCKAHOE CREEK
EASTERN BAY
MILES RIVER
WYE RIVER
KENT NARROWS
LOWER CHESTER RIVER
LANGFORD CREEK
CORSICA RIVER .
SOUTHEAST CREEK
MIDDLE CHESTER RIVER
UPPER CHESTER RIVER
Md-ID
2120205
2130201
2130202
2130203
2130204
2130205
2130206
2130207
2130208
2130301
2130302
2130303
2130304
2130305
2130306
2130307
2130308
2130401
2130402
2130403
2130404
2130405
2130501
2130502
2130503
2130504
2130505
2130506
2130507
2130508
2130509
2130510
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodal low high wood herb exp water
0.0! O.OJ 1.0J 46.1J S2.9J O.OJ 0.0
O.Oj O.Oj 0.3| 33.2! 41.21 O.Oj 25.3
0.8: 0.1J 1.6J 55.7J 41.8J O.OJ 0.0
12.9! O.fli 0.5i 42.0i 44.6! o.Q: 0.0
O.Oj O.OJ O.l! 72.0 1 27.9 j O.Oj 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ O.Oj 62.6; 37.2J O.Oj 0.1
O.Oj O.Oj 0.8: 2.6J 13.1 1 0.2! 83.3
O.oi O.oi 0.7! 43.8i 55.2; 0.3J 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ 1.2J 43.1J 55.6! 0.1: 0.0
0.0! l 6- 7.4! 33.6i 51.2! O.oi 6.1
! ; : : :
00: 00! 01!367!493! 00:138
0.0! 0.2! 0.6i 45.6! 51.4J O.Oi 2.1
0.0! 2.2; 8.9! 40.0! 48.7: 0.0! 0.3
0.0! o.li 0.9i 35.9! 49.9J 0.0! 13.2
O.Oj 0.2! 1.7! 36.9! 59.7! 0.0! 1.5
0.0! O.l! 0.2i 24.6! 51.8! Q.O! 23.3
0.0! O.l! 0.3! 37.5 J 60;2j 0.0: 2.0
O.Oj 1.0! 0.3i 25.9! 72.2J 0.6J 0.0
0.0! 0.6! 0.2! 40.0! 59.0! 0.2J 0.0
O.Oj 0.9J 4.9! 24.6J 69.3! 0.2J 0.0
O.Oj O.OJ I.OJ 30.0J 66.0J 0.0: 2.9
O.Oj O.Oj 0.4j 25.9; 72.7! o.OJ 1.0
0.0: O.Oj 2.8! 5.8! 18.3! 0.0; 73.2
O.Oj 0.1J 5.6J 22.9; 49.3J O.Oj 22.2
0.0: O.OJ 1.2J 21.0; 65.4J 0.0! 12.4
O.Oj O.OJ 6.1J 15.7J 33.6J O.Oj 44.6
0.0i O.OJ 1.9: 16.4! 36.6J O.OJ 45.2
O.OJ O.Oj 0.1 j 18.5J 68.9; O.Oj 12.5
O.Oj O.OJ 1.9J 25.6J 66.71 0.0! 5.9
O.Oj O.Oj 0.4J 26.9J 70.5! O.Oj 2.2
0.0! O.OJ 3.3: 12.1 1 84.5J 0.0: 0.0
O.OJ O.Oj 0.6! 29.5J 68.3! O.Oj 1.6
Land use statistics for the 300' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0: 0.0! l.lj 63.2! 32.5
0.0; 0.0; 0.0; 26.1 j 55.8
1.1! 0.0; 0.5J 64.0J 24.1
12.8! O.fli 0.2! 58.5! 28.5
O.Oj 3.3
O.Oj 18.2
O.OJ 10.4
0.0! 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ O.Oj 86.7! 13.3: O.OJ 0.0
O.Oj 0.0j O.lj 73. 8j 25.9J 0.0; 0.1
O.OJ O.Oi 1.5J 2.6J 45.7J 1.5J 48.7
0.0; O.OJ 0.7j 20.8i 47.oi 0.9j 30.6
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6J 28.0J 47.9! 0.5! 23.1
0.0! o.fli 5.2! 24.6i 53.6i O.fli 15.0
OOi 00! 00! 92J710I 00! 197
O.Oj 0.2i 0.8i 33.4i 44.5
O.oi O.li 8.li 50.7i 34.4
! : : !
0.0! 0.0! 0.5! 28.U 55.8
O.Oj 0.0: 1.6J 47.1! 45.3
O.O! O.fl! O.li 8.4i'67.8
O.OJ 0.0: 0.3; 30.0J 60.4
o.oi o.oi o.2i 7.oi 50.8
Oioi O.OJ O.lj 8.7J 41.4
0.0; 0.0! 1.9! 14.9! 42.5
0.0! 0.0: 0.6! 44.5! 46.3
O.Oi 0.0! 0.2! 35.8J 58.9
O.Oj 0.0! 3.8; 6.8J 33.9
O.Oj O.OJ 6.0! 15.8J 46.4
O.OJ O.Oj 1.7J 27.3! 36.7
O.Oj 0.0 i 5.6 i 6.3 j 35.4
O.OJ 0.0: 2.2J 18.9J 36.3
O.Oj O.OJ 0.0! 28.3; 41.8
O.OJ 0.0! 0.9: 44.6! 37.7
O.OJ O.OJ 0.3; 46.6; 43.6
O.OJ O.OJ 2.7J 36.0J 39.3
O.Oj O.OJ 0.6; 47.7; 43.7
O.Oj 20.3
0.0 j 4.5
O.Oj 15.2
O.oi 5.6
:
O.O! 23.4
O.OJ 9.1
l.OJ 40.0
0.2! 48.1
0.4i 39.2
0.0: 8.6
0.0!; 5.1
O.OJ 55.4
O.Oj 31.6
O.OJ 34.4
O.OJ 52.6
0.0 1 42.6
0.0 1 29.9
O.OJ 16.8
O.Oj 9.4
O.OJ 21.9
O.OJ 8.0
Land use statistics for the
nodat low high , wood
100' Buffer
herb exp water
O.Oj O.Oj l.lj 68.0J 26.6: 4.3: 26.6
O.Oj 0.0; O.Oj 25.8J 55. Ij 19.1J 55.1
l.lj O.OJ 0.4J 68.0J 20.6J 9.9J 20.6
12.8= 0.0! 0.2! 59.9! 27.1! 0.0 i 27.1
: : :
0.0! 0.0: O.Oj 89.1
O.Oj 0.0 j O.lj 76.0
O.OJ O.OJ 1.5J 2.1
O.oi O.Oi 0.6J 19.7
10.8: O.OJ 10.8
23.8J O.OJ 23.8
45.5J 49.5! 45.5
46.7! 32. li 46.7
O.Oj O.Oj 0.5 j 28.9 j 46.1 j 24.1 j 46.1
0.0! 1.7! 4.7! 26.9i Sl.Si 15.2! SJ.5
OOl OOl 00! 93: 69 7i 21 0= 697
0.0; 1.3 i 0.8! 36.9
O.OJ 2.1 j 6.8J 56.1
O.Oj 0.5J 0.4i 29.0
0.0 1 0.3 j 1.3! 52.0
00! 02! 02: 79
38.5i 22.6J 38.5
30.6 j 4.3: 30.6
53.7J 16.5J 53.7
40.5J 5.9j 40.5
67.2i 24.5i 67.2
O.OJ 0.1 1 0.3J 29.9J 57.5J 12.1 j 57.5
0.0! l.o! 0.3i 5.7i 50.6! 41.5! 50.6
O.OJ 1.7J 0.0! 6.9J 39.8J 51.4: 39.8
O.O! 1.21. 1.7! 16.4! 38.4! 41.8i 38.4
O.Oj O.OJ 0.5! 50.3
0.0; 0.0! Q.2i 40.5
O.OJ O.Oi 3.4: 5.9
O.Oj 0.4J 5.9J 17.4
O.OJ 0.0! 1.3J 30.8
O.OJ O.OJ 4.9! 6.3
40.0: 9.2: 40.0
53.5! 5.8; 53.5
28.5! 62.3J 28.5
43.6J 32.7J 43.6
30.0; 37.9j 30.0
29.71 59. l! 29.7
O.Oj O.OJ 2.0 j 20.3 j 32.1 1 45.6J 32.1
O.OJ O.Oj O.OJ 32.0J 36.3J 31.7J 36.3
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6 j 53.5J 26.4J 19.5J 26.4
O.Oj O.OJ 0.4J 55.9J 33.1 j 10:6j 33.1
O.OJ O.Oj 2.3J 40.6J 31.5! 25.7J 31.5
O.OJ 0.0; 0.6i 54.8J 36.1 i 8.5:36.1
nodata - EMAP data available
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - heraeeous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
oO
-------
Table 6. Land use data wihin 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland.
oo
6-
ID
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Watershed
KENT ISLAND BAY
LOWER ELK RIVER
BOHEMIA RIVER
UPPER ELK RIVER
BACK CREEK
LITTLE ELK CREEK
BIG ELK CREEK
CHRISTIANA RIVER
NORTHEAST RIVER
FURNACE BAY
SASSAFRAS RIVER
STILLPOND-FAIRLEE
BUSH RIVER
LOWER WINTERS RUN
ATKISSON RESERVOIR
BYNUMRUN
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND
SWAN CREEK
GUNPOWDER RIVER
LOWER GUNPOWDER FALLS
BIRD RIVER
LITTLE GUNPOWDER FALLS
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
PRETTYBOY RESERVOIR
MIDDLE RIVER BROWNS
BACK RIVER
BODKIN CREEK
BALTIMORE HARBOR
JONES FALLS
GWYNNS FALLS
PATAPSCO RIVER - L.N. BR.
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
Md-ID
2130511
2130601
2130602
2130603
2130604
2130605
2130606
2130607
2130608
2130609
2130610
2130611
2130701
2130702
2130703
2130704
2130705
2130706
2130801
2130802
2130803
2130*804
2130805
2130806
2130807
2130901
2130902
2130903
2130904
2130905
2130906
2130907
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0= 0.0: 24.4= 19.9: 35.3: 0.4: 20.2
O.OJ O.OJ 1.7j 51.81 46.41 O.Oj 0.0
o.oj o.oi i.ij 21.9! 6S.?i o.oi 11.2
O.OJ l.Oj 9. 5 1 60.31 29.2: O.lj 0.0
O.fli 0.1 j 3.1; 37.0 j 58.9J 0.9-1 0.0
O.OJ O.lj. 4.5J 43.6J 51. 8J O.OJ 0.0
2.2 j 0.4J 7.3 j 56.2J 34.0J O.OJ 0.0
69.4J 0.2J 1.9J 10.4! 18.2J O.OJ 0.0
O.OJ O.Sj 7.6J 48.21 43.3J 0.4J 0.0
O.o! O.l! 2.8= 45.8: 50.0 ! 1.4! 0.0
;;:
0.0: O.OI 0.9J 22.21 62.4: 0.0: 14.5
O.Ol 0.0! 1.4J 27.6! 608! O.Oj 10.2
O.OJ 1.3J 12.6J 50.7J 34.4i l.fli 0.0
O.OJ 3.7J 28.1 1 41.2J 24.4J 2.6J 0.0
O.OJ l.SJ 10.4; 39.1 i 49.oi O.OJ 0.0
, 0.0| l.OJ 20.2| 37.3J 41. 5j O.OJ 0.0
0.0 0.4i 7.4i 41.31 32.7? 0.0: 18.2
0.0 0.7J 12.6J 41.0J 41. lj O.OJ 4.6
0.0 4.2i 23.fli 39.2i 31.5i 2.|i 0.0
O.OJ 1.5: 14.2J 41.9J 41.9J 0.6J 0.0
o.oi e.4i 3i.5i 27.4* 3i.si 3.zi oo
0.0j 0.5j 5.8 j 44.5 j 49.1J O.lj 0.0
0.0; 0.8j 5.0; 54.0! 39.8i 0.4^ 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6J 44.0J 51.9J O.OJ 3.6
0.0 13.7J 39.4J 33.1; 13.9; O.lj 0.0
0.0 15.7! 49.5: 9.4J 13.8J O.OJ 11.6
O.OJ ' 1.3J 24.3J 48.7J 9.2! O.OJ 16.6
O.OJ 35.6J 38.6J 14.2J 11.61 0.0: 0.0
0.0! 14.3i 35.6! 32.3J 17.7J O.li 0.0
O.OJ 16.0J 41.2J 23.6J 18.8J 0.3J 0.0
O.oi 5.3i 27.5i 45.li 21.4i 0/?i 0.0
o.oi o.6i 3.8! 41.2- 54.2! 0.2! o.o
Land use statistics for the 300' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0: 0.0: 21.2: 10.0: 22.8: 0.7= 45.3
O.Oj O.OJ 1.2j 49.7J 14.7: 0.0! 34.4
O.oi O.OJ 0.6J 50.8i 19.8! O.OJ 28.7
O.OJ O.OJ 5.6J 64.0J 15.2: O.OJ 15.1
O.OJ O.OJ 4.6! 46.2? 18.4J O.oi 30.6
O.OJ O.OJ 3.9! 67.0J 28.7J O.OJ 0.3
O.Oj O.OJ 7.6J 80.8! 11.5; O.Oj 0.0
4.5J 0.6J 28.8J 53.3J 11.4; O.OJ 0.0
0.0! O.OJ 9.1; 64.3; 16.8! 0.4! 9.0
O.OJ O.OJ 1.8J 57.3J 27.7J 2.3J 10.9
O.oi O.OJ 0.6; 39.6i 25.6! 0.0! 34.3
O.OJ O.OJ 1.6J 38.5J 24.6! O.OJ 35.4
O.OJ O.li 7.1! 65.0! 22.2! 2.2i 2.9
O.OJ 0.2J 19.5J 63.6J 14.3J O.lj 1.2
O.OJ 0.1J 4.1! 68.5! 26.9i O.oi 0.0
O.Oi O.li 9.7J 64.5J 25.6J O.Oj 0.0
o.oi o.oi 1.1! 54.4! 37.oi o.oi 7.5
O.OJ O.OJ 6.1 1 68.9J 16.2! O.OJ 8.4
o.oi o.oi u.4i 20.ai 23.si o.7i 42.1
O.OJ O.Oj 8.0J 59.8J 27.9J O.lj 4.0
O.fli 0.2i 21.5i 34.5i 14.4i 29i23.7
0.0: O.OJ 2.1 j 70.7i 26.2! O.OJ 0.8
O.Oi o.l! 3.3i 68.7i 22.8i 0.5i 4.2
O.OJ 0.0j 0.2J 59.2! 27.7! O.OJ 12.8
0.0; 0.0; 30.8; 7.4 j 4.2; 0.0; 51.3
O.OJ 0.3J 38.9! 18.8i 14.9! O.o! 19.4
O.oi O.oi 20.7! 24.oi S.fli 0.0? 47.9
O.Oi 0.1 1 23.7J 8.4J 4.9J 0.0 j 40.8
O.OJ 0.3i 26.8! 50.0! 14.8! 0.0; 1.9
O.OJ 0.3J 32.9i 43.3J 15.6; 0.7! 0.5
o.oi o.si i9.4i 6i.3i I2.2i i.oi 3.3
O.Oj O.lj 1.6J 65.1 1 26.3J 0.2J 6.6
Land use statistics for the 1 00' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0: 0.0: 20.7: 9.8: 20.7: 47.7: 20.7
O.OJ 0.1 1 l.OJ 49.4J 11.2J 38.21 11.2
O.Ol 0.2| 0.5i 54.5i 13.7! 31. lj 13.7
O.Oi 0.2: 5.3! 64.4; 13.9J 16.3J 13.9
O.Ol 0.4| 4.2i 48.8i 11.51 35.2| 11.5
O.OJ O.OJ 4.0J 75.6J 20.0i 0.3j 20.0
O.Oj O.lj 7.5! 85.6J 6.8! O.Oj 6.8
5.3J 1.2J 23.6 60.6! 9.4; O.OJ 9.4
O.Oj 0.5J 8.4 68.4! 12.4J 10.0J 12.4
O.OJ 0.0: 1.8 64.1 ! 20.5 j 11. 5J 20.5
0.0; O.Oi 0.6| 43.0! 20.4| 36.0; 20.4
O.Oi O.Oj l.Sj 41.3J 20.7i 36.6J 20.7
O.Oj 0.4 6.4! 69.0! 18.31 3.8; 18.3
O.OJ 1.0 19.2: 69.3i 9.8J 0.7J 9.8
0.0; 0.6- 3.2i 74.4! 2l.8| 0.0| 21.8
O.OJ O.OJ 8.6J 71.3: 20.1 1 0.0 ! 20.1
O.oi o.O! 1.0 50.8= 36.4i 11.8J 36.4
O.OJ 0.5J 5.0 75.5J 9.4J 9.5: 9.4
O.Oi 1.7! 10.7i 18.8i 24.1 i 44.oi 24.1
O.OJ 0.2J 7.3J 61.6J 25.3J 5.7J 25.3
O.fli l.gi 21.2i 38 li 12 fli 24.4? 12.0
O.Oj O.lj 2.1J 76.7J 20.ll l.OJ 20.1
O.Oi 0.4'j 3.H 73.4i IS.li 4.5i 18.1
O.OJ O.lj 0.2j 62.5! 23.8; 13.4J 23.8
0.0; 6.4; 30.1; 6.6j 3.8; 52.9; 3.8
O.OJ 6.2! 38.3J 21. ll 14.0J 20.4J 14.0
O.OJ 1.4J 17.2-! 23.5i 4.1 i 53.8i '4.1
O.Oi 21.9 j 22.8J 9.1 1 4.4: 41.8J 4.4
0.0| 6.4| 25.2! 54.9J 11.55 2.fli 11.5
0.0; 5.5! 31.4J 48.1J 13.SJ 0.8J 13.5
O.fli 2.3 i 18.4i 64.0 i 9.9 i 4.6 i 9.9
O.o! 0.2! 1.3-! 70.31 21.5! 6.5! 21.5
nodata - EMAP data available
low - low intensity developed
hioh _ Hioh inl£ncilv d6VClOn^d
wood .- wooded
herb - heraceous vegetation
-------
Table 6. Land use data wihin 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland.
ID
. 70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
Watershed
PATAPSCO RIVER - S. BR.
MAGOTHY RIVER
SEVERN RIVER
SOUTH RIVER
WEST RIVER
WEST CHESAPEAKE BAY
PATUXENT RIVER - FERRY LOG. TO MOUT
PATUXENT RIVER - RT. 214 TO FERRY LD
WESTERN BRANCH
PATUXENT RIVER - UPPER
LITTLE PATUXENT RIVER
PATUXENT RIVER - MIDDLE
ROCKY GORGE DAM
BRIGHTON DAM
POTOMAC RIVER - L. TIDAL
POTOMAC RIVER
'ST. MARY'S RIVER-
BRETON BAY
ST. CLEMENT BAY
WICOMICO RIVER
GILBERT SWAMP
ZEKIAH SWAMP
PORT TOBACCO RIVER
NANJEMOY CREEK
MATTAWOMAN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - U. TIDAL
POTOMAC RIVER - MO CTY.
PISCATAWAY CREEK
OXEN CREEK DR.
ANACOSTIA RIVER
ROCK CREEK
CABIN JOHN CREEK
Md-ID
2130908
2131001
2131002
2131003
2131004
2131005
2131101
2131102
2131103
2131104
2131105
2131106
2131107
2131108
2140101
2140102
2140103
2140104
2140105
2140106
2140107
2140108
2140109
2140110
2140111
2140201
2140202
2140203
2140204
2140205
2140206
2140207
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodal low high wood herb exp water
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2! 4.7! 39.7! 54.9
2.2! 44.9J 40.3J 12.5
4.6= 31.8= 48.3! 14.9
2.5J 21.8J 54.3: 21.4
0.5J 15.1! 46.9! 37.5
0.8! 7.1'j 67.6 ! 24.1
0.8! 3.2; 59.8J 36.0
0.2 1 3.3 1 49.2J 47.0
3.oi 19.7! 38.2i 39.0
1
4.«i 32.4i 37.8i 25.0
0.3J 7.6J 42.5J 49.5
0.3! 6.3 j 49.5! 42.0
O.l! 1.2J 41.9J 55.2
0.4; 2.3; 58.2; 38.8
03; 86! 766J 143
0.7; 3.2J 66.7; 29.5
0.3 ! 3.4 1 59.25 37.0
0.1 i 1.9i 50.2i 47.7
0.1 1 3.2| 5I.4J 45.2
0.0! 1.9J 56.0! 41.9
0.4 j 7.2: 60.4 ! 31.9
0.5! 7.9! 64.4! 27.2
: : / :
0.0 ! 0.6 j 72.0 ! 21.0
0.9! 11.2! 67.5J 20.3
4.0j 23.5J 32.3! 21.8
2.4! 14.9! 41.3! 41.5
3^2; 17.1 j 44.2 1 33.5
9.2! 48.6J 17.81 24.2
9.0| 46.1: 26.3 ! 17.5
7.5! 42.8J 27.4! 22.0
6.3! 48.6! 31.9! 13.3
0.0! 0.6
O.l! 0.0
0.3J 0.0
:
o.o ! o.o
o.o j o.o
0.4! 0.0
O.li 0.0
0.2! o.o
o.i! o.o
o.o i o.o
o.o! o.i
0.0! 2.0
O.OJ 1.7
0.3! o.o
02! oo
o.ij o.o
0.2! o.o
0.2'= o.o
, o.ii o.o
o.ii o.o
O.lj 0.0
o.o! o.o
O.Oj 6.3
o.ii o.o
O.Oj 18.5
0.0 j 0.0
o.o! 2.0
o.o i 0.2
1.2! 0.0
0.0 i 0.4
o.o! o.o
Land use statistics for the 300' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
0.0! 0.0! 3.8
0.0: 0.1 1 27.5
O.OJ 0.2J 15.9
O.O! 0.01 13.6
0.0! O.OJ 13.8
O.OJ O.l! 7.6
0.0! 0.0! 1.8
o.o! o.o! i.o
0.0! 0.2: 14.8
oo! o i! 92
0.0: 0.3 i 22.6
O.OJ 0.0 j 4.1
O.OJ O.OJ 2.1
o.o! o.o! 0.7
o.o! o.o! 2.9
60.5! 34.1
24.2J 3.6
39.9! 5.2
49.0J 4.7
37.2i 16.4
57.6! 15.3
58.5! 18.3
67.3! 21.6
62. li 19.1
76 8! 110
57.6: 15.9
70.2] 25.3
71.2; 19.2
63.3! 31.5
30.2 i 22.4
00! Oo! 3 l! 586! 64
00
0.0
0 1
0.0
0.0
water
16
43.4
H?
31.2
316
0.8 j 16.3
0.3! 20.4
0.1
03
04
10.0
2.3
08
O.o! 2.3
o.o! o.s
0.0 j 7.4
0.0: 4.6
O.s! 43.0
no
0.0! O.l! l.OJ 56.8! 17.1J 0.2
O.Oi 0.0| 1.8! 58.3J 18.3! 0.3
0.0! O.O! Q.9i 50.7i 23.4i 0.0
O.Oj O.Oj 1.7
o.oi o.oi 0.5
O.Oj O.Oj 3.0
O.o! O.o! 2.6
o.o; o.o! 0.1
0.0; O.fli 5.2
0.0: 0.4! 164
o.o! o.o! 4.7
0.0! 0.2J 9.1
O.o! 1.2i 35.5
O.OJ 0.3: 31.9
O.Oj 0.5! 18.3
O.o! 0.6! 28.9
52.6J 25.4
77.5; 19.0
82.5! 13.4
68.3 i 18.3
70.0J 12.3
75.li 11.2
57.3! 18.9
59.9; 23.4
73.9! 16.5
37.9i 21.6
48.1 1 12.8
66.5! 11.9
62.3! 6.4
31 9
24.7
20.6
24.8
0.0! 20.3
o.oi 30
0.0
00
0.0
0 1
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.7
10.7
17.7
7.6
5.2
11.1
0.1
0.0
0.9 j 0.0
0.0 1 0.1
o.oi o.o
Land use statistics for the 100' Buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
0.0
0.0! 3.8! 66.6! 27.7
O.OJ 1.4J 23.5
O.O; 3.7! 13.9
O.Oj 1.4J 12.6
o.o! i.oi 14.1
0.0
no
0.0
0.0
00
00
2.5J 7.5
0.6i 1.8
O.lj 0.6
'l.l| 14.1
1 5i 83
0.9! 19.5
25.5! 2.9
40.9i 4.0
49.6J 3.5
38.4i 13.6
58.0J 14.2
60.2i 15.5
71.7J 16.0
66.8! 15.6
81. li 73
63.4i 13.5
O.OJ 0.0: 3.4: 77.6! 18.5
0.0! 0.2! 1.7! 75.2; 14.6
O.OJ O.OJ 0.5 1 69.5 1 24.9
0.0: 0.8! 3.2! 29.4? 19.7
00
on! 78
o.o o.i! o.s
O.OJ 0.9 i 1.4
o.oi o.ii 0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
O.Oj 1.6
Oo! 05
0.3J 2.5
o:ii 2.3
o.o! o.i
0.8: 4.7
I.8J 13.5
0.8i 3.8
552! 55
57.8J 15.2
60.3 ! 15.1
53.3! 20.4
55.4! 20.3
80.3 i 1 5 7
86.4J 9.9
70. li 15.5
69.6! 9.5
76.9 ! 9.2
61.3! 17.0
65.4i 195
0.0! 0.2| 6.9! 80.7J 12.1
O.Oi 3.2! 32.3 i 46.8 ! 176
O.Oj 4.8 j 30.9
0.0 j 2.3 1 14.2
O.o! 2.0! 22.4
53.5J 10.1
75.0 1 8.4
69.9= 5.6
1.9
46.8
374
32.9
32.9
17.1
21.6
11.5
2.2
1 5
2.7
0.5
8.3
5.0
45.9
36 5
25.9
22.2
25.5
22.7
3.5
0.9
12.0
20.9
8.3
6.4
10.6
0.1
0.0"
0.0
0.0
0.0
water
27.7
2.9
4.0
3.5
13.6
14.2
15.5
16.0
15.6
73
13.5
18.5
14.6
24.9
19.7
5.5
15.2
15.1
20.4
20.3
15 7
9.9
15.5
9.5
9.2
.7.0
19.5
12.1
17.6
10.1
8.4
5.6
nodata - EMAP data available
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - heraceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 6. Land use data wihin 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Maryland.
ID
102
103
104
1 AC
106
.107
108
IflQ
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
128
130
131
132
133
134
Watershed
SENECA CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER
LOWER MONOCACY RIVER
DOUBLE PIPE CREEK
CATOCTIN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER
ANTIFTAM PRFFIC
MARSH RUN
CONOCOCHEAQUE CREEK
LITTLE CONOCOCHEAQUE
LICKING CREEK
TONOLOWAY CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - AL CTY.
LITTLE TONOLOWAY CREEK
SIDELING HILL CREEK
FIFTEEN MILE CREEK
TOWN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - L.N. BR.
EVITTS CREEK
WILLS CREEK
GEORGES CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER - U N BR.
SAVAGE RIVER
DEEP CREEK LAKE
MAIN BAY WATERSHED
CONOWINGO DAM
L SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
DEER CREEK
OCTORARO CREEK
Md-lD
2140208
2140301
2140302
2140304
2140305
2140501
ii4o,
-------
Table 7. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 '
30
31
32
1 1 digit HUC code
2050101220
2050101230
2050101250
2050101280
2050101290
2050101320
2050101340
2050101370
2050103050
2050103090
2050103190
2050103200
2050103210
2050103220
2050104010
2050104020
2050104110
2050104130
2050104170
2050105190
2050105200
2050105230
2050105240 '
2050105270
2050106010
2050106020
2050106030
2050106040
2050106050
2050106060
2050106070
2050106080
2050106090
Stream length
miles
5.6
4.2
%
0.01
0.01
198.31 0.42
159.2
140.4
180.6
0.34
0.30
0.38
13.21 0.03
6.3
68.5
42.3
146.8
2.2
67.4
3.6
117.6
233.1
28.2
380.3
5.18.6
0.01
0.14
0.09
0.31
0.00
0.1.4
0.01
0.25
0.49
0.06
0.80
1.09
46. lj 0.10
40.41 0.09
93.3
52.3
73.3
322.9
181.5
450.9
238.5
371.4
156.5
348.6
252.3
0.20
0.11
0.15
0.68
0.38
0.95
0.50
0.78
0.33
0.73
0.53
245.1! 0.52
' Both sides 300'+
miles
0.5
1.3
63.9
46.4
34.4
42.4
2.3
1.5
18.8
12.4
32.1
%
8.3
31.4
32.2
29.1
24.5
23.5
17.4
23.3
27.4
29.3
21.9
O.l! 3.1
15.0
0.1
22:3
4.0
29.4J 25.0
74.8
8.3
88.9
148.1
2.2
2.0
20.6
6.4
13.4
78.2
32.1
29.6
23.4
28.6
4.8
5.0
22.1
12.3
18.2
24.2
104.0J 57.3
117.3
41.6
61.9
23.4
71.9
49.7
138.6
26.0
17.4
16.7
14.9
20.6
19.7
56.5
Both sides 100-300'
miles ] %
1.7J 30.8
2.6! 60.9
107.6! 54.2
,80.4J 50.5
62.8! 44.7
89.3= 49.4
5.3! 40.1
2.3! 37.3
35.9! 52.4
22.l! 52.1
64.7! . 44.0
0.4! 19.5
31.8! 47.2
1.5! 41.0
61.6! 52.4
132.2= 56.7
16.7! 59.4
201.6! 53.0
. 247.1J 47.7
10.4= 22.7
I1.7J 29.1
45.0! 48.3
20.3! 38.8
33.l! . 45.1
170.0= 52.7
131.9J 72.7
231.7! 51.4
101.9! 42.7
144.1! 38.8
61.7! 39.4
152.7!' 43.8
117.8! 46.7
175.3! 71.5
One side 300'+
miles
2.2
2.5
111.2
80.5
64.2
' 89.7
4.9
2.4
35.8
21.1
64.4
0.4
31.1
%
40.4
58.8
56.1
50.6
45.7
49.6
37.4
38.2
52.3
49.9
43.9
16.1
46.1
1.2= 32.7
57.5! 48.9
129.7
16.2
194.3
250.9
10.6
9.4
45.8
20.5
32.4
160.0
137.5
224.8
101.0
140.8
60.2
154.8
113.6
55.6
57.7
51.1
48.4
23.1
23.2
49.1
39.2
44.2
49.5
75.7
49.9
42.4
37.9
38.5
44.4
45.0
180.8! 73.8
One side
miles
2.4
2.9
123.4
91.7
100-300'
%
43.1
69.4
62.2
57.6
72.6= 51.7
106.2
6.1
2.6
40.9
24.7
75.6
0.5
38.0
1.7
73.2
154.4
19.5
238.7
292.5
14.2
15.7
53.1
25.2
39.4
201.3
142.9
274.0
121.9
176.8
76.9
182.2
136.6
190.1
58.8
46.1
41.3
59.7
58.3
51.5
23.8
56.3
47.9
62.2
66.2
69.2
62.8
56.4
30.8
38.9
56.9
48.2
53.8
62.4
78.7
60.8
51.1
47.6
49.2
52.3
54.2
77.5
Both sides < 100'
miles
3.2
1.3
74.9
67.5
67.7
%
56.9
30.6
37.8
42.4
48.3
74.4= 41.2
7.1
3.7
27.6
17.7
71.2
1.7
29.4
1.9
44.4
78.8
8.7
141.6
226.1
31.9
24.7
40.2
27.1
33.9
121.5
38.6
176.9
116.6
194.7
79.6
166.4
115.6
55.1
53.9
58.7
40.3
41.7
48.5
76.2
43.7
52.1
37.8
33.8
30.8
37.2
43.6
69.2
61.1
43.1
51.8
46.2
37.6
21.3
39.2
48.9
52.4
50.8
47.7
45.8
22.5
00
-------
Table 7. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
1 1 digit HUC code
2050106100
2050106110
2050106120
2050106130
2050106140
2050107010
2050107020
2050107030
2050107040
2050107050
2050107060
2050107070
2050107080
2050107090
2050107100
2050201010
2050201020
2050201030
2050201040
2050201050
2050201060
2050201070
2050202010
2050202020
2050202030
2050202040
2050202050
2050203010
2050203020
2050203030
2050203040
2050204010
Stream length
miles
167.0
235.8
611.4
193.2
566.0
755.2
282.0
467.0
302.7
220.9
137.6
414.3
271.91
155.4
418.2
%
0.35
0.50
1.29
0.41
1.19
1.59
0.59
0.98
0.64
0.46
0.29
0.87
0.57
0.33
0.88
293.6! 0.62
144.6
612.2
0.30
1.29
790.4 j 1.66
613.5
154.7
711.6
176.3
543.6
719.3
596.8
136.3
518.5
203.0
132.3
577.8
215.7
1.29
0.33
1.50
0.37
. 1.14
1.51
1.26
0.29
1.09
0.43
0.28
1.22
0.45
Both sides 300'+
miles
46.2
66.3
128.0
105.4
111.0
289.5
79.0
213.3
147.3
111.6
48.1
170.3
146.2
%
27.7
28.1
20.9
54.6
19.6
38.3
28.0
45.7
48.7
50.5
34.9
41.1
53.8
49.1 1 31.6
68.2
165.1
109.1
331.0
495.6
350.5
16.3
56.2
75.4
54.1
62.7
57.1
127.0J 82.1
452.9 1 63.6
115.4
357.1
514.7
377.1
89.4
65.5
65.7
71.6
63.2
65.6
388.01 74.8
129.4
114.5
63.7
86.5
362.3J 62.7
38.2
17.7
Both sides 100-300'
miles
93.6
129.4
281.6
142.2
246.9
439.2
139.1
319.6
%
56.0
54.9
46.1
73.6
43.6
58.1
49.3
68.4
205.7 67.9
163.9
74.2
85.81 62.4
268.9
203.4
89.9
185.8
227.6
126.5
428.1
64.9
74.8
57.8
44.4
77.5
87.4
69.9
623.6J 78.9
468.5! 76.4
139.5
537.1
131.8
425.7
597.2
90.1
75.5
74.8
78.3
83.0
443.6 ! 74.3
97.1
433.1
148.8
121.5
71.3
83.5
73.3
91.8
425.7! 73.7
71.7
33.2
One side 300'+
miles 1 %
94.2! 56.4
129.8! 55.1
284.8! 46.6
144.0! 74.6
244.8! 43.2
446.4 ! 59.1
141.3! 50.1
324.1! 69.4
206.5! 68.2
164.9J 74.6
82.1! 59.6
265.0: 64.0
201.1! 73.9
86.2! 55.5
164.6! 39.4
237.7! 81.0
127.6! 88.2
447.7! 73.1
657.0! 83.1
510.6! 83.2
141.4! 91.4
573.7= 80.6
134.2! 76.1
435.8! 80.2
601.3J 83.6
452.0! 75.7
98.1! 72.0
444.6! 85.8
152.5! 75.1
122.71 92.7
432.0! 74.8
67.2-1 31.1
One side
miles
108.0
150.8
339.4
153.5
. 298.2
494.2
165.5
355.9
220.4
179.3
100-300'
%
64.7
64.0
55.5
79.5
52.7
65.4
58.7
76.2
72.8
81.2
95.3! 69.3
296.7! 71.6
216.2
102.4
232.8
249.0
131.1
469.2
677.1
525.8
142.7
582.2
138.1
79.5
65.9
55.7
84.8
90.6
76.6
85.7
85.7
92.2
81.8
78.3
457.4! 84.1
623.6
472.4
104.5
452.7
159.2
123.4
454.2
86.4
86.7
79.2
76.7
87.3
78.4
93.3
78.6
40.0
Both sides < 100'
miles
59.0
84.9
272.0
39.7
267.9
261.0
116.5
111.1
%
35.3
36.0
44.5
20.5
47.3
34.6
41.3
23.8
82.3J 27.2
41.5
42.3
117.6
55.7
53.0
185.4
44.6
13.6
142.9
113.3
87.7
12.1
18.8
30.7
28.4
20.5
34.1
44.3
15.2
9.4
23.4
14.3
14.3
7.8
129.4! 18.2
38.2
86.2
21.7
15.9
95.7! 13.3
124.4
31.8
65.7
43.8
8.9
20.8
23.3
12.7
21.6
6.7
123.6! 21.4
129.3
60.0
-------
Table 7. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1 1 digit HUC code
2050204020
2050204030
2050204040
2050204050
2050205010
2050205020
2050205030
2050205040
2050205050
2050205060
2050206010
2050206020
2050206030
2050206040
2050206050
2050206060
2050206070
2050206080
2050206090
2050206100
2050206110
2050206120
2050301010
2050301020
2050301030
2050301040
'2050301050
2050301060
2050301070
2050301080
2050301090
2050301100
Stream length
miles
370.3
269.7
616.8
0.8
154.0
%
0.78
0.57
1.30
0.00
0.32
421.6! 0.89
146.3
225.2
346.9
582.7
167.4
620.9
300.0
186.4
594.6
408.1
196.1
282.8
125.1
262.6
273.0
533.8
257.4
137.4
418.1
626.1
0.31
0.47
0.73
1.23
0.35
1.31
0.63
0.39
1.25
0.86
0.41
0.60
0.26
0.55
0.57
1.12
0.54
0.29
0.88
1.32
284.0; 0.60
. 224.1
112.4
232.4
241.1
0.47
0.24
0.49
0.51
873.41 1.84
Both sides 300'+
miles
233.8
109.8
255.8
0.8
118.3
250.9
59.2
101.7
180.0
342.1
97.8
334.2
189.2
65.7
328.1
116.6
50.5
124.9
61.3
%
63.1
40.7
41.5
100.0
76.8
59.5
40.5
45.1
51.9
58.7
58.4
53.8
63.1
35.3
55.2
28.6
25.7
44.2
49.0
97.5! 37.1
40.4! 14.8
105.8
62.7
19.8
24.4
56.71 41.3
118.9
194.6
56.7
39.6
22.7
10.9
64.4
106.9
28.4
31.1
20.0
17.7
20.2
4.7
26.7
12.2
Both sides 100-300'
miles
283.9
148.3
364.3
0.8
133.7
321.1
86.8
134.6
238.4
398.5
128.3
436.7
232.7
111.0
417.4
187.2
107.7
179.0
89.3
151.8
83.4
197.2
113.2
74.0
200.7
281.9
%
76.7
55.0
59.1
100.0
86.8
76.2
59.3
59.7
68.7
68.4
76.7
70.3
77.6
59.6
70.2
45.9
54.9
63.3
71.4
57.8
: 30.6
37.0
44.0
53.8
: 48.0
45.0
104.3J 36.7
91.7
40.9
58.8! 52.4
54.2
119.3
299.8
23.3
49.5
34.3
One side 300'+
miles
303.5
143.3
369.2
0.8
136.5
% -
82.0
53.1
59.9
100.0
88.7
324.2= 76.9
86.0
142.5
247.1
417.3
128.4
442.2
243.3
112.0
426.1
189.6
105.4
185.9
85.8
58.8
63.3
71.2
71.6
76.7
71.2
81.1
60.1
71.7
46.5
53.8
65.7
68.6
146.4 55.7
74.7: 27.4
184.9
34.6
108.6! 42.2
73.5
193.5
281.0
108.7
53.5
46.3
44.9
38.3
92.1 1 41.1
52.4
41.2
110.3
276.3
46.6
17.7
45.7
31.6
One side
miles
310.8
164.5
405.4
0.8
138.1
339.6
100-300'
%
83.9
61.0
65.7
100.0
89.7
80.5
96.0! 65.6
153.1
262.3
433.8
135.7
470.9
248.3
126.5
' 447.4
219.1
126.7
198.4
96.4
68.0
75.6
74.4
81.1
75.8
82.8
67.9
75.2
53.7
64.6
70.2
77.1
168.0! 64.0
102.5
237.2
134.2
37.5
44.4
52.1
80.2 ! 58.4
232.4
327.2
129.1
111.2
70.5
77.1
: 55.6
52.3
45.5
49.6
62.7
33.2
137.1! 56.9
407.2= 46.6
Both sides < 100'
miles
59.5
105.2
211.4
0.0
15.9
82.0
50.3
72.1
84.6
148.9
31.7
150.0
51.7
59.9
147.2
189.0
%
16.1
39.0
34.3
0.0
10.3
19.5
34.4
32.0
24.4
25.6
18.9
24.2
17.2
32.1
24.8
46.3
69.4! 35.4
84.4
28.7
29.8
22.9
94.6 1 36.0
170.5
296.6
123.2
57.2
185.7
298.9
154.9
112.9
41.9
155.2
104.0
466.2
62.5
55.6
47.9
41.6
44.4
47.7
54.5
50.4
37.3
66.8
. 43.1
53.4
-------
Table 7. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
K-
\D
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
1 1 digit HUC code
'
2050302010
2050302020
2050302030
2050302040
2050302050
2050302060
2050302070
2050302080
2050303010
2050303020
2050303030
2050303040
2050303050
2050303060
2050303070
2050303080
2050304010
2050304020
2050304030
2050304040
2050304050
2050304060
2050304070
2050304080
2050304090
2050304100
2050304110
2050304120
2050305010
2050305020
2050305030
2050305040
Stream length
miles
305.4
164.3
367.6
131.7
%
0.64
0.35
0.77
0.28
461.6! 0.97
126.0
233.3
135.3
404.0
159.8
343.6
209.8
481.1
236.9
214.4
407.5
0.27
0.49
0.28
0.85
0.34
0.72
0.44
1.01
0.50
0.45
0.86
204.7! 0.43
242.0: 0.51
106.0
341.8
0.22
0.72
249.2! 0.52
138.6
171.9
0.29
0.36
254.91 0.54
599.9
1.26
130.1 j 0.27
162.3
0.34
311.81 0.66
511.7
261.2
447.7
259.5
1.08
0.55
0.94
0.55
Both sides 300'+
miles
103.0
71.5
101.8
42.0
252.2
62.1
140.7
%
33.7
43.5
27.7
31.9
54.6
49.3
60.3
55.31 40.9
171.8
59.7
96.7
81.7
187.1
68.3
42.5
37.4
28.2
38.9
38.9
28.8
110.3= 51.4
167.8
89.1
135.9
38.0
146.4
71.0
74.0
42.2
62.4
227.8
28.7
70.4
69.5
186.8
41.2
43.5
56.2
35.9
42.8
28.5
53.4
24.5
24.5
38.0
22.1
43.4
22.3
36.5
100.1 i 38.3
106.6
16.4
23.8
6.3
Both sides 100-300'
miles
153.6
106.0
%
50.3
64.6
178.3! 48.5
66.0
344.1
87.1
178.7
83.1
255.0
82.4
161.0
138.2
273.1
99.2
148.5
229:2
117.1
188.6
50.1
74.6
69.1
76.6
61.4
63.1
51.5
46.9
65.9
56.8
41.9
69.3
56.2
57.2
77.9
61.5! 58.1
215.51 63.1
97.8
92.0
66.7
39.2
66.3
38.8
112.9! 44.3
354.7
59.1
55.0! 42.3
109.7
126.0
277.2
67.6
40.4
54.2
163.5! 62.6
213.9
70.7
47.8
27.2
One side 300'+
miles 1 %
155.2! 50.8
105.5! 64.2
186.1! 50.6
63.9! 48.5
348.3! 75.5
86.6: 68.7
178.3! 76.4
86.l! 63.7
254.2! 62.9
80.5! 50.3
157.5! 45.8
138.0! 65.8
283.0! 58.8
99.l! 41.8
149.4! 69.7
259.0: 63.6
121.0! 59.1
189.8! 78.4
60.6! 57.2
220.4= 64.5
98.4! 39.5
91.2= 65.8
65.3! 38.0
104.1! 40.8
349.0! 58.2
56.2! 43.2
105.4! 64.9
121.71 39.1
273.1! 53.4
153.5J 58.7
192.2! 42.9
61. ll 23.5
One side 100-300'
miles 1 %
177.3! 58.1
118.0J 71.9
219.5! 59.7
74.61 56.6
376.6! 81.6
97.0J 76.9
188.7! 80.9
93.9! 69.4
282.6! 69.9
90.7: 56.7
186.3! 54.2
157.5! 75.1
314.1! 65.3
lll.lj 46.9
161.4! 75.3
273.9= 67.2
134.2; 65.5
202.4: 83.6
70.5! 66.5
244.7! 71.6
118.8! 47.7
98.51 71.0
74.2! 43.2
136.5J 53.5
398.9! 66.5
65.1 1 50.1
121.11 74.7
153.6 ! 49.3
317.5! 62.1
183.7! 70.3
256.61 57.3
98.4= 37.9
Both sides < 100'
miles
128.1
46.2
148.2
57.1
84.9
%
41.9
28.1
40.3
43.4
18.4
29.1 ! 23.1
44.6
41.4
121.4
19.1
30.6
30.1
69. l! 43.3
157.3
52.2
167.0
125.7
45.8
24.9
34.7
53.1
53.0! 24.7
133.6
70.5
39.6
35.5
97.1
130.4
40.2
97.7
118.4
201.1
65.0
41.1
158.1
194.1
77.5
191.1
161.1
32.8
34.5
16.4
33.5
28.4
52.3
29.0
56.8
46.5
33.5
49.9
25.3
50.7
37.9
29.7
42.7
62.1
-------
Table 7. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
155
156
157
158
159
160
1 1 digit HUC code
2050305050
2050305060
2050305070
2050305080
2050305090
2050305100
2050306010
2050306020
2050306030
2050306040
2050306050
2050306060
2050306070
2050306080
2050306090
2050306100
2050306110
2050306120
2050306150
2050306160
2050306180
2050306200
2050306220
2060002020
2060002040
2060002080
2060003120
2070002070
2070002130
2070003060
2070003100
Stream length
miles
386.5
314.4
169.5
97.1
508.2
802.7
165.7
406.3
238.9
152.4
304.5
204.3
%
0.81
0.66
0.36
0.20
1.07
1.69
0.35
0.86
0.50
0.32
0.64
0.43
327.3J 0.69
229.5
233.1
83.5
438.2
285.4
248.8
691.9
194.9
43.1
246.0
0.48
0.49
0.18
0.92
0.60
0.52
1.46
0.41
0.09
0.52
82.3J 0.17
21.0
13.2
18.2
408.9
155.5
213.9
31.2
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.86
0.33
0.45
0.07
Both sides 300'+
miles
128.8
107.9
8.0
7.9
48.7
185.0
13.6
%
33.3
34.3
4.7
8.1
9.6
23.0
8.2
69.7: 17.2
29.8
15.2
82.7
37.7
43.2
15.9
35.2
11.3
31.9
44.6
92.6
143.1
12.5
10.0
27.2
18.4
13.2
. 6.9
/15.1
13.5
7.3
15.6
37.2
20.7
38.1! 19.5
9.3
53.7
23.2
2.9
2.1
1.3
213.0
80.0
131.9
22.5
21.7
21.8
28.2
13.6
16.2
7.4
52.1
51.4
61.7
72.2
Both sides 100-300'
miles
213.0
176.2
34.0
17.6
157.7
%
55.1
56.0
20.1
18.1
31.0
387.4= 48.3
52.1
172.5
107.4
61.6
146.3
97.4
121.6
67.1
31.5
42.5
45.0
40.4
48.0
47.7
37.2
29.3
77. lj 33.1
26.2
92.9
93.9
169.4
287.3
81.8
20.5
109.7
50.9
10.8
31.3
21.2
32.9
68.1
41.5
42.0
47.6
44.6
61.9
51.7
5.7! 43.2
4.5
274.9
103.2
169.3
26.9
24.7
67.2
66.4
79.2
86.1
One side 300'+
miles
209.9
173.2
%
54.3
55.1
29.5! 17.4
15.8! 16.3
127.4
25.1
360.9! 45.0
43.1
146.8
83.7
45.6
138.1
88.7
107.5
26.0
36.1
35.0
29.9
45.3
43.4
32.8
49.2! 21.4
69.1
23.6
81.9
85.3
161.4
29.6
28.3
18.7
29.9
64.9
287.5! 41.6
75.8! 38.9
18.4
104.4
45.7
9.4
4.7
3.5
42.6
42.5
55.6
44.7
35.4
19.2
281.6! 68.9
106.8
171.3
27.0
68.7
80.1
.86.5
One side 100-300'
miles | %
246.5! 63.8
200.4= 63.7
45.9! 27.1
21.7J 22.4
202.1! 39.8
459.51 57.2
65.8! 39.7
209.0: 51.4
130.6! 54.7
74.8= 49.1
175.6= 57.7
116.1= 56.9
146.6; 44.8
85.61 37.3
93.4! 40.1
30.8= 36.8
114.6! 26.1
109.5! 38.4
188.4! 75.7
346.21 50.0
97.5! 50.0
24.1 ! 56.0
129.5= 52.7
57. ll 69.4
12.7! 60.6
6.6! 49.5
5.6! 30.9
295.8! 72.3
113.1= 72.7
179.2! 83.8
28.2! 90.2
Both sides < 100'
miles
140.0
114.0
123.6
%
36.2
36.3
72.9
75.4J 77.6
306.1
60.2
343.2J 42.8
99.9
197.4
108.3
77.6
128.9
88.1
180.8
143.8
139.7
52.8
323.6
175.9
60.4
60.3
48.6
45.3
50.9
42.3
43.1
55.2
62.7
59.9
63.2
73.9
61.6
24.3
345.6 ! 50.0
97.4 j 50.0
18.9
116.5
44.0
47.3
25.2! 30.6
8.3
6.7
12.6
39.4
50.5
69.1
113.1 j 27.7
42.4
34.7
3.1
27.3
16.2
9.8
0»
-------
Table 7. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
1 1 digit HUC code
2070003130
2070004010
2070004020
2070004030
2070004120
2070004220
2070004310
2070004400
2070009030
2070009040
Stream length
miles
229.2
234.4
345.2
475.6
363.2
530.9
106.5
162.8
114.9
436.7
%
0.48
0.49
0.73
1.00
0.76
1.12
0.22
0.34
0.24
0.92
Both sides 300'+
miles [ %
129.9; 56.7
47.4! 20.2
92.7 j 26.8
172.2 ! 36.2
192.2! 52.9
274.91 51.8
9.1 1 8.5
49.3: 30.3
53.7; 46.8
69.31 15.9
Both sides 100-300'
miles
178.5
101.8
151.9
268.6
282.5
402.2
29.4
64.0
77.1
187.6
%
77.9
43.4
44.0
56.5
77.8
75.8
27.6
39.3
67.1
43.0
One side 300'+
miles
178.1
88.1
138.9
254.1
279.2
400.2
25.0
%
77.7
37.6
40.2
53.4
76.9
75.4
23.5
61.7J 37.9
74.7J 65.1
155.8
35.7
One side
miles
190.5
121.2
175.6
303.8
100-300'
%
83.1
51.7
50.9
63.9
303.8! 83.7
431.7
38.6
70.8
85.0
225.8
81.3
36.3
43.5
74.0
51.7
Both sides < 100'
miles
38.7
113.2
169.6
171.7
59.4
99.2
67.8
%
16.9
48.3
49.1
36.1
16.3
18.7
63.7
92.0! 56.5
29.9
210.9
26.0
48.3
-------
Table 8. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
1
2
3
4
. 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1 1 digit HUC code
2050101220
2050101230
2050101250
2050101280
2050101290
2050101320
2050101340
2050101370
2050103050
2050103090
2050103190
2050103200
2050103210
2050103220
2050104010
2050104020
2050104110
2050104130
2050104170
2050105190
2050105200
2050105230
2050105240
2050105270
2050106010
2050106020
2050106030
2050106040
2050106050
2050106060
2050106070
2050106080
2050106090
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodata
0.0
0.0
low
0.0
0.0
5.7! 0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.1
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.4
high
4.1
4.1
09
14
5.9
1. 6
2.5
13.1
1.7
1.7
1.1
8.7
7.2
8.1! 570
0:0
0.0
2.2
1.8
0.0: 1.2
o.i! o.o
o.oi o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
' 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
3.4
1.3
1.4
1.0
0.7
5.3
wood
71.2
81.9
695
74.6
67.1
61.9
53.4
60.5
61.6
63.7
51.9
17.0
47.1
12.2
58.5
69.1
75.2
67.5
64.8
32.9
37.8
49.4
48.0
50.3
2.6: 57.3
0.3
2.2
87.0
59.8
O.l! 43.4
78
1.S
0.5
0.4
47.6
44.0
54.8
45.4
0.2! 81.4
herb expo
19.6i 0.0
14.0! 0.0
22.5! 00
21.9! 0.0
25.3i 0.0
35.2! 0.1
39.9i 0.0
21.2! 0.0
35.8: 0.0
34.1! 0.0
46.5: 0.0
73.9 j 0.0
42.9: 0.0
22.8= 00
39.1! 0.0
27.9! 0.0
23.6: 0.0
;
30.8! 0.0
31.6] 0.2
65.7! 0.0
60.7 1 0.0
48.6! 0.0
50.9J 0.0
water
5.2
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.6
1.2
v 4.2
5.3
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.4
2.3
00
0.2
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.4
43.7! 0.4! 0.0
39.6! 0.0
12.0! 0.1
38.0! 0.0
:
55.5- 0.0
49.41 02
53.7! 0.0
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.8
43.8 j O.OJ 0.9
53.2! 0.0
17.8: 0.0
1.1
0.6
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodata
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
low
0.0
0.0
00
00
high wood herb expo water
3.l! 39.3J 28.7J O.OJ 28.9
4.0! 67.6! 28.3! O.OJ 0.0
1 1 1 1
3 01 60 41 24.4: 00: 63
: : : :
55: 55.2: 24.7: 0.0: 14.6
0.0! 12.9i 50.3i 28.2i 0.0i 8.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2: 53.6! 37.0: 0.0! 6.2
6.5! 44.1 i 37.5! O.O! 11.9
20.9! 40.3! 18.3! 0.0 ! 20.5
: : : :
3.6! 54.7! 36.7: 0.0! 5.0
4.2! 55.4! 37.2! 0.0! 3.3
3. 8l 48.6! 45. ll O.Oi 2.6
4.6! 32.2! 57.6i O.oi 5.6
7.5J 49.8: 30.7J O.OJ 11.7
534= 39.5: 5.9- o.O: 00
i :
5.6: 55.8: 36.9: 0.0! 1-8
5.5! 61.2! 29.3: O.O! 4.0
1.4: 64.9: 33.8i O.Oi 0.0
4.5! 56.8! 36.5! 0.0! 2.2
7.5: 54.6J 29.6J O.oi 6.6
5.4! 27.1! 66.3= 0.0! 1.1
5.l! 30.6! 64.2J 0.0: 0.2
3.1! 52.2! 37.1! 0.0! 7.6
0.9J 42.9J 53.4: 0.0: 2.8
0.0! 5.1! 48.6! 33.8! 0.2! 12.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0- 0.0
o.oi oo
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.5: 56.2: 34.3: O.Oi 2.5
: : i :
0.9! 80.4! 12.1! O.l! 4.0
4.7! 55.9: 36.2! O.Oi ' 2.9
O.l! 45.3! 49.8: 0.0: 4.7
4.1i 444i 34.9: OOi 154
2.0! 42.5! 50.7! 0.0! 4.4
1.2J 48.4J 44.8i 0.0: 5.0
0.8i 49 2i 42 3i Ooi 63
0.8: 76.9: 16.9: 0.0: 3.5
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodata
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
low
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
high
1 0
1.8
wood
41.0
3.4! 66.5
38
5.0
13.9
34
83
19.6
0.0: 4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
04:
0.0
o.o-
0.0
0.0
o.oi o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
00
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
ooi
O.Oi
5.3
5.1
6.7
8.1
539
5.2
5.9
1.1
4.0
7.5
61.9
herb expo
water
24.8 0.0 j 32.4
30.1
11 1
0.0
00
57.1 ! 214 0.1
51.4
57.6
46.4
i . !
411
58.5
58.0
51.3
31.8
54.4
44.8
60.3
64.8
68.0
61.4
55.9
6.5! 29.6
5.4! 37.2
3.8! 55.6
25.2
32.0
31.5
15.9
32.4
0.0
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.9! 0.0
40.8 0.0
567
0.0
7.1
16.4
9.1
6.9
13.8
23.0
5.0
3.8
2.8
O.oi 4.8
25.6J 0.0
08: 00
32.4: 0.0
25.1
0.0
30.9: 0.0
*
32.0! 0.0
25.8
62.7
0.3
00
57.2 J 0.0
31.7! 0.0
0.7 j 46.5 j 49.4J 0.0
5.1! 52.9! 28.5! 0.1
5.8
1.2
4.9
0.1
42
1.9
1.2
07
0.9
61.2
79.6
59.7
49.7
472
47.6
51.4
53 5
77.5
28.3: 0.0
11.2! 0.3
3.1.0
0.0
44.8: o.O
302! 03
11.5
0.0
2.1
4.1
0.0
2.5
9.2
1.3
0.2
8.8
3.4
13.3
3.2
5.4
4.2
5.4
171
45.2 6.0! 4.9
39.9J 0.0
37 1 i 00
15.2: 0.0
6.9
73
4.5
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 8. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
1 1 digit HUC code
2050106100
2050106110
2050106120
2050106130
2050106140
2050107010
2050107020
2050107030
2050107040
2050107050
2050107060
2050107070
2050107080
2050107090
2050107100
2050201010
2050201020
2050201030
2050201040
2050201050
2050201060
2050201070
2050202010
2050202020
2050202030
2050202040
2050202050
2050203010
2050203020
2050203030
2050203040
2050204010
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodata low high wood herb expo
O.OJ O.Oj 1.8J 59.8
0.0! 0.2J 5.0J 57.1
6.0J 0.0: 1.5J 58.4
O.fli 0.0: i.oj 83.2
0.0: O.OJ 1.8: 56.7
4.0 j 4.0 1 10.7 1 67.3
2.3J 9.7J 17.3J 56.1
0.0! 0.4! 2.7j 76.4
8.0J 0.7J S.7J 65.9
0.0^ 0.0: 0.4= 71.0
: : :
O.OJ O.ll 1.1 j 54.4
0.0 j 0.1 1 1.8j 59.6
4.1: O.OJ l.OJ 74.1
O.OJ O.OJ 0.7J 53.4
36.6! 0.2
37.8! 0.0
38.3 ! 0.0
15.4! 0.0
41.4! 0.1
13.9] 0.0
14.6J 0.0
20.0 j 0.4
19.7J 0.0
28.5 j 0.0
water
1,6
0.0
1.8
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
44.4 j 0.0 j 0.0
38.4! O.OJ 0.0
20.7 j O.OJ 0.0
45.8; O.Ol 0.0
O.OJ 0.7J 6.4J 40.0: 52.8J 0.1
0.81 O.OJ 1.3J 76.21 18.4! 3.2
3.2: O.OJ 1.6J 85.4
9.8 1 0.2! 2.4 j 77.5
O.OJ 0.0j 1.6j 88.3
O.fli O.oi 2.2^ 88.2
O.OJ O.OJ 0.5J 94.7
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6! 94.2
135: 00! 07! 82.7
0.5! O.OJ 0.6J 92.3
: : :
I.5J 0.0 ! 0.5 j 90.7
8.2! 0.0! 0.1 j 87.7
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6J 94.3
0.2 1 0.0 j 0.0! 94.4
O.lj 0.1J 0.7J 92.0
0.0 i 0.0= o.i\ 95.7
: : :
O.OJ 0.0 j 1.41 87.8
0.2! 0.1 j 9.l! 38.2
8.4j 1-4
10.2: 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
10.1 ] O.OJ 0.0
4.4! 5.3! 00
2.4! 2.3
5.2! 0.0
3.l! 0.0
6.5! 0.0
0.2
0.0
00
0.0
6.6 j 0.7 j 0.0
4.0 j O.OJ 0.0
3.9J 0.0 1 1.2
5.1! 0.3! 0.0
7.l! O.OJ 0.0
4.2J 0.0: 00
10.2J 0.5
52.4! 0.0
0.0
0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodata low high wood herb expo water
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.7
0.0
7.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.5
70
O.OJ 3.7
O.OJ 5.9
O.OJ 3.2
O.OJ 3.8
O.Oi 3.1
0.5J 11.3
0.8J 14.3
O.lj 3.6
O.lj 3.1
O.OJ 0.8
0.0 1 2.9
O.OJ 3.5
O.OJ 1.2
O.OJ 1.5
O.OJ 6.6
O.OJ 1.5
O.OJ 2.9
Ooi 3.8
o.oj o.oj 1.3
O.OJ O.o! 2.8
0.0
0.0
100
0.2
1.1
6.9
0.0
0.2
0.1
00
O.OJ 0.9
0.0! 0.5
Ofl! 2.2
O.OJ 2.1
O.OJ 1.1
O.OJ 0.4
O.OJ 2.9
O.OJ 0.5
0.0: 1.8
0.0 1 0.5
0.0: O.OJ 2.7
O.lj O.OJ 11.0
59.4J 28.9: O.OJ 7.1
59.8! 23.9! 0.0! 9.8
52.7
76.4
49.2
62.5
54.3
71.9
69.5
75.6
63.3
67.0
75.0
585
34.4: 0.0: 9.2
16.2! O.fl! 1.8
30.5J O.OJ 15.0
9.9J 0.3] 5.7
11.9: 0.4 j 8.9
13.0! 0.3! 8.6
9.3 j 0.7 j 2.1
19.4J O.OJ 2.6
32.9 j 0.0! 0.0
26.4 j 0.0! 1.7
14.5J 0.5J 1:9
33.3! 0.0! 2.7
45.4! 35.3! O.O! 9.7
: : :
84.9! 7.5; 0.4- 26
88.9
77.1
87.5
87.4
92.6
84 1
2.7J O.l! 1.8
4.6! 0.3 j 4.5
3.3J 0.4: 4.3
1.3! 0.7! 4.3
1.9J 0.4J 1.0
1.7! 0.4! 11.0
' ! 1 I
79.2: 58: 0.0: 1 fi
85.8
87.6
80.5
79.7
89.2
79.8
94.0
78.2
37.2
7.6! O.o! 3.5
5.7J 0.1 1 3.1
8.2! 0.0! 3.2
3.3: O.OJ 11.8
5.5J 0.0! 3.1
6.9J 0.1 1 9.1
3.6! O.OJ 0.0
9.3 1 0.1J 8.3
48.6! 0.0; 0.9
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodata low high wood herb expo water
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.1
0.0
00
o.o! o.o
2.7 3.8
0.7J 6.8
0.0 0.3
7.4j 0.2
o.o! o.o
0.0
0.0
1.4
00
0.0
1.0
2.5
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.1
0.2
0.0
00
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
00
3.4J 63.4
5.5 j 63.0
3.1J 55.1
4.2! 78.6
3.0J 52.2
10.6J 64.8
13.8J 57.2
3.7! 75.1
2.7 1 71.9
0.8J 79.6
3.2J 67.9
3.7! 70.8
1.3J 78.5
1.6! 64.2
6.1 j 52.9
1.3! 85.6
2.3: 90.3
3.2! 76.9
l.OJ 86.7
2.IJ 86.0
O.OJ 0.7J 92.6
O.l! 0.5 J 82.3
10 o! o.o
0.2! o.i
1.1
6.9
0.0
0.3
0.1
00
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
24.3 ! 0.5J 7.9
19.5J O.o! 11.5
30.0 j 0.0 j .11.2
13.4J O.OJ 1.9
27.2 j 0.3J 15.4
8.1 j 1.9! 6.1
10.8; 1.8: 8.0
11. l! 1.6J 7.2
6.9J 5.8J 2.1
15.41 0.0! 2.6
28.0: O.Oj 0.0
21.7] 0.1! 2.4
10.4J 4.6J 1.9
27.?! 0.0! 2.6
30.8J 0.0: 7.2
5.3 j 1.7'j 4.6
1.7J 0.9J 1.8
3.3! 0.9 j 6.9
2.4J 1.5J 6.7
0.9! 2.7! 7.2
1.9J 1.7J I.I
1.4! 1.4J 131
2.5: 78.6: 5.5: 00: 1 1
2.0! 84.7
0.9i 87.0
0.5! 79.5
2.6 1 77.0
0.6 j 87.8
2.0J 78.7
0.31 93.9
0.0 2.5 ! 78.6
O.l! 9.9J 39.5
7.l! 0.0! 5.1
5.l! 0.6 j 4.4
: 7.9! o.o! 4.3
2.7J 0.0 j 15.4
5.2! 0.0! 4.7
6.8J 0.3J 10.3
3.9! O.lj 0.0
8.2 1 0.2 1 9.2
47.0J 0.2! 1.3
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - highjntensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 8. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
-77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1 1 digit HUC code
2050204020
2050204030
2050204040
2050204050
2050205010
2050205020
2050205030
2050205040
2050205050
2050205060
2050206010
2050206020
2050206030
2050206040
2050206050
2050206060
2050206070
. 2050206080
2050206090
2050206100
2050206110
2050206120
2050301010
2050301020
2050301030
2050301040
2050301050
2050301060
2050301070
2050301080
2050301090
2050301100
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodata low high wood herb expo water
0.21 O.Oj 0.7
O.o! O.o! 2.1
O.lj 0.1
o.oi o.o
3.8J 0.0
5.2J 0.0
O.Oj 0.1
O.Oj 0.0
O.Oj 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
o.oi o.o
0.0 j 0.0
o.o] o.o
0.0: 0.0
O.Oj 0.4
o.oi o.i
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
0.0: 0.2
O.Oj 0.3
O.Oj 0.7
o.oi o.o
0.0 1 0.0
o.oi o.o
:
8.7: 0.3
O.Oj 0.0
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.i
2.3
05
93.3
67.6
78.3
96.0
0.2! 91.8
0.8
2.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5
17
0.9
0.8
0.7
6.1
1.0
1.9
0.2
1.5
1.5
6.1
6.1
0.5
0.7
0.8
3.2
0.1
1.4
0.2
3.0
17
81.6
77.0
71.5
80.1
89.8
80.2
80.2
87.0
58.7
81.9
60.7
52.1
72.0
73.9
59.7
25.7
43.9
53.5
62.3
56.0
58.9
62.1
49.8
62.5
5.7J O.fli 0.0
30.1 i 0.1 i 0.1
19.2 j 0.0l 0.0
3.51 O.Oj 0.0
4.1 1 O.Ol 01
12.4J O.oi 0.0
20.2 i O.Oj 0.0
26.81 0.6 1 0.3
18.6] 0.2 j 0.4
9.6 j O.lj 0.0
19.3 j O.Oj 0.0
is.oi o.oi o.o
11.6J 0.4J 0.0
40.1 i o.oi 04
16.5J O.OJ 1.0
32.8J O.Oj 0.0
46.8J O.OJ 0.0
26.0J O.Oi 0.0
25.7] O.Oj 0.1
38.7i o.oi o i
72.41 0.3 i 00
49.7] O.o] 0.0
33.8J 5.9J 0.0
37.2 j O.OJ 0.0
42.7J O.OJ 0.6
39.61 O.Oi 0.8
i I
25.7: O.Oj 0.0
50.0J O.o] 0.0
34.3J l.si 0.0
: :
34.51 64.8J O.Oj 0.5
58.0 38.6j 0.5; 0.0
48.2i 50.oi O.fli 0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodata low high wood herb expo water
0.4 j 0.0
art o.o
O.i] 0.0
00: 00
0.8j 86.6J 5.5j 0.4: 3.6
3.9i 57.81. 34.2! O.OJ 1.7
3.5: 64.0
ooi 100.0
25.ll 0.0i 5.6
i 0.0 i 0.0 i oo
2.6: OOi OR! 89 6\ 55 = 00i 06
:
4.li 0.0
O.Oj 0.0
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
0.0: 0.0
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
O.Oj 0.0
o.oi o.o
0.0: 0.0
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
6.5J 0.1
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
o.o] o.o
o.o] o.o
o.oi o.o
2 1 1 79 1
13.8i 0.0; 0.3
4.8; 62.8J 26.01 O.oi 3.4
1.8J 69.4i 24.3i 0.0i. 2.2
: : :
1.9j 76.6i 17.9i O.Oj 3.2
1.2J 77.91 9.01 O.Oi 9.5
:
2.4: 78.5
3.4i 75.5
2.5J 84.1
22l 62.4
1.5i 76.4
5.3] 52.6
2.6J 57.8
4 ?i 689
18.2! O.Oi 0.0
16.6J O.fli 3.1
9.6i O.o] 2.7
30.4i 00: 21
14.4] 0.0] 6.6
27.3] O.Oj ,12.9
37.9] O.o] 0.2
23.4! O.oi 1.5
0.3] 72.2] 26.3] O.OJ 0.6
2 ll 59.5 15 ?l OOi 10
20i 31.6
6.2J 40.4
7.6J 48.3
l.OJ 54.8
0.9] 51.4
0.8] 51.5
3.5J 47.0
O.lj 45.6
0.9? 50.8
0.4J 30.2
3.7J 50.0
2.3J 41.1
64 Si 0 li 10
37.3] O.OJ 14.4
34.6] 0.9J 1.6
43.0 i O.Oi 0.0
44.5] 0.0: 2.4
39.oi O.Ol 7.1
: :
25.4] l.OJ 6.5
53.1J 0.0] 0.0
41.8i 0.2S 0.4
62.4J O.o] 5.8
44.8J 0.1 1 0.7
27.45 O.oi 28.5
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodata low high wood herb
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
26
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
00
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.7
3.3
0.0
07
1.7
4.2
2.0
2.0
1.1
84.7 4.2
60.4 1 30.6
65.4
100.0
898
80.5
65.1
68.4
76.3
75.5
0.0: O.Oj 2.7] 80.5
O.Oj O.Ol 33i 761
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
71
O.Oj 1.7
O.lj 5.1
0.2J 3.4
O.Oi 61
0.0
00
0 1
.,
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
00
o.o] o.o
0.0] o.o
o.oi o.i
0.3
2 1
1 9
5.7
7.6
1.1
83.2
662
75.8
54.3
63.0
70 1
76.6
63 4
362
43.9
51.3
57 1
0.8 1 54.6
0.7J 52.2
3.2 1 46.2
O.l] 48.9
1.0 596
0.4
3.0
2.0
22.4
0.0
53
! 12.7
24.1
23.7
15.8
7.3
15.9
14.1
,
9.2
263
12.1
23.9
31.9
20.6
21.7
31 5
600
32.8
30.5
40.6
expo water
1.9J 6.7
0.3; 29
0.0
0.0
00
7.1
0.0
07
O.Oi 0.4
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.I
0.0
00
3.7
3.6
5.4
13.8
0.0
5.0
3.0
2.4
9.2
14.7
0.2
1.7
0.9
1 t
o si OQ
0.0
6.4
0.0
41. ij 0.0
34.4! 0.0
22.ll 7.6
49.9 i 0.0
:
330 1.7
33.4] 53.3
55.6J 39.2
45.5= 22.9
15.9
2.4
0.0
2.7
11.1
10.8
0.0
O4
0.0] 11.6
0.9j 1.4
O.Oj 28.9
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
.0
oO-
Table 8. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
113
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
11 digit HUC code
2050302010
2050302020
2050302030
2050302040
2050302050
2050302060
2050302070
2050302080
2050303010
2050303020
2050303030
2050303040
2050303050
2050303060
2050303070
2050303080
2050304010
2050304020
2050304030
2050304040
2050304050
2050304060
2050304070
2050304080
2050304090
2050304100
2050304110
2050304120
2050305010
2050305020
2050305030
2050305040
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodata low high wood herb expo water
0.3
0.9
00
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
1.0
13.1
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
O.lj 3.0
0.1J 13.7
0.0 1 09
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0,
4.2
00
64.7
72.1
66.0
61.5
78.6
77.6
0.1 ] 83.0
321 78.0
0.0 j 1.9
0.0 0.9
0.0 1 0.4
0.0 0.7
0.0
00
1.4
06
0.0: 0.1
0.0 1 06
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
04
0.2
1.4
74.0
58.1
564
67.5
73.4
53.4
77.3
86.2
1.4] 79.9
0.6 1 77.6
:
0.8J 80.0
0.6= 77.1
0.9
03
63.3
76.9
3.0J 45.3
1.3J 609
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.6
76
2.7
11.7
65.9
54.8
64.3
56.7
66.6
56.1
40.6
24.4
32.0
13 1
0.0 j 0.0
00! 00
32.61 OOl 06
38.3J 00? 00
17.1
22.2
16.6
17.7
23.0
27.8
396
0.2 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.2
0.0 1 0.0
O.OJ 1.1
0.0 j 0.0
o.o ! o.o
no! on
31.5! O.l! 0.2
24.7
46.0
21.3
13 1
j
0.4: 0.0
0.0 1 0.1
0.8: 0.4
O.l! 0.0
18.4 j 0.0: 0.0
21.7J O.OJ 0.1
18.81 0.0 1 0.0
22.0 i O.l! 0.0
35.5
22.6
51.5
37.7
28.0
45.1
35.6
41.7
32.5
40.8
56.5
62.4
0.2: 0.0
o.o! 0.2
0.0 1 0.0
O.H 00
O.lj 0.0
0.0 1 0.1
0.0 j 0.0
O.lj 0.0
O.OJ 0.4
0.0 1 0.0
!
O.lj 0.0
0.1 1 0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodata low high wood herb
O.OJ 0.0
0.4 1 0.0
:
ooi oo
:
00= 00
4.7J 56.6
13.6! 67.9
1.7! 59.4
0.3! 531
O.OJ O.OJ 5.6J 79.9
O.OJ O.OJ O.OJ 73.2
0.4l 0.0: O.l! 78.2
: . i :
O.Oi O.Ol 3.8! 687
0.4 j 0.0
10.0J 0.0
osi oo
o.o i o.o
o.o! o.o
o.o! o.o
o.o! o.o
o.o! o.o
2.8J 66.3
1.4! 54.6
:
05i 530
0.8! 70.8
1.7J 65.7
1 9i 459
35.1
.2.9
31.8
42.5
expo
0.1
0.0
00
00
11.6J 0.0
23.91 00
19.5
18.1
27.5
33.9
436
27.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
25.7J 0.3
49.6! 00
water
0.6
2.7
42
0.1
2.1
1.1
0.3
7.0
1.9
0.0
1.4
1.2
6.0
0.3
0.4! 72.0: 26.1 j O.OJ 0.8
1.0! 69.0! 12.3! 0.0! 17.0
: : :
0.5! O.Oj 2.5! 65.2
0.0! 0.0! 0.3! 79.1
0.3: 0.0
03= 00
18.6
19.8
3.3! 64.4J 29.7
l.ol 699! 26.0
O.OJ O.O! 0.8J 46.3
0.0! 00! 0.6 i 67.7
36.2
28 1
O.OJ 0.1 5.7J 39.5J 52.8
O.OJ 00 2.1^ 479: 40.1
O.OJ O.OJ 0.3J 61.8
0.0! 0.0! 0.2; 48.3
O.OJ 0.0
o.o! o.o
o.o! o.o
O.lj 0.0
0.0 i 0.0
o.o! o.o
36.0
506
O.l! 68.5J 31.3
2.4! 46.7! 36.7
1.2! 60.2
1.8J 63.4
:
3.0 1 50.4
9.8! 35.9
O.OJ 11.3
O.OJ 0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.6
15.7
1.2
6.6
7.6
0.4
01
o.oi 0.1
O.o! 13.2
34.2: 0.0
33.6! 00
43.2
384
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.0
1.7
14.6
Land use statistics for the 1 00' buffer
nodata low high wood herb
0.0: 0.0
0.4 1 0.4
o.oi o.o
]
o.o! o.o
O.OJ 0.0
O.OJ 0.0
0.5 j 0.0
o.oi o.o
0.4 j 0.0
10.1 i o.o
0.8 i 0.0
o.o! o.o
5.0
'"
0.4
4.7
0.0
57.7J 33.3
70.9! 10.9
60.0 1 28.3
55.7J 39.8
81.5J 9.4
75.8 ! 21.0
0.0] 80.5 j 17.0
3.4! 69.5! 15.7
2.3
1.5
0.4
0.6
o.o! o.o! 1.4
0.0! 0.0! 2.3
0.0: 0.0
o.o! o.o
0.4: 0.0
o.o! o.o
:
0.3! o.o
0.3; 0.0
o.o! o.o
:
0.0* 0.2
0.0! 0.3
ooi o.o
69.2 1 24.4
56.1 1 32.1
54.ll 41.4
74. ll 22.6
65.3 1 22.2
46.8! 48.2
0.4] 74.3J 23.7
0.9! 67.7; 10.5
1.6; 65.2J 17.0
0.2; 82.6! 16.4
3.8
0.8
0.5
08
expo
0.4
0.2
00
00
water
1.2
2.9
7.6
0.1
O.l! 3.7
O.l! 1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.3J 27.3 ! 0.8
71.3; 22.?i 0.1
47.6; 32.5
70 l! 25.4
5.2! 42.3J 50.2
: :
1.5: 520: 357
0.0: O.OJ 0.3
ooi oo! 03
65.5 j 32.2
49.7! 49.1
O.Oj O.OJ O.OJ 73.4J 26.4
O.OJ 0.0! 2.0! 48.7! 33.S
o.o! o.o
O.l; 0.0
0.0 1 0.1
o.o! 0.2
1.2J 61.8J 30.1
1.5= 686: 288
2.8
8.2
0.4
9.0
2.7
0.0
2.5
2.7
10.2
0.4
1.0
20.1
13.9
0.4
0.0
4.8
O.o! 18.5
0.0 1 1.4
0.0 1.1
0 li 86
0.1
00
0.6
0.3
O.OJ 0.2
0.1 i 14.9
0.0
00
5.6
II
55.6J 36.9J 0.0 3.1
37.7J 31.0! 0.0; 21.9
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 8. Land use data Within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
129
.130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
1 1 digit HUC code
2050305050
2050305060
2050305070
2050305080
2050305090
2050305100
2050306010
2050306020
2050306030
2050306040
2050306050
2050306060
2050306070
2050306080
2050306090
2050306100
2050306110
2050306120
2050306150
2050306160
2050306180
2050306200
2050306220
2060002020
2060002040
2060002060
2060002080
2060003120
2070002070
2070002130
2070003060
2070003100
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodata low high wood herb expo water
O.OJ l.Oj 7.6
0.0 j 0.0! 2.9
29! O.l! 2.9
55.0
66.8
22.9
36.2
28.8
71 1
2.4* 2.3! 15.1 ! 12.8J 67.3
Ofl! 0.8:: 10.5
28. l! 605
0.0! 2.5! 12.3! 60.ll 25.0
O.OJ 0.5J 5.7! 16.2
O.oi O.l! 1.8! 38.6
O.OJ 0.0: 0.9 1 30.0
O.fli o.i! 6.21 19.9
O.Oi O.Oj 2.4
o.oi o.o! 3.1
O.Oi 1.8J 14.1
O.Oi 0.5 ! 5.0
29! 0.7i 7.0
O.OJ 3.9! 25.7
7.5J 1.9J 10.3
5.6 j 0.3! 4.4
oo! oo! 0.5
ooi o.7i 5.1
:
13.4: 0.1 1 1.8
00- OOi 40
77.4
59.6
68.7
736
47.8J 48.0
30.4 1 66.4
25.3
16.9
32.9
58.8
77.6
566
13.3] 56.8
17.5 ] 62.7
25.5 1 64.2
36.6! 62.9
37.4i 56 6
21.5
24.8
63.3
71.2
: : : "
O.OJ O.l! 0.9] 26.7J 72.4
11.9! 0.1J 1.8! 27.9! 58.4
0.0 j 0.3 1 2.5 1 26.2 ] 70.9
0.0! O.OJ O.OJ 22.5] 77.5
O.OJ O.OJ 2.5 24.1 1 73.2
6.0] 0.0! l.lj 21.ll 77.9
12.8: 0.0: 0.7J 70.6J 16.0
0.0! O.o! 0.5! 79.5! 19.0
o.o; o.oi o.o
o.oi o.oi o.o
82.1
88.0
17.9
170
0.2] 0.0
1.6J 0.0
o oi o.o
0.0; 0.0
o.i! o.o
:
o.ii o.o
0.2; 0.0
o.o! o.o
0.4 i 0.0
o.i! o.o
O.OJ 1.8
o.o! o.o
o.i! o.o
o.o! o.o
o o! o.o
;
0.4] 0.0
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi oo
1
02= 0.0
o.o! o.o
o.i! o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oj o.o
o.o! o.o
o.o! o.o
0.0 j 0.2
o.oj o.o
o.oi o.o
o.o! i.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodata low high wood herb
O.OJ 0.1
0.0] 0.0
0.91 00
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
0.0! 0.3
:
o.o! o.o
0.0; 0.0
o.oj o.o
o.oi o.o
0.0] 0.0
o.o! o.o
o.oi 6.1
o.oi o.o
i.ii oo
I
0.0! o.i
4.7J 0.0
4.0] 0.0
o.o! o o
:
O.Oi o 1
:
8.5J 0.0
0.0! 0.0
o.oj o.o
5.5] 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
o.oj o.o
o.oj o.o
12.6! 0.0
o.o! o.o
o.oj o.o
o.oi o.o
8.5J 61.0
6.l! 60.1
4.3: 21.4
12.s! 19.2
24.6
24.6
67.1
62.5
7.7i 32.9i 49.8
10.7i 49.6! 21.9
expo
0.0
0.4
00
0.2
0.0
0.1
water
4.3
3.2
01
1.9
7.5
14.8
2.1] 3 1.4J 62.8 0.3 j 3.3
1.6! 44.5! 49.7J 0.0 4.1
1.3J 43.2] 51.9J 0.4J 3.1
4.1; 37.9; 57.8 Ofll 0.1
3.6J 55.9
2.3 j 50.2
9.1] 40.1
5.6! 27.8
9 4! 34.6
18.8J 32.0
9.4J 25.3
5.2] 34.3
O.l! 68.6
V.I.
5.6^ 47.5
2.0 i 44.1
2.7i 48.8
0.7] 49.7
l.lj 59.2
O.lj 49.8
29.9
42.9
42.8
65.0
50.2
46.0
50.9
55.8
30.1
18.7
41.2
47.3
43.8
34.2
50.1
0.9 1 39. ij 57.7
1.3] 27.7! 71.0
2.8J 70.8J 13.7
0.8J 71.6! 23.4
0.0] 81.3
O.o! 88.1
18.7
11.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
1.0
0.1
.0.0
00
07
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.4
3.7
6.3
0.3
14
0.3
7.5
0.2
1 3
264
4.2
1.1
5.4
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
'
4.2
0.0
0.0
Land use statistics for the 1 00' buffer
nodata low high wood herb
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.6 ! 8.0
0.0] 5.7
O.o! 5.2
2.4! 12.4
0.3! 6.7
1.7! 10.5
0.1J 2.4
O.OJ 1.5
0.1 i 1.2
O.li 42
0.0 j 0.1; 3.3
O.o! O.l! 2.4
0.0: 1.6: 8.9
O.oi 0.3! 6.8
1.1
0.6! 9 8
0.0] 1.3! 17.1
4.7J 0.4J 8.6
4.0! 0.3 j 6.4
0.0 o.n! o i
0.0
8.5
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.9i 53
O.OJ 2.4
O.OJ 2.2
0.0] 0.7
O.OJ 1.0
o.oj o.o
0.0: O.oi 1.0
0.0 j 0.0! 1.1
12.6J O.OJ 3.3
0.0! O.Oi 0.8
0.0
0.0
o.oj o.o
o.oi o.o
expo
63.8 j 19.2 j 0.0
63.0 i 20.4 j 3.2
25.s! 61 9J 00
21.7
60.4
38.o! 42.3
55.4; 17.8
37.8
50.3
52.2
47.0
57.4
55.4
44.2
35.2
38.7
35.7
26.3
37.7
745
49 5
48.7
539
l.l
00
02
55.4J 6.3
40.9 j 0.0
41.5J 0.3
48.6 ! 0.0
21.8J 0.0
37.2! 0.0
37.2
56.6
44.8
44.3
45.3
51.3
23.4
15.5
35.8
42.6
0.1
0.0
03
1.2
0.2
0.0
00
07
water
| 7.6
4.8
01
1.9
11 0
13.7
4.0
7.3
4.7
0.0
17.1
4.1
8.0
0.3
42
0.3
13.0
- 0.3
2 1
5X0
O.OJ 4.6
ooi 13
52.4 j 38.3 j 0.0
67.4 j 26. ij 0.0
58.8! 41.2: 0.0
. i . i .
8.2
0.0
0.0
47.4] 48.8J 0.0 2.8
31.1! 67.8; O.Oi 0.0
71.7J 12.2J 0.0: 0.1
72.8; 21.51 O.o! 4.9
83.3
89.7
16.7
101
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 8. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Pennsylvania.
ID
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
11 digit HUC code
2070003130
2070004010
2070004020
2070004030
2070004120
2070004220
2070004310
2070004400
2070009030
2070009040
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodata tow high wood herb expo
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.1 j 2.0
0.9 j 8.0
o.o i i.o
0.0 1 0.7
0.0! 0.5
0.7: 5.6
0.5 j 7.2
0.1 ! 44
0.2= 5.1
79.4 j 20.6 j 0.0
37.5 1 60.4 i 0.0
41.3
52.5
74.5
76.5
20.2
37.4
68.3
35.1
49.6
.46.2
24.8
22.8
73.4
54.9
26.9
59.5
water
0.0
0.0
0.2! 0.0
o.oi o.o
:
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodata low high wood herb expo water
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0: 0.0
0.3 ! 0.0
o.oi o.o
o.o! o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
o.oi so.i
2.0 i 44.2
7.3 j 46.6
0.8J 57.8
1.3 1 77.8
0.5! 76.6
2.4J 34.5
9.0! 42.0
48! 690
4.8! 43.5
19.9 j 0.0: 0.0
53.3! O.fli 0.4
42.5J 0.1 ! 2.8
40.1 1 0.1 j 0.6
20.9] O.OJ 0.0
22.6J 0.0: 0.4
57.3 1 0.0 j 5.6
48.4 i 0.0 j 0.6
23.7! 0.5'! 1.9
49.2! O.l! 2.3
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodata low high wood herb expo
0.0
00
0.0
01
0:0
1.9
0.0 1 0.6 1 7.4
0.3 j 0.0! 0.7
: :
0.0! 0.0 i 1.3
o.oi oo! 05
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
2.4
9.3
4.4
4.5
82.6J 17.4; 0.0
50. l! 47.5 i 0.0
water
0.0
05
50.2J 37.9J O.o! 3.8
62.4! 35.6! 0.1 j 0.5
82.2: 16.5! O.Oi 0.0
80.3! 18.7i O.fli 04
36.2 i 51.3J 0.0
43.2 1 46.9 j 0.0
72.7 ! 20.2'! 0.5
: :
49.7! 42.0! 0.1
9'.9
0.7
2.1
3.6
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
expo - exposed soil
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
A01
A02
A03
A04
A05
A06
A07
A08
A09
A10
All
A12
A13
A14
A15
AI6
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A29
A30
A31
A32
Watershed
POTOMAC RIVER/PINEY RUN/DUTCHMAN CREEK
CATOCTIN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/LIMESTONE BRANCH
UPPER GOOSE CREEK/GAP RUN
MIDDLE GOOSE CREEK/PANTHER SKIN CREEK
NORTH FORK GOOSE CREEK
BEAVERDAM CREEK
LOWER GOOSE CREEK/LITTLE RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER/BROAD RUN
SUGARLAND RUN
POTOMAC RIVER/DIFFICULT RUN
POTOMAC RJVER/FOURMILE RUN/PIMMIT RUN
CAMERON RUN
POTOMAC RIVER/DOGUE CREEK/LITTLE HUNTING CREEK
ACCOTINK CREEK
POHICK CREEK
UPPER CEDAR RUN/LICKING RUN
LOWER CEDAR RUN/TOWN RUN
BROAD RUN/KETTLE RUN
UPPER OCCOQUAN RIVER/LAKE JACKSON
UPPER BULL RUN/LITTLE BULL RUN
CUB RUN
LOWER BULL RUN/POPES HEAD CREEK
OCCOQUAN RIVER - RESERVOIR
POTOMAC RIVER/LOWER OCCOQUAN RIVER/NEABSCO CREEK
POTOMAC R1VER/QUANTICO CREEK/CHOPAWAMSIC CREEK
UPPER AQUIA CREEK/BEAVERDAM RUN
LOWER AQUIA CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/POTOMAC CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/UPPER MACHODOC CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/MATTOX CREEK/POPES CREEK/ROSIER CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/NOMINI CREEK/LOWER MACHODOC CREEK
HUCcode
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070008
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070010
2070011
2070011
2070011
2070011
2070011
2070011
2070011
Stream Length
miles %
5lj 0.15
136J 0.39
75j 0.22
113! 0.32
126! 0.36
66J 0.19
75j 0.21
165! 0.47
132! 0.38
36 1 0.10
144J 0.41
47! 0.14
48! 0.14
54| 0.16
82 1 0.23
58| 0.16
160J 0.46
151 ! 0.43
208J 0.59
50! 0.14
141 j 0.40
74J 0.21
76 j 0.22
70! 0.20
102! 0.29
167: 0.48
93j 0.27
53! 0.15
203 j 0.58
no! o.3i
166! 0.47
185! 0.53
Both 300'+
miles %
12.4J 24.4
18.6: 13.7
10.8 j 14.3
21.2J 18.8
27.0 j 21.4
9.3: 14.2
14.6! 19.6
32.5! 19.7
26.7 1 20.2
6.2J 17.3
47.8J 33.2
3.9! 8.1
3.6 1 7.5
6.6 1 12.1
19.3 j 23.7
14.5! 25.2
26.1 1 16.3
50.3 j 33.2
43.6J 21.0
2 1.9 j 43.7
40.0 ! 28.3
15.9J 21.6
27:8j 36.4
14.8! 21.0
21.8! 21.3
89.9 1 53.7
53.7J 57.7
11.5! 21.7
104.0! 51.2
52.7 j 48.0
59.0! 35.5
47.6! 25.7
Both 100'-300'
miles %
26.0
52:2
27.0
45.9
63.3
25.1
35.4
69.6
58.6
16.6
91.3
14.5
15.0
16.6
39.8
31.2
62.6
80.5
89.0
33.6
51.1
38.5
35.8
40.8
50.1
38.4
47.4
42.2
44.3
46.3
63.4
30.5
31.4
30.5
48.8
54.1
39.0
53.2
42.8
67.2
82.2J 58.2
33.7
47.8
33.8
45.8
62.6
48.1
43.0J 42.0
113.4
70.6
21.2
135.1
65.5
83.4
74.0
67.8
75.8
40.2
66.5
59.7
50.2
40.0
One side 300'+
miles %
26.6
45.4
25.4
41.6
52.2
33.4
33.6
36.9
59.9 47.4
21.9
32.2
64.7
55.1
14.7
91.0
10.8
11.1
15.2
35.2
29.2
61.1
33.4
43.1
39.2
41.7
40.9
63.2
22.8
23.2
27.9
43.2
50.6
38.1
79.2) 52.4
85.2
34.7
76.9
30.4
48.6
35.7
43.7
115.5
73.5
22.3
140.2
69.1
41.0
69.3
54.5
41.3
63.7
50.8
42.7
69.0
79.0
42.4
69.0
63.0
85.6! 51.6
75.3
40.7
One side 100'-300'
miles %
32.3
64.2
34.4
55.2
73.9
30.3
42.3
83.2
69.0
19.9
104.3
18.4
17.6
20.6
46.1
36.9
63.5
47.3
45.6
49.0
58.5
46.2
56.6
50.4
52.2
55.4
72.5
38.8
37.0
37.8
56.6
63.9
74.2J 46.3
90.6
104.7
38.0
59.9
50.4
75.9
91.8! 65.0
38.5
53.6
43.1
51.4
52.3
70.2
61.4
50.2
I21.5J 72.6
76.Q
24.8
145.7
81.6
47.0
71.7
71.4 65.1
91.8
84.0
55.3
45.4
Both (ides < 100'
miles %
18.6J 36.5
71.4
41.0
52.7
54.4
57.5! 51.0
52.4
41.5
35.3 1 53.8
32.4
81.9
63.3
43.4
49.6
47.8
16.0: 44.6
39.6J 27.5
29.1
30.1
33.8
35.4
20.9
86.1
60.6
103.0
12.1
61.2
63.0
62.2
43.4
36.1
53.7
40.1
49.6
24.1
49.4 j 35.0
35. ij 47.7
22.7
29.8
27.1! 38.6
5 1.0 j 49.8
45.8
17.1
28.0
57.6
38.3
74.2
101.0
27.4
18.4
53.0
28.3
34.9
44.7
54.6
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
A33
A34
B01
B02
B03
B04
BOS
B06
B07
B08
B09
BIO
Bll
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
Watershed
POTOMAC RIVER/YEOCOMICO RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER/COAN RIVER/LITTLE WICOMICO RIVER
UPPER NORTH FORK SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER/LAUREL FORK
UPPER SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
UPPER SOUTH FORK SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
SLEEPY CREEK
UPPER BACK CREEK/ISAACS CREEK
HOGUE CREEK
LOWER BACK CREEK/BRUSH CREEK/BABBS RUN
UPPER OPEQUON CREEK
LOWER OPEQUON CREEK
UPPER MIDDLE RIVER
MIDDLE RIVER/JENNINGS BRANCH
MIDDLE RIVER/LEWIS CREEK
MOFFETT CREEK
CHRISTIANS CREEK
LOWER MIDDLE RIVER
UPPER NORTH RIVER
MIDDLE NORTH RIVER
BRIERY BRANCH
MOSSY CREEK
UPPER DRY RIVER
LOWER DRY RIVER
MUDDY CREEK
LOWER NORTH RIVER
LONG GLADE CREEK
COOKS CREEK
BLACKS RUN
PLEASANT RUN
NAKED CREEK
MILL CREEK
UPPER SOUTH RIVER ,
HUCcode
2070011
2070011
2070001
2070001
2070001
2070004
2070004
2070004
2070004
2070004
2070004
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
Stream Length
miles %
147! 0.42
210j 0.60
39j 0.11
49 j 0.14
8j 0.02
29 1 0.08
115J 0.33
61! 0.17
68j 0.19
72j 0.21
99 j 0.28
36! 0.10
54! 0.15
59: 0.17
17J 0.05
73 j 0.21
37j 0.11
69 1 0.20
35j 0.10
38| 0.11
14! 0.04
95: 0.27
15J 0.04
28 1 0.08
69 j 0.20
17! 0.05
14j 0.04
11 j 0.03
6j 0.02
19 j 0.06
16 j 0.05
62 i 0.18
Both 300'+
miles %
42.3
33.9
25.7
27.8
14.1
65.2
5.2! 10.8
1.1
12.0
36.6
19.9
17.8
5.1
2.8
13.9
41.2
31.9
32.7
26.1
7.1
2.8
0.2! 0.4
20.0
37.1
0.7: 1.2
2.2
2.7
12.9
3.7
0.3 j 0.9
58.0
3.7
84.2
10.8
19.6J 52.1
O.OJ 0.0
86.0
1.5
3.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
18.8
91.0
9.9
10.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.5
30.5
Both 100--3001
miles %
73.6! 48.4
69.6J 29.0
27.7J 70.4
9.5! 19.5
2.8J 33.8
16.7 j 57.1
60.4J 52.7
29.6J 48.8
32.6 1 47.7
20.7J 28.7
18.4J 18.6
1.6J 4.5
27.3 1 50.6
9.9 1 16.9
2.9J 16.9
11.5J 15.8
3.9J 10.5
62.5! 90.8
8.2 1 23.9
22.8 1 60.7
0.1 j 0.8
88.7: 93.8
3.3; 21.3
4.1J 14.5
1.7! 2.5
0.2 1 1.3
0.1J 0.6
0.1 j 0.5
O.Oj 0.4
0.9J 4.8
0.7J 4.4
26.1J 42.4
One side 300'+
miles %
72.7 j 47.8
76.8J 32.0
28.6; 72.5
10.6! 21.8
3.3J 39.9
16.8J 57.6
62.1J 54.1
29.8 1 49.1
34.2J 50.1
17.1J 23.7
15.7J 15.9
1.2J 3.4
27.9: 51.7
8.3 j 14.2
3.1; 18.0
10.4! 14.2
2.7 j 7.1
64.0 ! 93.0
7.5j 21.8
23.4! 62.3
0.2J 1.5
90.ll 95.3
3.3J 21.0
4.1J 14.7
. 1.7J 2.4
0.3 1 1.6
O.Oj 0.2
O.Oj 6.4
O.Oj 0.0
1.3: 6.5
0.6J 3.6
25.5! 41.5
One side 100'-300'
miles %
82. l! 54.0
87.2J 36.3
28.6 1 72.7
11. 5 1 23.6
3.3 j 40.3
18.5J 63.4
69.5j 60.6
33.2! 54.7
38. l! 55.8
26.5J 36.8
25.0J 25.3
3.6! 9.9
30.4 j 56.3
14.4J 24.5
3.5 j 20.1
17.2J 23.6
7.2J 19.3
64.5J '93.7
10.6J 30.7
24.5 j 65.1
0.2J 1.5
90.31 95.4
3.9; 25.0
4.6! 16.2
4.6J 6.6
0.3J 1.9
0.2J 1.5
0.2! 1.5
O.Oj 0.7
1.5J 7.6
1.0 j 6.4
29.0! 47.1
Both sides < 100'
miles %
65.3
46.0
123.1 i 63.7
10.8; 27.3
37.1
4.9
10.7
45.2
27.5
30.2
76.4
59.7
36.6
39.4
45.3
44.2
45.6 ! 63.2
73.6
74.7
32.2 j 90.1
23.6
44.3
13.7
55.7
30.2
4.4
23.9
13.1
13.4
4.3
43.7
75.5
79.9
76.4
80.7
6.3
69.3
34.9
98.5
4.6
11. 6 j 75.0
23.5
64.5
16.4
13.7
11. 1
6.3
18.0
14.8
32.6
83.8
93.4
98.1
98.5
98.5
99.3
92.4
93.6
52.9
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
B50
B51
B52
B53
B54
B55
B56
B57
B58
C01
C02
C03
Watershed
MIDDLE SOUTH RIVER/BACK CREEK
LOWER SOUTH RIVER
UPPER SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER
CUB RUN
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/ELK RUN/BOONE RUN
NAKED CREEK
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/CUB RUN
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/MILL CREEK
HAWKSBILL CREEK
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/GOONEY RUN
LOWER SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER
UPPER NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/GERMAN RIVER
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/LITTLE DRY RIVER
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/SHOEMAKER RIVER
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/HOLMANS CREEK
LINVILLE CREEK
SMITH CREEK
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/MILL CREEK
STONY CREEK
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/NARROW PASSAGE CREEK
LOWER NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/TUMBLING RUN
UPPER CEDAR CREEK
LOWER CEDAR CREEK
PASSAGE CREEK
UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER
CROOKED RUN
SHENANDOAH RIVER/SPOUT RUN
LOWER SHENANDOAH RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/GREAT WICOMICO RIVER
DRAGON SWAMP
PIANKATANK RIVER
HUCcode
2070005
,2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070005
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070006
2070007
2070007
2070007
2070007
2080102
2080102
2080102
Stream Length
miles %
108
105
49
17
0.31
0.30
0.14
0.05
134! 0.38
42
94
57
74
149
53
73
0.12
0.27
0.16
0.21
0.43
0.15
0.21
71 1 0.20
74
86
42
88
87
0.21
0.25
0.12
0.25
0.25
127J 0.36
90
, 69
"
0.26
0.20
119j 0.34
102 1 0.29
98
92
67
104
69
190
0.28
0.26
0.19
0.30
0.20
0.54
303 1 0.86
63
0.18
Both 300'+
miles %
52.6
31.6
24.7
2.9
39.2
23.1
22.6
7.0
14.8
36.8
6.6
41.5
49.9
36.0
0.3
0.3
15.2
23.3
41.9
10.3
8.9
48.8
30.0
50.8
16.8
29.3
55.1
24.0
12.2
19.9
24.6
12.3
56.8
70.0
48.5
0.3
0.8
17.2
26.9
32.9
11.4
12.8
73.9 62.0
24.0 23.5
53.6
16.3
7.5
22.6
15.0
75.8
221.6
49.0
54.4
17.8
11.2
21.8
21.6
20.7
73.2
31.5
Both 100--300'
miles %
67.6
62.7
52.7 50.1
27.6
5.0
56.8
28.8
49.7 1 37.1
27.9
34.2
14.2
23.9
64.6
13.8
52.5
66.5
36.3
24.9
32.2
43.3
25.9
71.7
54.9! 77.0
45.8
3.4
, 1.2
23.3
31.4
61.6
4.0
2.8
26.4
36.3
62.6 49.1
19.3
16.3
98.9
39.3
64.8
21.4
23.4
83.1
38.5
65.9
29.01 31.6
16.8
25.1
39. Ij 37.7
22.7
119.1
275.8
69.1
32.7
32.4
91.1
44.4
One side 300'+
miles %
68.9 1 64.0
47.1
27.3
4.2
50.2
28.0
34.4
13.9
44.7
56.2
24.3
37.5
66.7
36.5
24.3
22.9 1 30.9
63.3 ) 42.4
12.9
53.3
55.8
47.2
3.1
1.3
22.5
31.9
63.9
19.1
16,4
99.2
24.2
73.0
78.3
63.5
3.6
3.1
25.4
36.9
50.1
21.2
23.6
83.3
38.2 j 37.4
65.8
30.5
18.7
38.5
23.5
128.1
277.6
76.5
66.9
33.2
27.9
37.1
33.9
34.9
91.7
49.1
One side 100'-300'
miles %
73.6
60.6
28.5
68.2
57.6
58.7
6.0 i 34.3
55.2
29.2
41.1
19.4
26.8
80.5
18.4
56.2
56.7
41.2
69.5
43.7
34.0
36.1
53.9
34.4
76.8
79.6
, 50.0 67.2
6.1
2.2
28.1
34.9
71.4
24.1
20.1
105.3
45.6
69.2
37.0
21.6
47.1
27.7
142.6
285.5
81.1
7.1
5.2
31.8
40.3
56.0
26.8
28.9
88.4
44.6
70.3
40.3
32.3
45.4
39.9
38.8
.94.3
52.1
Both sides < 100'
miles %
34.2 j 31.8
44.6 j 42.4
20. ij 41.3
11.4J 65.7
78.7J 58.8
12.81 30.5
53.11 56.3
37.7 i 66.0
47.4 ! 63.9
68.8 1 46.1
35.0J 65.6
16.9 j 23.2
14.SJ 20.4
24.4 j 32.8
80.2 j 92.9
39.8J 94.8
60.2 j 68.2
51.71 59.7
S6.1J 44.0
65.91 73.2
49.41 71.1
13.8J 11.6
56.6 1 55.4
29.2] 29.7
54.7] 59.7
45.3 j 67.7
56.7J 54.6
41.7J 60.1
47. i! 61.2
17.2J 5.7
-17.8! 47.9
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
C04
COS
C06
C07
COS
C09
CIO
Cll
C12.
C13
C14
CIS
C16
D06
E01
E02
E03
E04
EOS
£06
E07
£08
£09
E10
Ell
£12
E13
£14
£15
£16
£17
£18
Watershed
CHESAPEAKE BAY/EAST RIVER/NORTH RIVER
WARE RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/SEVERN RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/BACK RIVER/POQUOSON RIVER
LYNNHAVEN RlVER/LlTTLE CREEK
POCOMOKE RIVER/PITTS CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/HOLDENS CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/ONANCOCK CREEK
PUNGOTEAGUE CREEK
NANDUA CREEK/OCCOHANNOCK CREEK/NASSAWADOX CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/HUNGARS CREEK
CHERRYSTONE INLET/KINGS CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/OLD PLANTATION CREEK
MAGOTHY BAY/MOCKHORN BAY
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/THUMB RUN/JORDAN RIVER
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/CARTER RUN/GREAT RUN
HUGHES RIVER
UPPER HAZEL RIVER
UPPER THORNTON RIVER
LOWER THORNTON RIVER
LOWER HAZEL RIVER/MUDDY RUN/INDIAN RUN
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MARSH RUN
MOUNTAIN RUN
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/DEEP RUN/ROCK RUN
UPPER RAPIDAN RIVER/CONWAY RIVER
RAPIDAN RIVER/SOUTH RIVER
RAPIDAN RIVER/BLUE RUN/BEAUTIFUL RUN
UPPER ROBINSON RIVER/WHITE OAK RUN
LOWER ROBINSON RIVER/CROOKED RUN/DEEP RUN
RAPIDAN RIVER/CEDAR RUN
RAPIDAN RIVER/MINE RUN/MOUNTAIN RUN
LOWER RAPIDAN RIVER
HUC code
2080102
2080102
2080102
2080108
2080108
2060009
2080109
2080109
2080109
2080109
2080109
2080109
2080109
2080109
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
2080103
Stream Length
miles %
291
152
0.83
0.43
131 j 0.37
366! 1.04
334
45
418
0.95
0.13
1.19
135J 0.39
39
253
94
51
0.11
0.72
0.27
0.14
45J 0.13
3
150
207
0.01
0.43
0.59
55J 0.16
94
84
68
88
116
0.27
0.24
0.19
0.25
0.33
131 ) 0.37
120
71
63
123
90
121
0.34
0.20
0.18
0.35
0.26
0.35
70 ! 0.20
157
0.45
116 0.33
Both 300'+
miles %
30.7! 8.9
56.3! 37.2
9.2 j 7.0
9.8J 2.5
37.4! 10.5
9.9! 22.0
17.0J 4.1
0.9! 0.7
4.4 ! 11.1
8.7J 3.4
1.9J 2.0
1.0! . 2.1
0.8! 1.7
0.0 j 0.5
39.8J 26.5
56.6! 27.3
18.8! 34.2
23.4; 25.0
26.4J 31.4
7.6! 11.3
18.9J 21.4
>16.4j 14.2
10.4J 7.9
54.2! 45.3
36.0 j 50.6
12.6! 19.9
11.9! 9.6
26.2J 29.1
16.5J 13.6
12.0 1 17.2
41.4! 26.4
47.6! 41.2
Both 100--300'
miles %
49.0! 14.2
83.2: 54.9
J
12.6J 9.6
30.5J 7.7
70.0! 19.6
19.9J 44.5
48.7 1 11.7
6.3 1 4.7
8.1 j 20.6
26.4J 10.4
I0.6J 11.4
6.1J 12.1
5.5J 12.3
0.2 1 8.0
68.4J 45.5
96.2 1 46.5
23.1 1 42.1
37.4J 39.9
39.4! 47.0
19.5! 28.9
35.2J 39.9
40.6 j 35.1
28.6 1 21.8
77.3! 64.7
40.5! 56.9
19.7! 31.2
32.7J 26.5
32.2! 35.7
31.2! 25.8
25.5 1 36.4
73.5J 47.0
65.1; 56.3
One side 300'+
miles %
56.7! 16.4
85.8J 56.6
13.2; 10.1
32. l| 8.1
70.9! 19.9
19.7! 43.9
44.4J 10.6
5.3 j 3.9
8.4J 21.5
26.8! 10.6
10.1 ] 10.8
6.2J 12.2
5.2! 11.6
0.3! 11.9
68.8! 45.8
94.4! 45.6
23. 1 j 42.0
38.1: 40.6
40.2; 47.9
20.3J 30.0
33.7! 38.3
38.4! 33.2
29.3! 22.3
80.8; 67.6
41.5! 58.3
19.7! 31.2
30.8J 25.0
33.6J 37.2
31.9! 26.3
20.2 1 28.8
71.4J 45.6
68.3! 59.0
One side 100'-300'
miles %
62.4! 18.0
91. ij 60.1
14.4; 10.9
43.1 1 10.8
89.9: 25.3
23.ll 51.5
57.9J 13.8
8.4J 6.2
9.3! 23.8
35.6! 14.1
16.3J 17.4
9.1 1 18.0
8.3 ! 18.7
0.4! 14.1
80.5J 53.5
112.2J 54.2
25.4! 46.3
43.6J 46.5
43.9J 52.3
26.5! 39.2
4 1.9 j 47.6
49.6 1 42.9
37.6J 28.7
85.6! 71.6
43.6J 61.2
22.5! 35.5
41.5J 33.7
35.6J 39.5
38.8! 32.0
30.1: 42.9
82.9; 52.9
72.5! 62.6
Both sides < 100'
miles %
228.5! 82.0
60.4! 39.9
116.9J 89.1
322.7! 89.2
244.4! 74.7
21.8J 48.5
360.2 j 86.2
126.9! 93.8
29.9 ! 76.2
217.4J 85.9
77.3! 82.6
4 1.6 1 82.0
36.2! 81.3
2.3! 85.9
69.9J 46.5
94.7J, 45.8
29.5! 53.7
50.1 ! 53.5
40.0 1 47.7
41.1! 60.8
46. 1 ! 52.4
66.1J 57.1
93.6! 71.3
33.9! 28.4
27.6J 38.8
40.7J 64.5
81.8J 66.3
54.7! 60.5
82.3! 68.0
40.0 1 57.1
73.7; 47.1
43.2! 37.4
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
E19
E20
E21
E22
E23
E24
E25
E26
F01
F02
F03
F04
F05
F06
F07
F08
F09
F10
Fll
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
F19
F20
F21
F22
F23
Watershed
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MOTTS RUN
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MASSAPONAX CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MILL CREEK/GOLDENVALE CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK R1VER/OCCUPACIA CREEK/PEEDEE CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/CATPOINT CREEK/PISCATAWAY CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/TOTUSKEY CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/LAGRANGE CREEK/LANCASTER CREEK
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/CORROTOMAN RIVER
UPPER SOUTH ANNA RIVER
SOUTH ANNA RIVER/ROUNDABOUT CREEK
SOUTH ANNA RIVER/TAYLORS CREEK
LOWER SOUTH ANNA RIVER
NEWFOUND RIVER
UPPER NORTH ANNA RIVER
LAKE ANNA/PAMUNKEY CREEK
CONTRARY CREEK
LOWER NORTH ANNA RIVER/NORTHEAST CREEK
UPPER LITTLE RIVER
LOWER LITTLE RIVER
UPPER PAMUNKEY RIVER/MECHUMPS CREEK
MIDDLE PAMUNKEY RIVER/BLACK CREEK/TOTOPOTOMOY CREEK
LOWER PAMUNKEY RIVER
NI RIVER ;
PO RIVER
UPPER MATTAPONI RIVER/PONI RIVER
MATTA'RIVER
SOUTH RIVER
POLECAT CREEK
MATTAPONI RIVER/HERRING CREEK/CHAPEL CREEK
MARACOSSIC CREEK/BEVERLY RUN
MATTAPONI RIVER/GARNETTS CREEK
HUC code
2080104
2080104
2080104
2080104
2080104
2080104
2080104
2080104
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080106
2080105
2080105
2080105
2080105
2080105
2080105
2080105
2080105
2080105
Stream Length
miles %
78} 0.22
1S2J 0.43
372; 1.06
330! 0.94
:
484: 1.38
174i 0.50
298J 0.85
260! 0.74
93! 0.27
149} 0.42
280J 0.80
97) 0.28
61 ! 0.17
168: 0.48
304J 0.87
30} 0.09
204! 0.58
83! 0.24
122J 0.35
163! 0.47
41l! 1.17
307J 0.88
83j 0.24
133! 0.38
137! 0.39
90} 0.26
93 j 0.26
89! 0.25
305: 0.87
248J 0.71
204! 0.58
Both 300'+
miles %
33.9J 43.4
53.2J 35.0
163.7J 44.0
113.4! 34.3
;
235.6} 48.7
85.1 ! 49.0
98.9! 33.2
81.0! 25.1
22.2! 23.8
62.7 i 42.1
142.1J 50.7
42.1 j 43.3
32.9= 54.0
52.4} 31.2
58.3J 17.6
10.8! 35.8
132.7! 60.1
36.6 j 43.9
74.5} 61.3
71.4! 43.7
203.0 i 49.3
68.0! 22.1
45.7J 55.4
81.4} 61.3
75.4! 55.1
56.5 j 62.9
55.0} 59.3
48.9! 54.8
188.8} 61.8
152.3J 61.5
91.8! 45.0
Both 100--300'
miles %
51.9J 66.5
88.7J 58.4
238.5J 64.1
167.0! 50.5
309. l! 63.9
112.2J 64.6
143.2J 48.0
123.0; 38.2
38.1: 40.8
89.4! 60.1
199.3! 71.2
68.1 j 70.1
47.9! 78.6
75.7J 45.0
104.4J 31.5
14.61 48.4
175.9} 79.7
55.0} 66.0
99.1} 81.5
103.7! 63.5
287.2} 69.8
101.8; 33.2
61.5J 74.5
102.4! 77.1
102.6J 75.0
' 72. 3 1 80.4
71.6! 77.3
64.6} 72.4
252.7J 82.8
199.4J 80.5
140.0; 68.6
One side 300'+
miles %
58.0
87.0
246.2
165.0
74.3
57.3
66.2
49.9
313.0! 64.7
115.2
66.3
148.8! 49.9
139.0
37.7
93.0
201.0
70.2
48.4
79.5
117.1
16.2
178.1
56.3
100.7
105.5
288.5
108.0
63.0
105.6
106.1
73.5
72.1
66.0
256.6
205.1
142.0
43.1
40.4
62.5
71.8
72.3
79.4
47.3
35.3
53.5
80.7
67.5
82.8
64.6
70.1
35.2
76.4
79.5
77.6
81.8
77.8
74,0
84.1
82.8
69.5
One side 100'-300'
miles %
60.6} 77.6
99.4
264.3
184.3
328.9
120.6
158.4
65.4
71.0
55.8
68.0
69.5
53.2
152.0! 47.1
45.9
98.6
214.7
75.0
49.2
66.3
76.7
77.2
5 1.6 1 84.7
85.6
.130.6
17.2
186.0
59.7
104.5
115.4
311.1
117.5
51.0
39.4
56.9
84.3
71.6
86.0
70.7
75.6
38.2
66.4J 80.5
108.6
111.2
77.0
.75.5
68.7
268.1
212.8
154.0
81.8
81.3
85.7
81.5
77.0
87.8
85.9
'
75.4
Both sides < 100'
miles %
17.5
52.5
107.8
22.4
34.6
29.0
146.2) 44.2
154.8
53.0
139.6
107.6
47.3
50.2
65.3
22.2
9.3
82.4
172.9
32.0
30.5
46.8
52.9
50.8
33.7
23.3
22.8
15.3
49.0
60.6
13.0J 43.1
18.4
23.6
17.1
47.8
100.3
189.7
15.7
28.4
14.0
29.3
24.4
61.8
16.1 1 19.5
24.2
25.6
12.9
17.2
20.5
37.2
35.0
50.1
18.2
18.7
14.3
18.5
' 23.0
12.2
.4.1
24.6
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
F24
F25
F26
F27
G01
G02
003
G04
G05
G06
G07
G08
G09
O10
Gil
G12
GI3
G14
015
HOI
1102
1103
H04
H05
1106
H07
H08
H09
H10
1111
H12
H13
Watershed
MATTAPONI RIVER/COURTHOUSE CREEK
LOWER MATTAPONI RIVER
UPPER YORK RIVER/POROPOTANK RIVER/QUEEN CREEK/WARE CREEK
LOWER YORK RIVER/CARTER CREEK/KING CREEK
JAMES RIVER/FALLING CREEK/PROCTORS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/rURKEY ISLAND CREEK/FOURMILE CREEK
JAMES RIVER/POWELL CREEK/WEST RUN/BAILEY CREEK
JAMES RIVER/WARDS CREEK/UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK
UPPER CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/UPHAM BROOK/STONY RUN
CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/WHITE OAK SWAMP/BEAVERDAM CREEK
CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/RUMLEY MARSH
LOWER CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/MORRIS CREEK/LOWER DIASCUND CREEK
UPPER DIASCUND CREEK/DIASCUND CREEK RESERVOIR
JAMES R1VER/POWHATAN CREEK/GRAYS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/PAGEN RIVER/WARWICK RIVER/CHUCKATUCK CREEK
SPEIGHTS RUN/LAKE COHOON/LAKE MEADE/LAKE KILBY
NANSEMOND RIVERyBENNETT CREEK
WESTERN BRANCH RESERVOIR
HAMPTON ROADS/ELIZABETH RIVER
JAMES RIVER/REED CREEK
PEDLAR RIVER
JAMES RIVER/BLACKWATER CREEK/IVY CREEK
HARRIS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/BEAVER CREEK/BECK CREEK
WRECK ISLAND CREEK
BENT CREEK
JAMES RIVER/DAVID CREEK
UPPER TYE RIVER
PINEY RIVER
UPPER BUFFALO RIVER
LOWER BUFFALO RIVER
IX>WER TYE RIVER/RUCKER RUN
HUC code
2080105
2080105
2080107
2080107
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080206
2080208
2080208
2080208
2080208
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
Stream Length
miles %
142J 0.40
103 1 .0.29
442 1 1.26
182 j 0.52
229 j 0.65
228J 0.65
244 j 0.70
257! 0.73
154J 0.44
293: 0.83
175J 0.50
2781 0.79
91 1 0.26
286 j 0.82
650J 1.85
82! 0.23
254J 0.72
90 j 0.26
489 1 1.39
189J 0.54
I77J 0.51
220 r 0.63
87J 0.25
303 j 0.86
90J 0.26
43J 0.12
123J 0.35
210J 0.60
1151 0.33
155J 0.44
95 j 0.27
97J 0.28
Both 300'+
miles %
54.2J 38.3
4 1.9 1 40.5
125.0J 28.1
22.6J 12.4
43.0J 18.8
55.5J 24.4
80.5 1 33.0
77.0 1 30.0
43.4! 28.3
154.8J 52.9
90.4 j 51.6
120.2! 22.0
37.9J 41.6
102.2J 28.3
76.5J H.8
11.5J 9.5
25,1 ! 9.9
16.6 j 10.3
11.5! 2.4
92.0! 48.8
Ill.Oj 62.6
59.4J 27.0
34.4! 39.3
114.8! 38.0
32.0! 35.5
20.9J 48.5
58.8; 47.7
90.9! 43.2
54.1J 47.0
50.0J 32.3
41.5J 43.8
35.4! 36.6
Both 100V300'
miles %
.78.3
54.5
198.9
44.4
102.0
89.4
118.5
55.2
52.7
44.7
24.5
44.5
39.3
48.5
113.4J 44.2
84.2 j 54.8
216.4
120.1
221.6
52.3
168.8
181.8
28.6
50.6
42.6
33.0
109.4
132.7
102.7
52.9
180.9
55.1
29.0
83.4
127.6
72.4
79.7
66.3
52.6
74.0
68.6
40.5
57.5
46.8
28.0
23.6
. 19.9
26.6
6.7
58.0
74.8
46.7
60.6
59.8
61.2
67.5
67.7
60.7
62.9
51.5
69.9
54.3
One side 300'+
miles %
81.7J 57.6
55.6J 53.8
217.5J 48.9
48.8! 26.9
96.7J 42.2
93.2 1 41.0
124.1! 50.8
120.0 j 46.7
80.7J 52.5
218.3J 74.6
123.7J 70.7
233.9! 42.7
55.4! 60.9
174.4J 48.3
188.7! 29.0
30.1! 24.9
48.6! 19.1
45.0J 28.1
34.2J 7.0
112.8J 59.8
136.4J 76.9
104.4J 47.5
55.2! 63.2
188.5J 62.3
54.3! 60.2
30.5J 71.0
86.4J 70.1
132.6J 63.1
72.8J 63.3
84.7J 54.7
68.0! 71.7
54.9! 56.7
One side 100'-300'
miles %
86.9! 61.3
58.4J 56.5
233.6J 52.5
56.5J. 31.1
119.3J 52.1
103.91 45.7
132.4J 54.2
128.2! 49.9
96.8! 63.1
233.3 ! 79.7
129.4J 73.9
274.6! 50.2
59.1! 64.9
193.6J 53.6
230.4; 35.5
36.0 j 29.7
62.6 1 24.6
55.6 ! 34.7
45.7J 9.4
116.5! 61.8
140.5! 79.2
116.9J 53.2
60.5! 69.2
201.4; 66.6
62.2! 69.0
33.1J 76.9
9 1.7 1 74.4
142.4! 67.7
79.0! 68.6
92.9 j 60.0
73.2 i 77.2
60.5! 62.5
Both sides < 100'
miles %
54.9J 38.7
45.0J 43.5
208.2 j 47.5
125.1! . 68.9
109.7! 47.9
123.7J 54.3
111.8J 45.8
128.7! 50.1
56.7! 36.9
;
59.2 j 20.3
45.7J 26.1
3.1! 49.8
31.9J 35.1
92.4: 46.4
419.5J 64.5
46.0 1 70.3
191.5: 75.4
34.4J 65.3
443.2J 90.6
72. H 38.2
37.0J 20.8
103.0J 46.8
26.9J 30.8
101. ij 33.4
27.9 j 31.0
9.9J 23.1
31.6J 25.6
67.8! 32.3
36.1 ! 31.4
62.0 j 40.0
2 1.6 j 22.8
36.3J 37.5
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
H14
H15
H16
H17
H18
H19
H20
H21
H22
H23
H24
H25
H26
H27
H28
H29
H30
H31
H32
H33
H34
H35
H36
H37
H38
H39
101
102
103
104
105
106
Watershed
JAMES RIVER/SYCAMORE CREEK
NORTH FORK ROCKFISH RIVER/SOUTH FORK ROCKFISH RIVER
LOWER ROCKFISH RIVER
JAMES RIVER/TOTIER CREEK/ROCK ISLAND CREEK
NORTH FORK HARDWARE RIVER/SOUTH FORK HARDWARE RIVER
HARDWARE RIVER
JAMES RIVER/BEAR GARDEN CREEK/SOUTH CREEK
UPPER SLATE RIVER
LOWER SLATE RIVER
MECHUMS RIVER
MOORMANS RIVER
BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK
SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER/IVY CREEK
NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER/SWIFT RUN/PREDDY CREEK
UPPER RIVANNA RIVER/MOORES CREEK
MIDDLE RIVANNA RIVER/BUCK ISLAND CREEK
MECHUNK CREEK
LOWER RIVANNA RIVER/BALLINGER CREEK
CUNNINGHAM CREEK
JAMES RIVER/DEEP CREEK/MUDDY CREEK
BYRD CREEK
UPPER WILLIS RIVER
LOWER WILLIS RIVER
BIG LICKINGHOLE CREEK
JAMES RIVER/BEAVERDAM CREEK/FINE CREEK
JAMES RIVER/TUCKAHOE CREEK/NORWOOD CREEK
UPPER JACKSON RIVER
BACK CREEK
LAKE MOOMAW/HUGHES DRAFT
JACKSON RIVER/F ALLING SPRING CREEK
CEDAR CREEK
COVE CREEK/SWEET SPRINGS CREEK
HUCcode
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080203
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080204
2080205
2080205
2080205
2080205
2080205
2080205
2080205
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
Stream Length
miles %
136
0.39
152J 0.43
253
188
107
91
159
241
126
136
76
38
71
198
70
115
0.72
0.53
0.31
0.26
0.45
0.69
0.36
0.39
0.22
0.11
0.20
0.56
0.20
0.33
87J 0.25
153
56
286
165
0.44
0.16
0.82
0.47
178J 0.51
269
110
166
350
110
116
72
111
44
16
0.77
0.31
0.47
1.00
0.31
0.33
0.20
0.32
0.13
0.05
Both 300'+
miles %
62.1
64.8
45.5
42.6
120.7J 47.8
65.6
33.9
25.7
52.0
137.6
45.8
35.7
37.5
10.0
14.5
40.6
35.0
31.5
28.3
32.7
57.0
36.4
26.3
49.1
26.5
20.3
20.6
16.3J 23.2
31.4J 27.2
19.2
46.2
21.0
89.0
60.6
22.0
30.2
37.5
31.1
36.6
78.7 j ' 44.2
118.2
37.9
49.1
102.3
27.5
39.0
26.2
55.1
24.1
5.5
44.0
34.4
29.5
29.2
25.0
33.7
36.5
49.7
54.8
34.2
Both 100'-300'
miles %
85.1
90.6
159.6
102.4
52.5
47.8
80.9
189.5
72.9
67.4
51.6
15.5
30.9
70.9
28.4
51.0
37.5
76.9
32.6
145.3
98.0
116.3
179.8
63.0
83.2
62.4
59.6
. 63.2
54.6
48.9
52.7
50.8
78.5
57.8
49.8
67.6
41.2
43.3
35.8
40.3
44.3
43.0
50.3
58.4
50.8
59.2
65.4
66.9
57.2
50.0
171.8J 49.0
4S.5J 41.3
51.9
34.3
66.1
29.9
7.0
44.9
47.9
59.6
68.0
43.6
One side 300'+
miles %
88.7
91.6
168.5
106.0
55.4
50.1
83.4
192.8
65.1
60.2
66.7
56.5
51.6
55.3
52.4
79.9
73.7! 58.5
68.2 j 50.3
51.1
16.0
33.4
76.3
27.7
53.0
66.9
42.6
46.7
38.6
39.2
46.0
37.6 j 43.2
79.6
33.7
155.1
101.2
118.9
183.5
64.3
87.8
172.4
46.7
54.4
36.6
68.4
31.4
6.9
52.0
60.3
54.2
61.2
66.8
68.3
58.4
52.8
49.2
42.4
47.1
51.1
61.7
71.3
43.0
One side 100'-300'
miles %
96.2
100.2
177.3
117.4
61.4
55.7
94.0
203.6
81.6
80.0
56.3
70.6
65.8
70.1
62.6
57.1
61.4
59.0
84.3
64.8
59.0
73.7
18.1J 48.1
38.5J 53.9
85.7
43.3
33.0J 46.9
60.91 52.8
44.8
89.3
36.5
170.4
110.1
129.5
198.3
72.4
98.1
199.4
52.5
57.3
38.4
72.9
32.2
7.7
51.5
58.4
65.4
59.5
66.5
72.8
73.8
65.8
59.0
56.9
47.7
49.6
53.6
65.8
73.3
47.6
Both sides < 100'
miles . %
40.2
52.0
75.4
70.2
46.1
35.0
65.2
37.8
44.3
55.5
20.1
19.5
32.9
112.1
29.4
34.2
29.9
37.4
42.9
38.6
41.0
15.7
35.2
41.0
26.3
51.9
46.1
56.7
37.4 j 53.1
54.3 1 47.2
42.3
63.7
19.3
116.0
55.4
48.5
70.3
37.6
68.2
48.5
41.6
34.6
40.5
33.5
27.2
26.2
34.2
41.0
151.0 43.1
57.5 1 52.3
58.2
33.3
37.9
11.8
. 8.4
50.4
46.4
34.2
26.7
52.4
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
107
108
109
110
Ml
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Watershed
DUNLAP CREEK
OGLE CREEK
LOWER JACKSON RIVER/WILSON CREEK/KARNES CREEK
UPPER POTTS CREEK
LOWER POTTS CREEK
UPPER COWPASTURE RIVER
BULLPASTURE RIVER
COWPASTURE RIVER/THOMPSON CREEK/DRY RUN
STUART RUN
COWPASTURE RIVER/MILL CREEK
LOWER COWPASTURE RIVER/SIMPSON CREEK/PADS CREEK
UPPER JAMES RIVER/SINKING CREEK/MILL CREEK
UPPER CRAIG CREEK
MEADOW CREEK
JOHNS CREEK
LOWER CRAIG CREEK/PATTERSON CREEK/LOWER BARBOURS CREEK
UPPER BARBOURS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/LAPSLEY RUN
CATAWBA CREEK
LOONEY CREEK/MILL CREEK
JAMES RIVER/JENNINGS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/ELK CREEK/CEDAR CREEK
UPPER CALFPASTURE RIVER '
LOWER CALFPASTURE RIVER/MILL CREEK
BRATTONS RUN
LITTLE CALFPASTURE RIVER
UPPER MAURY RIVER/KERRS CREEK
HAYS CREEK
MIDDLE MAURY RIVER/MILL CREEK
SOUTH RIVER
LOWER MAURY RIVER/POAGUE RUN
BUFFALO CREEK
HUCcode
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080201
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
2080202
Stream Length
miles %
144! 0.41
70 1 0.20
166 j 0.47
115! 0.33
124] 0.35
67J 0-19
82j 0.23
77! 0.22
52] 0.15
83 ] 0.24
121 j 0.34
156J 0.44
I80J 0.51
12] 0.04
193! 0.55
207 1 0.59
50] 0.14
118! 0.34
192J 0.55
116! 0.33
130j 0.37
106! 0.30
83j 0.24
129! 0.37
43J 0.12
80: 0.23
133J ' 0.38
91 j 0.26
66J 0.19
153J 0.44
98; 0.28
174; 0.50
Both 300'+
miles %
85.6] 59.3
3 1.2J 44.5
102.7! 61.8
77.3 j 67.1
74.3 1 60.0
29.3 ! 43.7
17.9J 21.9
32.4! 42.1
21. l! 41.0
48.7J 58.7
81.5J 67.6
76. ij 48.9
124.0] 69.0
1.9J 15.0
121.9J 63.0
119.2! 57.5
42.2! 83.7
27.3; 23.1
61.7J 32.2
20.4] 17.5
60.3 j 46.3
51.7: 48.8
52.9J 64.0
57.0 j 44.3
31.4! 72.3
27.6! 34.3
37.8J 28.4
17.5] 19.3
9.4] 14.2
77.6] 50.7
40.2J 41.0
51.4; 29.5
Both 100'-300'
miles %
102.6] 71.1
38.5] 54.8
120.6J 72.6
89.8! 78.0
92.0 ! 74.4
39.5
27.8
50.8
33.1
60.8
96.7
99.9
141.1
59.0
34.1
66.0
64.3
73.3
80.2
64.1
78.5
3.3J 26.6
146.4J 75.7
158.2
45.5
48.4
87.4
33.4
73.3
67.9
64.1
82.8
37.6
44.7
76.3
90.4
41.0
45.6
28.7
56.3
64.1
77.5
64.4
86.5
55.6
58.6] 43.9
31. l! 34.3
20.5
94.7
48.9
93.2
30.9
61.8
49.8
53.5
One side 300'+
miles %
105.1] 72.9
40.6] 58.0
122.3J 73.6
91.4] 79.4
93.1: 75.2
41.6J 62.1
28.6! 35.0
51.4! 66.8
35.1] 68.1
62.7J 75.6
98.3J 81.5
102.4] 65.7
142.9! 79.5
3.6J 28.9
149.2J 77.2
159.8] 77.1
46.0! 91.4
5 1.5 j 43.6
90.8J 47.4
34.7] 29.8
73.5] 56.4
69.4; 65.6
65.7] 79.4
83.8J 65.2
37.8 j 87.1
44.0] 54.7
59.9! 44.9
31.4] 34.5
19.6! 29.5
96.9] 63.3
48.8 j 49.7
95.7; 54.9
One side 100'-300'.
miles %
109.8] 76.1
42.2; 60.2
127.2J 76.6
95.3! 82.7
99.6! 80.4
44.5J 66.5
32.3! 39.5
55.9J 72.5
37.7! 73.1
65.1 j 78.6
100.5J 83.3
107.9J 69.2
147.5! 82.1
3.9! 31.3
155.5; 80.4
171.2] 82.6
46.5! 92.3
58.6] 49.6
98.7 j 51.5
39.8! 34.2
77.5] 59.5
73.7J 69.6
67.7J 81.9
92.1 1 71.7
38.7] 89.0
49.9J 62.1
67.2J 50.4
36.7J 40.4
25.6J 38.6
101.9] 66.5
53.0J 54.0
105.9J 60.8
Both sides < 10
miles %
34.5] 23.9
27.9 j 39.8
38.9J 23.4
19.9! 17.3
24.2! 19.6
22.4J 33.5
49.4J 60.5
21.1J 27.5
13.9J 26.9
17.8; 21.4
20.1J 16.7
47.9! 30.8
32.2J 17.9
8.5; 68.7
37.9J 19.6
36.1! 17.4
3.9J 7.7
59.4] 50.4
92.9 i 48.5
76.6] 65.8
52.8 1 40.5
32.2J 30.4
15.0] 18.1
36.4] 28.3
4.8! 11.0
30.5 ! 37.9
66.3 1 49.6
54.1] 59.6
40.7! 61.4
51.2] 33.5
45.2! 46.0
68.2'i 39.2
-------
Table 9. Riparian forest buffer statistics for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
J01
J02
J03
J04
JOS
J06
J07
J08
J09
J10
Jll
J12
J13
J14
J15
J16
J17
K15
Watershed
UPPER APPOMATTOX RIVER
BUFFALO CREEK/SPRING CREEK
SANDY RIVER
BUSH RIVER
BRIERY CREEK
APPOMATTOX RIVER/BIG GUINEA CREEK/SAYLERS CREEK
APPOMATTOX RIVER/SKINQUARTER CREEK/ROCKY FORD CREEK
FLAT CREEK
NIBBS CREEK
APPOMATTOX RIVER/SMACKS CREEK/SAPPONY CREEK
DEEP CREEK
LAKE CHESDIN/WINTERPOCK CREEK/WINTICOMACK CREEK
NAMOZINE CREEK
LAKE CHESDIN/WHIPPONOCK CREEK
LOWER APPOMATTOX RIVER/ASHTON CREEK
UPPER SWIFT CREEK/SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR
LOWER SWIFT CREEK
LITTLE NOTTOW AY RIVER
HUCcode
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
2080207
3010201
Stream Length
miles %
314
0.90
184! 0.52
65 j 0.19
98
0.28
67; 0.19
249 0.71
174
178
35
85
316
129
0.50
0.51
0.10
0.24
0.90
0.37
92 1 0.26
75! 0.21
160
102
183
0.46
0.29
0.52
1 ! 0.00
Both 300'+
miles %
144.4
81.5
29.2
47.4
18.8
101.6
81.7
79.3
10.8
46.8
46.0
44.3
44.9
48.4
28.2
40.8
46.8
44.7
30.4
54.9
147.2; 46.6
73.4
57.2
16.9
31.0
55.0
93.2
0.0
57.1
61.8
22.7
19.4
54.0
50.9
3.2
Both 100'-300'
miles %
222.2 j 70.7
118.2
43.9
68.6
64.3
67.5
70.0
31.4! 47.1
165.5
122.5
66.4
70.2
122.0J 68.7
21.4
61.3
,214.2
95.3
71.4
33.3
60.4
71.9
67.8
74.1
77.3
44.7
64.2 j 40.1
70.7
129.0
69.5
70.5
0.2! 25.4
One side 300'+
miles %
22S.9J 71.9
123.4J 67.1
44.4 ! 68.2
70. ij 71.5
32.4! 48.5
168.71 67.7
124.7J 71.5
123.2J 69.4
21.6! 61.1
63.8 j 74.8
2 19.2 j 69.4
98.6 1 76.7
72.6 1 78.5
38.2 1 51.3
64.0 j 40.0
72.9J 7L7
133.2J 72.8
0.3! 30.8
One side 100'-300'
miles %
244.6! 77.8
130.8! 71.1
47.8J 73.5
73.7J 75.3
35.6J 53.3
183.5! 73.7
134.1 j 76.9
134.3J 75.6
25.4! 72.0
66.7! 78.2
233.5 1 73.9
102.8J 79.9
75.2 1 81.4
42.4! 56.9
74.9 1 46.8
75.8J 74.5
139.1! 76.0
0.3 i 36.1
Both sides < 100'
miles V*
69.6
22.2
53.2 j 28.9
17.2J 26.5
24.2
31.2
65.6
24.7
46.7
26.3
40.4 ! 23.1
43.3 j 24.4
9.9! 28.0
18.6
21.8
82.4 j 26.1
25.8
17.2
32.1
85.3
25.9
43.8
0.6
20.1
18.6
43.1
53.2
25.5
24.0
63.9
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
A01
A02
AOI
A04
A05
A06
A07
A08
A09
AID
All
41?
A13
A14
AH
AI6
A17
A18
AI9
A70
A71
A??
A?3
A?4
A25
A26
A?7
A?R
A29
A30
All
A32
Watershed
POTOMAC RI VER/PINEY RUN/DUTCHMAN CREEK
CATOCTIN CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/LIMESTONE BRANCH
UPPER GOOSE CREEK/GAP RUN
MIDDLE GOOSE CREEK/PANTHER SKIN CREEK
NORTH FORK GOOSE CREEK
BEAVERDAM CREEK
LOWER GOOSE CREEK/LITTLE RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER/BROAD RUN
SUGARLAND RUN
POTOMAC RIVER/DIFFICULT RUN
POTOMAC RIVER/FOURMILE RUN/PIMMJT RUN
CAMERON RUN
POTOMAC RIVER/DOGUE CREEK/LITTLE HUNTING CREEK
ACCOTINK 'CREEK
POH1CK CREEK
UPPER CEDAR RUN/LICKING RUN
LOWER CEDAR RUNDOWN RUN
BROAD RUN/KETTLE RUN
UPPER OCCOQUAN RIVER/LAKE JACKSON
UPPER BULL RUN/LITTLE BULL RUN
CUB RUN
LOWER BULL RUN/POPES HEAD CREEK
OCCOQUAN RIVER - RESERVOIR
POTOMAC RIVER/LOWER OCCOQUAN RIVER/NEABSCO CREEK
POTOMAC RJVER/QUANTICO CREEK/CHOPAWAMSIC CREEK
UPPER AQUIA CREEK/BEAVERDAM RUN
LOWER AQUIA CREEK
POTOMAC RIVER/POTOMAC CREEK
POTOMAC RJ VER/UPPER MACHODOC CREEK
POTOMAC Rl VER/MATTOX CREEK/POPES CREEK/ROSIER CREEK
POTOMAC RI VER/NOMINI CREEK/LOWER MACHODOC CREEK
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodal low high wood herb exp water
OOl 00! 02J 52.7! 46 8l OOi 04
0.0| O.OJ 0.6J 34.7J 64.6J O.OJ O.I
o.oi o.oi 1.7! 39.1 i 58.8! o.oi 0.4
0.2i O.fli 1.2! 51.2! 47.3! 0.0^ o.O
03! o.oi o.6l 37.0! 61.9! o.o! o.i
0.0; 0.0: 1.2J 35.0J 63.1 i O.OJ 0.7
O.OJ O.OJ 0.2J 35.8; 63.9J O.Oj 0.2
0.0! 0.2J 4.IJ 42.2! 53.2! 0.3! 0.0
00- 34- 16ol 374! 43 2^ OOi 00
0.0; 9.5J 41.8J 31.3J 17.3J O.Oj 0.1
o.o! 4.8! 25.6! si.2i ts.4i o.oi o.o
O.OJ 18.0J 58.5= 12.6! 10.4J O.o! 0.4
O.OJ 13.3! 57.9J 14.6J I3.4J O.OJ 0.8
O.OJ 4.8J 40.4! 26.6; 21.6: 0.0; 6.7
O.o! 8.8:' 45.5! 27.8i 17.9! O.li 0.0
O.oi |.9J 40.8! 35.9! 21.4! 0.0; 0.0
00! 03-! 66: 372! 55.9- Oil 0.0
O.OJ 0.1 1 1.6J 50.0! 48.2J 0.1 j 0.0
O.Oi 0.7: 8.9i 42. l! 48.2 ! O.li 0.0
O.Ol 0.2; 8.7! 67.3! 22.1! 0.0! 1.7
00! l.jl 1451 409! 43.1: 0.1 ! 0.0
O.Oi 5.4J 26.1 1 33.3! 35.0i 0.3i 0.0
o.o! 2.1! 12.4! 55.3; 29.si o.oi 0.7
O.oi o.4i 11.9! 62.9-1 24.7! O.li 0.0
0.0! 3.6! 19.9! 45.3! 30.6! 0.6! 0.0
o.o! 0.7! s.si si.oi 9.4! 0.2! o.o
o.o! o.ii 7.2! 76.s! 16.2! o.ii o.o
0.0; 0.6! 16.9! 65.8! 16.8! O.li 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ 2,l! 73.91 23.91 0.1 j 0.0
O.Oi 0.3J 3.2| 70.3! 26.2J O.OJ 0.0
OOi 02i 30i 66.4! 30.4i O.Oi 0.0
O.Ol O.li 1.21 55.1; 43. 5i O.l! 0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
OOi 00: 03! 5671 323! 00! 107
0.0! O.OJ 0.4! 41.6! 57.1! O.Oi 0.9
o.oi o.oi 1.4! 4o.3i 49.0! o.oi 9.3
0.2i O.oi 1.2? 43.9! 53.6! O.fli 1.1
O.si O.oi 0.4! 52.3! 45.7! O.o! 1.2
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6J 42.4J 51.8J 0.0 5.3
O.Oj O.Oj O.lj 50.0J 48.6! 0.0 1.3
O.Ol 0.0! 3.0! 47.5; 45.4! O.l! 4.0
00! 00! 126= 47 7! 35 g! QO! 29
0.0| 0.3| 29.1 1 45.9; 17.6! 0.0: 2.2
O.o! 0.4! 11.4? 65.75 9.6i O.l! 9.4
O.Ol O.li 34.91 29.91 11.8! O.l! 11.5
O.Oj 0.7J 38.3J 30.0J 12.1 1 O.OJ 8.2
O.OJ 0.3J 21.3J 36.7! 19.3! 0.0! 19.3
o.o! 0.5! 24.0! so.ii 12.4! o.ii 5.7
0.0! 0.2i 17.4J 57. l| 16.4! O.l! 7.5
0.0! 0.0! 5 1 ! 41 1 ! 50 9! 0 1 ! 26
O.OJ O.Oj 0.9| 55.5! 42.0| O.o! 1.5
O.Oi O.Oi 7.1 1 45.s! 40.4! 0.5i 5.7
0.0! 0.0! 1.9! 76.1: 9.8: 0.0; 12.2
0.0! O.l! 10 ol 564! 323= 00! 05
o.o! o.o! 20.2! 47.0! 28.7! 0.2! 0.8
O.Oi 0.2i 8.5i 65.6i 20.8i O.oi 4.6
O.o! O.o! 3.4i 57.7i 19.1 i O.oi 19.6
O.O! 0.3! 10.8! 50.7i 19.4= 0.2! 15.9
o.o! o.o! 7.4! 72.2! 7.0! o.o! 12.2
O.Oi O.Oi 3.6! 79.8! 7.8! O.o! 8.8
0.0! O.l! 7.3! 48.6! IS.s! O.oi 28.0
O.O! O.O! 1.2! 71.9! 14.2J O.O! 12.7
O.Oj O.Oi 2.6 1 67.0; 9.61 0.0 1 20.7
O.Oi O.fli 3 s! 535! 212! O.fl!' 20.7
O.Ol O.o! 2.3l 45.7! 16.?! 0.4! 34.6
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
00! 00= 03! 616! 275! 00: 10.6
0.0| O.Oj 0.4! 46.5J 52.1 j O.Oj 1.0
o.oi o.oi 1.3! 44.6! 44.7! o.oi 9.4
osi ooi o.9i 47.si so.oi o.oi i.o
0.6\ Ooi 0.3! 57.7! 40.1 ! O.O! 1.3
0.0| O.Oi 0.4! 45.6! 48.7i O.Oj 5.3
O.Oj O.Oj 0.2J 55.4J 43.1 j O.Oj 1.3
O.o! O.o! 2.5! 50.2! 42.0! O.l! 5.2
00! 1 0! 127! 51 si 313: Oo! 32
0.0| 3-6! 25.2! 53.3J 15.7J O.o! 2.2
O.o! 1.5! 8.0! 71.2! 7.7! O.li 9.6
O.o! 12.2! 29.1 ! 36.5; 12.6; O.o! 9.6
0.0| 8.9J 34.5! 35.7! 11.4J O.Oj 9.6
0.0| 3-2| 17.4| 38.21 19.7J O.Oj 21.5
O.Oi 2.7i 19.8i 55.4? 11.25 OO! 6.6
o.o! i.s! 13.2! 62.ei 14 ei o.2i 7.9
00! 02! 48! 45li 47li Oo!' 28
0.0| 0.1; 0.8| 59.0! 38.6J O.o! 1.5
0.0! 0.6! 7.l! 49.6! 36 2i 0?! 5.8
0.0: o.0: 1.4: 76.3- 88: 00= 13.5
00! 07! 90! 631= 267; QQ: 05
O.Oi 2.l! 19.4! 51.41 25.6: 0.2! 0.9
0.0! O.l! 7.5! 69.l! 184? Ofl! 49
O.oi 0.3! 2.2: 60.l! 176i Ofll 198
0.0! 2.9! 9.0! 51.ol 18.2! 0.2! 18.7
0.0! 1.1! 6.4! 72.6! 7l! 00: 12.7
o.o! o.oi 2.si 80.9! 72! ooi 9.1
0.0; O.s! 5. S! 48. l! 12 9i 00! 33.0
0,0! O.O! l.OJ 72.1! 12.2J O.O! 14.8
0.0! 0.0| 2.3! 66.0! 7.7! 0.0; 23.9
00! 09! 4l! 543! 18l! 00! 221
O.o! 0.4! 2.l! 45.9! 13.7! 0.4! 37.6
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low^yensity developed
high - l^^^^nsity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed soil
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
A33
A34
B01
B02
B03
B04
805
B06
B07
BOS
B09
BIO
Bll
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
BIS
BI9
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
Watershed
POTOMAC RI VER/YEOCOMICO RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER/COAN RIVER/LITTLE WICOM1CO RIVER
UPPER NORTH FORK SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER/LAUREL FORK
UPPER SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
UPPER SOUTH FORK SOUTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
SLEEPY CREEK
UPPER BACK CREEK/ISAACS CREEK
HOGUE CREEK
LOWER BACK CREEK/BRUSH CREEK/BABBS RUN
UPPER OPEQUON CREEK
LOWER OPEQUON CREEK
UPPER MIDDLE RIVER
MIDDLE RIVER/JENNINGS BRANCH
MIDDLE RIVER/LEWIS CREEK
MOFFETT CREEK
CHRISTIANS CREEK
LOWER MIDDLE RIVER
UPPER NORTH RIVER
MIDDLE NORTH RIVER
BRIERY BRANCH
MOSSY CREEK
UPPER DRY RIVER
LOWER DRY RJVER
MUDDY CREEK
LOWER NORTH RIVER
LONG GLADE CREEK
COOKS CREEK
BLACKS RUN
PLEASANT RUN
NAKED CREEK
MILL CREEK
UPPER SOUTH RIVER
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0 j 0.0
0.0 ! 0.0
0.0 j 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 j 0.0
0.0 ! 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
.0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.0
1.0
12.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.7
2.5
2.9
0.9
7.3
8.6
0.4
1.0
10.1
0.8
4.4
2.4
0.3
1.8
1.3
1.7
0.4
4.3
1.6
6.0
1.6
7.3
28.0
4.1
2,5
5.5
3.0
53.0 j 46.6
46.6 j 39.2
92.4 i 7.5
37.6 1 61.5
75.5 1 24.3
73.2 i 26.1
62.5: 34.0
63.0 i 34.1
54.0J 45.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
22.7 1 69.7! 0.0
19.1 1 71.7! 0.2
31.5 j 68.1 1 0.0
68 4J 30 6 1 00
22.2 1 66.7
35.4; 63.8
25.7J 69.7
14.3: 829
98.6 j 0.9
37.oi 61.1
79.0 i 19.7
:
12 3J 860
98.7J 0.6
25.2 j 70.4
32:oj 66.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
00
10.2J 80.6J 0.0
9.4: 89.0J 0.0
5.8J 85.9J 0.0
6.9J 52.4 0.0
9.7! 86.1
15.3J 82.1
10.1 j 84.0
48.9J 47.9
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
00
0.1
0.0
0.0
0 1
0.2
0.1
0.0
00
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
on
0.0
0.5
0.3
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0
0.0
20.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
no
0.0! 0.0
o.oj. o.o
o.oj o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.2
52.0
38.1
73.3
24.8
43.1
l.lj 62.4
4.0 j 59.1
3.8 55.0
09
54.9
4.3 1 32.3
4.8 1 22.2
l.lj 9.0
36J 560
7.8
3.5
2.8
0.7
1.9
6.3
8.1
35
1.2
14.3
4.7
4.9
4.5
6.4
21.7
4.4
22.3
23.9
22.3
157
94.3
28.8
66.8
74
96.2
26.8
176
9.9
3.0
1.3
1.0
18.9
20.9
6.5
70.1
567
36.3
32.1
39.6
42.3
62.1
72.3
89.1
404
67.8
72.6
74.3
830
2.4
63.5
24.2
941
1.2
57.7
775
61.4
92.4
89.1
56.3
:
05! 947
3.3J 10.5
4.8i 7.5
3.8
47.0
86.1
83.7
46.6
O.lj 28.5
1.6J 39.4
0.0 1 0.0
0.0! 0.0
0.0 ! 0.0
O.OJ 0.2
0.6! 4.2
O.OJ 1.6
O.OJ 1.9
0.0 1 1.3
0.2 1 0.5
O.OJ 0.7
oo! oo
0.0 1 1.0
o.oj o.o
O.lj 0.5
OO! 06
O.OJ 1.4
o.o! 1.5
0.0! 0.8
oo! oo
O.OJ 1.4
O.OJ 1.2
O'.OJ 0.0
O.OJ 23.7
O.OJ 0.1
O.Oj 1.3
o.o! i.o
0 o! 03
o.o! o.i
o.o! 4.0
O.o! 2.7
Land use statistics for the 1 00' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
o.o! 0.2
o.o! o.o
20.2 j 0.0
o.oj o.o
o.o! o.o
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
6.9
0.2
0.6
3.5
3.1
0.0 0.0 ! 09
0.0
0.0
'0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
1.4
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
00
4.1
4.2
1.4
4.2
8.1
5.4
2.7
0.7
3.3
85
:
0.2; ii-7
00
0.0
0.0
ni
o.oj o.o
0.0: 0.0
O.Oj 2.1
O.fl! 172
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4 1
1.7
21.6
39
53.8
36.7
72.6
23.5
41.2
63.7
.60.7
55.8
55.4
35.9
25.0
9.4
56.7
24.5
21.3
23.5
18.2
93.8
31.1
65.7
1.7
95.7
25.8
164
16.6
18.7
7.3
695
58.6
0.2
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.4J 0.0
30.3 ! 0.7
39.3! 0.0
414! OO
58.4
69.9
88.5
39.0
64.3
73.3
73.1
80.2
2.0
58.2
21.6
94.2
1.2
50.6
795
o.o
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
28.8
42.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.8
1.8
2.2
1.6
0.6
0.7
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.8
0.0
1.4
1.9
00
3.5J 7.2! S1.7J O.OJ 37.7
5.6J 2.4J 91.9J O.OJ 0.1
7.9j 1.2j 87.0J 0.0j 1.8
21.7! 13! 590! o.o i 08
4 0
ns
3.3 1 8.1
4.71 6.9
3.6
47.6
95 1
no! 01
88.6 ! O.Oj 0.1
83.6! O.o! 4.7
45.7
0.0! 3.0
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation.
exp - exposed soil
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
B31
B32
B33
B34
BH
B36
FH7
B38
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
mo
B51
B52
B53
H54
B^
B56
B57
B58
C01
C02
C03
C04
Watershed
MIDDLE SOUTH RIVER/BACK CREEK
LOWER SOUTH RIVER
UPPER SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER
CUB RUN
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/ELK RUN/BOONE RUN
NAKED CREEK
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/CUB RUN
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/MILL CREEK
HAWKSBtLL CREEK
SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/OOONEY RUN
LOWER SOUTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER
UPPER NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/GERMAN RIVER
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/LITTLE DRY RIVER
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/SHOEMAKER RIVER
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/HOLMANS CREEK
L[NVILLE CREEK
SMITH CREEK
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/MILL CREEK
STONY CREEK
NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH RIVER/NARROW PASSAGE CREEK
LOWER NORTH FORK SHENANDOAH Rl VER/TUMBLING RUN
UPPER CEDAR CREEK
LOWER CEDAR CREEK
PASSAGE CREEK
UPPER SHENANDOAH RIVER
CROOKED RUN
SHENANDOAH RIVER/SPOUT RUN
LOWER SHENANDOAH RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/GREAT WICOMICO RIVER
DRAGON SWAMP
P1ANKATANK RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/EAST RI VER/NORTH RIVER
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb exp water
OOJ Oil 23! 679J 294J 0 Oi 03
0.0; 0.8J 7.9J 52.6J 38.71 O.OJ 0.0
0.0i O.OJ 1.6; 73.1 j 24.1 1 O.oi 1.2
00= 0.1* 35i 398* 567* 00* 00
0.01 0.2* 3.6= 58.3* 37.7* 0.2* 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ 0.4! 80.5! 19.0J O.OJ 0.1
0.0* 0.1* 2.2* 61.0* 36.5* 0.2* 0.0
00 00* 0.7* 449* 544* 01* 00
: : : : :
0.0 0.0: 1.1] 53.2: 45.7| 0.0: 0.0
O.OJ O.OJ 0.4J 72.3J 27.3J 0.01 0.0
O.OJ 0.7; 6.4J 57.0* 35.9J O.OJ 0.0
0.0 0.0; 0.9= 87.1* 12.0* 0.0* 0.0
OO! DO! lO; 914! 76* 00: 00
0.0 0.0: 0.8: 83.1: 16.1: 0.0: 0.0
::::::
O.Oj 0.2; 3.1; 18.9; 77.2; 0.0; 0.7
0.0* 0.2* 4.4; 14.4* 80.9; 0.2; 0.0
0.0= 0.1 ; 3.7* 42.1* 54.0* 0.0* 0.0
;::::
00: 01: 27: 470: 496: 00: 07
0.0* 0.1* 1.8* 64.4J 33.7J 0.0; 6.0
00* 00* 23: 42X: 548* 0.0: QO
O.Oj 0.1 1 4.8J 48.1 ! 44.9^ O.OJ 2.1
0.0 1 0.0: 0.2l 87.9 i 11.9J O.Oj 0.0
O.oi O.O'* l.fli 38.5* 59.5* 0.9* 0.1
o.o* o.o! o.i i 82.9! 17.0; o.O; 0.1
ooi oo; 09; 515* 46 o! oo* 16
O.OJ 0.3J 3.2J 27.3J 68.8J O.OJ 0.5
O.OJ O.Oj 0.7J 45.0! 53.3J 0.0[ 1.0
03* 0.0* 2.1* 38.4* 59.1* 0.0* 0.0
0.0; O.O! 0.5! 54.0J 29.2J 0.2J 16.2
O.OJ O.OJ 0.4J 71.1 1 28.4J O.OJ 0.1
0.0* O.OJ 0.5! 55.5! 23.9; 0.2j 20.1
0.0* O.I! 3.2* 57.oi 38.8* 1.0* 0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
00! 00! 09! 662! 30l! 00! 29
0.0; O.l] 7.9) 50.9 J 39.5 j 0.0 j 0.9
0.0* 0.0* 4.0* 58.3* 21.6i 0.0; 16.1
00* O.l: 42* 30fli 656* 00* 00
O.Oi O.Oi 4.5i 41.2i 44.1 ! 0.3* 9.8
O.OJ O.o| 1.7: 68.5J 28.9J O.OJ 0.8
0.0* 0.0* 2.2* 45.2* 34.5* 0.1* 17.9
OO'* 00* 1.9* 314* 482* 00* 186
0.0: 0.0: 2.1: 34.4J 62.7: 0.0: 0.7
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6J Sl.OJ 34.9J O.OJ 13.4
O.OJ 0.0; 5.3J 34.3J 38.9! 0.0! 17.7
0.0* 0.0* 5.1* 76.3* 18.6* 0.0* 0.0
:::;
00: 00: 53: 805: 142: 00: 00
0.0! 0.0: 3.9] 65.9: 30.0: 0.0; 0.2
0.0; 0.0; 4.4; 9.2; 79.5* 0.0* 6.5
0.0* O.O* 7.2* 6.6* 84.9* 0.8* 0.0
o.oj o.oj 3.5; 30.0; 66.6; o.o; o.o
OOi OOi 3.6i 40 3i 51. 2i OOi 4.9
0.0! 0.0; 3.3* 53.5; 42.2* 0.0* 0.7
Ofli 00* 2.1* 32.6i 50.6i 00* 14 K
0.0! O.O! 4.0J 3S.3J 42.7! O.O! 14.8
0.0; O.Oi 0.6; 83.3; 15.9; 0.0; 0.2
0.0* 0.0* 0.8* 42.6* 54.7* 1.5* 0.4
0.0* 0.0! 0.2! 69.3* 29.1! 0.0* 1.5
00! 00! 19* 409! 39 li 001 181
O.Oi 0.1 i 1.7! 35.7i 58.2i O.Oi 4.2
!!!!!
0.0* .O.Oj 1.1* 44.2! 45.1 1 O.Oj 9.6
0.7* O.oi 1.0; 39.9i 46.6i 0.0* 11.9
0.0; 0.0! 0.2! 40.8; 20.5; i.ii 37.5
O.OJ 0.0* 0.1 1 90.5J 8.6J 0.0* 0.9
0.0j 0.0; 0.6; 55.8J ll.Sj 0.9J 31.2
O.Oi O.Oi 1.6; 20.?i 30.9i 3.5* 43.2
Land use statistics for the 1 00' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
00* 00* 0'9! 677* 282* 0.0! 3.2
O.Oi 0.4J 7.8i 55.7! 35.0; O.oi 1.1
O.Oi 0.0* 4.3; 58.8* 15.5* 0.0* 21.4
ooi ooi 44! 33.5! 62.2* o.oi o.o
O.oi O.oi 4.3* 41.2J 41.3: 0.3\ 12.8
O.OJ 0.0* 2.2* 69.6J 27.2J 0.0: 1.0
0.0* O.li 1.9i 43.5* 32.3: O.Oi 22.2
Ofli Ofli i g! 32.7: 43.4! o.oi 22.1
0.0: 0.0: 2.5: 36.0: 60.7: 0.0: 0.8
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6; 52.4! 32.6J O.OJ 14.3
0.0* 3.4! 4.2* 34.2; 37.4* 0.0* 20.8
0.0* 0.0; 7.6; 76.7* 15.7* 0.0* 0.0
: : : : : :
00: OOi 7.8* 80.0* 12.2! 0.0* 0.0
0.0; 0.0; 5.3; 66.6; 27.9: 0.0! °-2
0.0! 0.4! 4.5* 8.0; 75.8! O.Oj 11.4
0.0* 0.2* 7.6* 5.4* 86.1* 0.8* 0.0
o.o; o.oi .3.9; 31.3; 64.8; o.oi o.o
00! O.o! 3.4i 40.3: 47.0i O.Oi 9.3
O.OJ 0.3; 3.4i 55.3! 40.4; 0.0* 0.6
0.0* 0.0* 1.7* 28. «i 41.5= ().()i 27.9
O.OJ 0.2! 3.6! 32.4J 35.7! 0.0* 28.0
0.0; O.Oi 0.6i 87.0J 12.2*. 0.0; 0.2
0.0* 0.0*. 0.7i 44.6i 52.7i 1.5* 0.5
0.0* 0.0! 0.1* 70.0* 28.4* 0.0! 1.5
00* OOi 17! 40 3: 36 9:: Ooi 211
O.OJ 0.2: 1.5J 33.7J 59.1J O.OJ 5.4
0.0* 0.0* 0.8* 45.5J 43.5; O.oi 10.3
0.7* O.Oi o.8i 39.5i 45.6; 0.0* 13.5
O.O! 0.0! 0.2J 39.4* 17.7; 1.4J 41.3
O.OJ O.OJ O.lj 93.4J 5.4J O.OJ 1.1
O.OJ O.OJ 0.4: 53.3* 9.6J 1.4J 35.3
0.0; O.oi 1.2* 18.6; 26.6* 3.9; 49.6
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed sou
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
COS
C06
C07
C08
C09
CIO
Cll
C12
C13
C14
CIS
C16
D06
£01
£02
£03
£04
£05
£06
£07
£08
£09
£10
Ell
£12
£13
E14
£15
£16
E17
EI8
Watershed
WARE RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/SEVERN RIVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY/BACK RIVER/POQUOSON RIVER
LYNNHAVEN RIVER/LITTLE CREEK
POCOMOKE RIVER/PITTS CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/HOLDENS CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/ONANCOCK CREEK
PUNGOTEAGUE CREEK
NANDUA CREEK/OCCOHANNOCK CREEK/NASSAWADOX CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/HUNGARS CREEK
CHERRYSTONE INLET/KINGS CREEK
CHESAPEAKE BAY/OLD PLANTATION CREEK
MAGOTHY BAY/MOCKHORN BAY
UPPER RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/THUMB RUN/JORDAN RIVER
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/CARTER RUN/GREAT RUN
HUGHES RIVER
UPPER HAZEL RIVER
UPPER THORNTON RIVER
LOWER THORNTON RIVER
LOWER HAZEL RIVER/MUDDY RUN/INDIAN RUN
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MARSH RUN
MOUNTAIN RUN
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/DEEP RUN/ROCK RUN '
UPPER RAPIDAN RIVER/CONWAY RIVER
RAPIDAN RIVER/SOUTH RIVER
RAPIDAN RIVER/BLUE RUN/BEAUTIFUL RUN
UPPER ROBINSON RIVER/WHITE OAK RUN
LOWER ROBINSON RIVER/CROOKED RUN/DEEP RUN
RAPIDAN RIVER/CEDAR RUN
RAPIDAN RIVER/MINE RUN/MOUNTAIN RUN
LOWER RAPIDAN RIVER
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
796
0.0
0.5
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0 l! 451 64 Oi 31 3i O.li 00
0.1: 12.3J 43.9J 43.7i 0.0! 0.0
7.4J 42.8J 25.5J 24.4J O.Oj 0.0
11.5; 50.5 j 18.6J 10.2 j 0.0 i 0.0
O.Oj 0.3] 50.3J 44.2J O.OJ 4.1
O.OJ 0.2J I5.8i 23.8J O.li 60.1
0.0j 2.2j 30.1J 39.2; 0.2 j 28.2
0.0; 0.3 i 42.3* 46.8i 0.0! 10.6
O.li 10: 35 7i 63 Oi O.Oi 0.0
O.OJ 0.7J 25.8J 72.2: 1.3 j 0.0
0.3] 6.0 j 20.6 j 71.9J 1.2J 0.0
1.9! 2.9 j 20.9! 73.0 ! 1.3! 0.0
0.1: 02i 4.0: 16.1 i O.Oi 0.0
0.0: 0.2 j 54.8! 44.9! 0.0 j 0.1
0.0j 1.2! 46.0J 52.3J O.OJ 0.0
0.0! O.O! 67.8J 32.1 j O.l! 0.0
0.0! 0.2: 57 2J 426! 0.0! 00
O.OJ 0.4! 68.5] 31.0J O.Oi 0.1
O.oi 0.4i 43.8i 55.7J O.fli 0.1
0.0! O.lj 41.7J 58.li O.li 0.0
0.1] 2.3J 32.2J 65.4J O.OJ 0.0
0.1: 4.2J 25.0J 70.6: O.OJ 0.0
O.OJ 0.5J 71.1J 27.7J O.Oj 0.6
0.0! O.oi 78.6! 21.4i O.oi 0.0
o.oi o.6i 47.7! si.si o.ii o.i
O.li 0.6J 37.5J 61.7J O.lj 0.0
O.Oi O.li 66.7i 33 li O.OJ 0.1
O.OJ O.OJ 0.5J 39.1! 60.4J O.Oj 0.1
0.0! O.Oj 0.7J 37.8J 61.5J O.OJ 0.0
0.4; O.OJ 0.6i 47.0J 52.0! O.OJ 0.0
O.b| O.OJ 2.1 i 70.9! 27.0! 0.1 1 0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
00
0.0
0.0
24
00; 1.6! 57 7i 209
on! 19.8
O.O! 4.0 j 12.1 j 40.4 ! 0.1
0.1 1 20.7J 11.6J 30.4J 0.0
O.l! 20.8 i 27.2 i 6.9! 1.5
O.Oj O.OJ O.OJ 53.3J 35.5
O.OJ 0.0 1 0.0 1 13.2J 43.1
0.0 O.OJ 0.9J 6.9J 33.3
0.0 Ofli Ool 250: 306
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
00
00: 0.1 J 16 Oi 286
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
43.4
33.9
35.7
11.2
42.7
57.9
443
1 71 53 6
O.OJ O.OJ 18.8J 21.8; 1.4
O.OJ 1.1 j 18.5; 32.0J 1.2
O.OJ 1.2! 18.3J 23.8! 3.6
OOJ 5.8! 16.3! 68.7
0.0 j 0.2 j 49.7 1 48.9
0.0; 0.4 1 50.0 j 47.6
O.Oi O.oi 46.6 i 53.4
00: 04! 45 0! 544
58.0
46.8
51.2
5 2J 3.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.2
1.4
0.0
OOJ 02
; ;
0.0! 0.0: 1.4! 50.4: 47.6: 0.0
o.oi o.oi 0.2! se.si 62.0; o.o
0.0
O.I
0.2
0.0
00
O.OJ O.OJ 43.8! 55.6
0.6
1.3
O.Oi 0.5
O.OJ 1.7] 38.8] 55.8J 0.4
O.O! 3.6J 24.8J 65.0 j 1.0
O.Oj 0.4j 73.0J 21.2! 0.0
O.oi O.Oi 6l.4i 38.1 i 0.0
1 i ! ! i V
o.o; o.o; 0.8; 34.6; 63. 41 04
0.0 J 0.0] 0.2 j 29.9J 68.3
O.Oi Ofli 0.5; 42.4! 55.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
O.Oj 0.2] 30.9J 67.7
O.Oj l.OJ 35.5J 62.4
0.0: 0.3 i 48.6 i 50.0
O.Oi 5.li 66.4i 19.1
3.1
5.5
5.4
0.5
0.9
0.2J 1.5
i O.li 1.2
o.oi 1.1
O.Oj 1.0
0.0 0.8
O.li 9.2
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
00! on! 12
0.0
0.0
24
59 5
O.OJ 3.2 11.3
3.6J 19.0] 11.1
5.6! '17 6 26.2
0.0 0.0
0.0: 0.0
0.0; 0.0
0.0 00
00
0.0
0.0
00
0 1
0.0
0.7
2.4
0.0 00
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.8
00
no
o.o
0.7
1.0
64
0.3
0.4
0.0
04
0.0 j 1.5
O.Oi 0.2
00
0 0
O.Oi 1.5
O.Oi 3.7
O.Oj 0.3
o.oi o.o
00! on
0.0
00
0.0
00
O.Oj 0.0
0.0 j 0.0
0.4 j 0.0
o.oi o.o
06
0.2
0.9
0.2
0.7
0.3
57
52.6
13.8
6.4
24.5
148
18.1
18.1
18.8
172
36.9
29.6
7.0
33.6
41.2
30.6
25.8
249
17.1
28.9
20.5
13.7 73 1
52.6
53.1
46.6
461
52.0
38.4
46.8
42.3
27.3
72.0
61.1
350
32.8
40.2
31.8
41.5
52.1
64,5
45.7
44.4
53.4
53 5
45.9
59.8
52.6
50.9
62.0
19.3
38.3
631
65.3
57.6
66.8
57.0
46.3
17.4
water
00! 22 l
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
1.0
1.2
0 1
74
1.7
1.6
4.1
43
0.0
0.1
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.2
0.0
0.0
04
0.2
i 0.1
48.5
36.7
39.0
13.8
44.0
61.0
497
57.7
63.0
50.0
53.2
24
1.4
1.5
0.0
0 1
0.6
1.5
0.6
4.8
5.5
8.3
0.6
09
1.6
12
0.0 1.1
O.OJ 0.9
O.li 0.8
0.2! 12.2
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed soil
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
E19
E20
F?l
E22
E23
E24
E25
E26
FOI
F02
F03
F04
F05
F06
F07
F08
F09
F10
Fll
F17
F13
FI4
FM
FI6
FI7
F18
F19
F?0
F21
F22
F23
Watershed
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MOTTS RUN
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/MASSAPONAX CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK. RIVER/MILL CREEK/GOLDENVALE CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/OCCUPACIA CREEK/PEEDEE CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/CATPOINT CREEK/PISCATAWAV CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/TOTUSKEY CREEK
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER/LAGRANGE CREEK/LANCASTER CREEK
LOWER RAPPAHANNOCK RJVER/CORROTOMAN RIVER
UPPER SOUTH ANNA RIVER
SOUTH ANNA RIVER/ROUNDABOUT CREEK
SOUTH ANNA RIVER/TAYLORS CREEK
LOWER SOUTH ANNA RIVER
NEWFOUND RIVER
UPPER NORTH ANNA RIVER
LAKE ANNA/PAMUNKEY CREEK
CONTRARY CREEK
LOWER NORTH ANNA RIVER/NORTHEAST CREEK
UPPER LITTLE RIVER
LOWER LITTLE RIVER
UPPER PAMUNKEY RIVER/MECHUMPS CREEK
MIDDLE PAMUNKEY RIVER/BLACK CREEK/TOTOPOTOMOY CREEK
LOWER PAMUNKEY RIVER
NI RIVER
PO RIVER
UPPER MATTAPONI RIVER/PONI RIVER
MATTA RIVER
SOUTH RIVER
POLECAT CREEK
MATTAPONI RIVER/HERRING CREEK/CHAPEL CREEK
MARACOSSIC CREEK/BEVERLY RUN
MATTAPONI RIVER/GARNETTS CREEK
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodal low high wood herb exp water
O.Oi 0.4J 3.5J 71.2J 24.91 O.Oj 0.0
O.OJ 1.3J I7.5J 48.6J 32.5J 0.2i 0.0
O.Oi 0.1 1 1.51 66.6i 31.81 0.1 i 0.0
0.0; Ooi 0.4: 497: 38.5= O.fli 114
00= OOJ 09= 56?i 35 5i Ofli 70
O.OJ O.Oi 0.6J 55.6J 33.7J O.Oj 10.1
0.0= O.OJ 0.3J 46.5J 24.2! 0.1 \ 29.0
0.0] O.Oj 0.4! 42.3J 22.31 0.2; 34.8
O.OJ O.OJ 1.3J 48.8J 49.0J O.OJ 0.9
O.OJ O.Oi I.8J 64.4J 33.3J O.OJ 0.5
0.2: O.oi 0.9i 63. li 35.6: 0.3i 0.0
. 00: 00? 1 1- 568- 41 8: 00: 04
O.OJ 0,0j 0.2J 60.7! 39.l! O.OJ 0.1
0.1 1 O.OJ 0.7: 61.2: 37.8J 0.2J 0.0
0.2J 0.0; 1.1 1 53.2J 45.SJ O.Oj 0.0
0.6! O.OJ 2.2; 73.6J 23.6J O.Oi 0.0
O.OJ O.Oj 1.7J 70.0J 28.2J O.Oj 0.1
0.4j O.Oj 0.6J 64.2J 34.6: O.Oj 0.3
O.Oj O.Oj 0.7j 67.5J 31.8J O.Oj 0.1
O.Ol O.oi 3.oi 60.4i 35.01 O.Oj 1.6
O.Oj O.Oj 2.IJ 62.ll 34.1J O.Oj 1.8
0.0j O.Oj 1.3 j 64.1 j 34.5J 0.0; 0.0
O.Oi O.o! l.?i 71.3: 26.71 0.2i 0.0
O.oi 0.0! 0.6! 72.7! 26.0J 0.1 1 0.6
OOi Ofli 1 4i 690J 292i OOl 03
O.Oj O.OJ 0.3J 73.0: 26.6: O.Oj 0.1
O.Oj O.OJ 1.8! 68.0J 29.9J O.Oj 0.3
O.OJ O.oi 3.5J 70.11 25.31 O.OJ 1.2
O.Oj O.Oj 0.3J 68.6! 30.9! O.OJ 0.2
0.0=1 0.0: 0.6 1 65.1 ! 33.9 1 0.0 ! 0.4
0.0: O.Oi 0.61 63.0i 33.5i O.fli 2.9
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodal low high wood herb exp water
O.Oj O.Oj 0.9J 73.9J 8.1J O.Oj 17.1
O.Oi O.li lO.lj 60.9J 18.8! 0.1J 9.5
o.oi o.ol o.4i 68.7! n.si o.i i 13.3
00i O.oi 0.4! 54.1 i 27 9i Ofli 17.6
Ooi OOJ 12! 672^ 203- Ooi 113
0.0j 0.0| 1.3! 68.6J 19.5J O.Oj 10.6
O.OJ 0.0! 0.2J 54.3J 18.6J 0.2! 26.7
0.0! O.OJ O.l! 50.1 j 13.6! 1.1 1 35.0
O.OJ O.Oj 0.6J 47.6J 43.2J 0.0] 8.6
O.OJ O.Oj 0.9j 66.9J 29.7: O.Oj 2.4
0.2l O.Oi 0.4i 74.35 23.2i 0.1 i 1.8
00: Qfli 07i 71.7! 246: ooi 30
O.Oj O.OJ O.l! 78.7J 20.4J O.OJ 0.8
0.1 j O.OJ 0.6| 52.7J 33.4J 1.2! 12.0
0.1J O.OJ 0.9J 41.1 ] 28.1J 1.8 j 28.0
0.5! O.Oj 2.2! 61.7; 18.6J O.Oj 16.9
O.Oj O.Oj 1.8j 80.7J 16.6J O.Oj 0.9
0.5j O.OJ 0.3: 71.4j 25.2J O.Oj 2.6
O.Oj O.Oj 0.7j 82.2; 16.7J O.Oj 0.4
O.oi O.Ol 1.8! 71.7i 18.oi O.Oi 8.5
O.Oj O.Oj l.Oj 75.1 j 13.5J O.Oj 10.5
O.Oj 0.0: 0.5: 40.9: 21.7J O.l! 36.9
o.oi o.oi 0.7! 78.o! 13.5! o.i! 7.5
0.0! 0.0! 0.4! 79.7J 15.4J 0.2! 4.3
ooi ooi isl 78 si 177: ooi 22
O.OJ 0.0; 0.2J 82.9J 16.0J O.OJ 0.9
O.OJ O.Oj 1.2J 79.5J 16.7J O.Oj 2.6
0.0! O.OJ 6.1 1 75.4! 11.8! O.OJ 6.7
O.Oj 0.0i 0.4J 83.6J 14.7J O.OJ 1.3
O.Oi O.OJ 0.3j 82.8J 13.5J O.OJ 3.4
O.Oi O.Oi 0.2i 72.6! 13.7i 0.0! 13.4
Land use statistics for the 1 00' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
O.Oj O.Oj 0.6j 75.7J 7.0J O.Oj 16.7
O.OJ 0.4J 8.5J 64.6J 15.6J 0.1 j 10.8
O.fli O.fli 0.4i 70.?! 14.0i 0.1 i 14.8
O.oi ooi osi 55.?i 24.oi 0.0; 19.8
Ooi Ofli 13! 68 l! 17.7! O.Oi 12.8
O.Oj O.OI 1.5J 69.2J 17.8J O.Oj 11.5
O.Oj 0.0; 0.2J 53.9J 16.7J 0.3J 28.9
O.Oj O.Oj O.lj 48.1! 11.6; 1.5J 38.8
O.Oj O.Oi 0.6J 48.6J 41.3J O.Oj 9.5
0.0i O.Oj 0.8j 67.1 j 29.4J O.OJ 2.7
0.2i O.Oi 0.4! 76.3i 21.0J 0.1 1 2.0
O.oi O()i 0?i 76.oi I9.8i O.ol 3.4
O.Oj O.OJ O.l! 83.3 j 15.7J O.Oj 0.9
O.lj 0.0i 0.7; 51.6; 32.9J 1.8J 12.9
O.lj O.Oj 0.7; 39.9J 26.6J 2.9J 29.7
0.9! O.Oj 3.0J 57.6J 20.7J O.OJ 17.8
0.0j O.OJ 1.8J 83.4J 13.9J O.OJ 1.0
0.5J 0.0; 0.3; 72.0J 24.2i O.Oj 3.1
0.0; O.OJ 0.7: 85.2J 13.6; 0.0; 0.5
O.oi 0.0; 1.2! 71.5! 13.7i O.Oi 13.6
O.Oj O.Oj 0.8j 75.9J 9.1 j O.Oi 14.2
O.Oj O.Oi 0-4! 30.0i 18.0i O.li 42.5
O.Oi O.Oi 0.7! 80.1 ! 11.4i O.li 7.7
O.Oi O.oi 0.4i 81.4J 13.2i 0.3! 4.8
Ooi Ofli 17! go3i 154i 00: 26
O.Oi O.Oj O.lj 84.91 14.0J O.Oj 1.0
O.Oj 0.0; 1.2! 81.3J 14.5J O.Oj 3.0
0.0! 0.0! 's.5! 76.7! 10.3! 0.0! 7.5
O.Oj O.Oj 0.5J 86.9J 11.2J O.OJ 1.5
O.OJ 0.0j 0.3i 84.9! 10.9J O.Oj 3.8
0.0! 0.0! 0.2i 74.8i 9.8! O.Oj 15.2
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high iniensiiy deveioped
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed soil
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
F24
F25
F26
F27
G01
G02
G03
G04
005
G06
G07
G08
G09
O10
Gil
G12
G13
G14
G15
HOI
H02
H03
H04
H05
H06
H07
H08
H09
H10
Hll
H12
H13
Watershed
MATTAPONI RIVER/COURTHOUSE CREEK
LOWER MATTAPONI RIVER
UPPER YORK RIVER/POROPOTANK RIVER/QUEEN CREEK/WARE CREEK
LOWER YORK RIVER/CARTER CREEK/KING CREEK
JAMES RIVER/FALLING CREEK/PROCTORS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/TURKE Y ISLAND CREEK/FOURMJJJE CREEK
JAMES RIVER/POWELL CREEK/WEST RUN/BAJLEY CREEK
JAMES RIVER/WARDS CREEK/UPPER CHIPPOKES CREEK
UPPER CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/UPHAM BROOK/STONY RUN
CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/WHITE OAK SWAMP/BEAVERDAM CREEK
CHICKAHOMINY RIVER/RUMLEY MARSH
LOWER CHICKAHOMINY RI VER/MORRIS CREEK/LOWER DIASCUND CREE
UPPER DIASCUND CREEK/DIASCUND CREEK RESERVOIR
JAMES RIVER/POWHATAN CREEK/GRAYS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/PAGEN RIVER/WARWICK RIVER/CHUCKATUCK CREEK
SPEIGHTS RUN/LAKE COHOON/LAKE MEADE/LAKE KILBY
NANSEMOND RIVER/BENNETT CREEK
WESTERN BRANCH RESERVOIR
HAMPTON ROADS/ELIZABETH RIVER
JAMES RIVER/REED CREEK
PEDLAR RIVER
JAMES RIVER/BLACKWATER CREEK/IVY CREEK
HARRIS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/BEAVER CREEK/BECK CREEK
WRECK ISLAND CREEK
BENTCREEK
IAMES RIVER/DAVID CREEK
UPPER TYE RIVER
PINEY RIVER
UPPER BUFFALO RIVER
LOWER BUFFALO RIVER
LOWER TYE RI VER/RUCKER RUN
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb exp water
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
15.8
17.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
0.0
36.9
15.4
0.0
10.2
20.3
0.0
22.2
0.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.3
1 4
6.3
0.7
1.0
0.0
4.0
0.8
0.1
0.0
00
,
0.5
3.4
0.7
24
03
0.7
5.0
25.1
379
4.5
4.7
0.6
307
13.0
2.3
2.5
3 1
65.6! 28.4! 0.0! 5.6
62.6 i 29. ij O.Oi 7.7
60. lj 34.6 j O.lj 0.0
46.4! 270: o l! 0.0
32. l! 23.6 i 0.2 i 0.0
57.l! 37.4J 0.3J 0.0
51.6J 27.0; 0.0; 0.0
58.8! 22.7! 0.0; 0.0
40. l! 24.8! 0.0! 0.4
56.2! 30.1! O.oi 00
74.5J 19.5J O.OJ 3.7
71.71 25.7j 0.1 i 0.0
79ni IT?! nni 47
13.4J 48.0J 32.3J O.OJ 0.0
. 18.0; 40.9J 36.7J 1.0] 0.0
5.4; 22.8134.2! O.Oj 0.0
12.0! 28.?i 41.6i O.fli 00
0.4i 2.0
14.4J 47.9
0.1! 1.8
O.OJ 0.7
1.4J 23.5
0.1 6.9
0.3! 6.7
O.l! 2.8
0.0 j 0.3
O.OJ 0.2
O.Oj 0.4
O.O! 0.2
O.OJ 0.7
O.lj 2.3
O.Oi 0.9
39.1J 58.2 i 0.3 i 0.0
13.0 j 14.5J 0.0 j 0.0
71. H 6.7! O.Oj 0.0
84.7J 14.3J O.Oj 0.2
45.4! 7.4J O.O! 0.0
67.0J 25.7J O.OJ 0.3
68.0 j 18.5! O.Oj 0.0
57.5; 39.6i O.O! 0.0
68.l! 31.5J O.OJ 0.1
74.6J 23.9! 0.0 j 1.3
73.3J 26.2J O.Oj 0.1
75.li 24.5i 0 li 01
70.3J 28.5! O.Oj 0.5
68.4J 29.0J O.Oj 0.2
69.7; 28.9! O.oi 0.5
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0 0
0.0! 0.2i 60.8
O.O! 0.8J 56.4
0.0 1 1.3} 52.5
O.fli H 2' 32.1
0.2! 21.oi 47.2
191
25.5
27.3
19.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
14.2i 0.4
O.Oi O.O! 2.0J 46.9J 19.8
9.6 0.0j 2.2j 55.6J 13.0
12.l! O.oi 02! 52fii 10.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
O.l! 21.2J 57.0
O.Oi 5.4! 77.3
O.Oj 1.3J 73.2
O.oi 0.9J 52.7
Ofl! nni i if fi7«
2.1
0.0
22.0
8.7
0.0
8.1
13.4
0.0
17.4
0.0
4.9
00
O.OJ 6.1 1 53.5
0.0j 7.4 j 35.2
O.lj 2.5 1 30.0
O.oi 5.4! 23.7
0.0: 0.6J 35.9
0.0j 23.0} 10.5
O.Oj 3.1! 63.3
O.OJ 0.3: 80.8
O.lj .12.6 j 52.2
0.0j 5.2 j 67.6
0.1! 4.3J 64.1
O.oi 2.3 i 64.2
177
12.1
6.9
16.4
73
20.1
26.5
17.6
39.8
23.9
10.9
7.9
17.5
5.6
25.3
15.4
33.0
O.OJ O.OJ O.l! 73.7: 26.0
O.Oj o.Oj 0.2! 72.4; 19.1
0.0! 0.0] 0.5j 67.7 30.9
0.0 00! 06! 673- 31 4
0.0; O.OJ 0.3; 61.8
O.Oj O.Oj 2.1 j 73.2
0.0; 0.0! l.lj 63.9
35.3
22.9
31 1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01
00
0.1
0.7
0.0
00
water
19.8
17.4
18.9
36.9
14.5
30.3
19.2
24.9
3.0
5.0
18.7
29.9
230
17.9
28.6
27.7
21 8
O.lj 39.5
0.2J 35.7
O.l! 12.0
o.o; 1.4
O.Oj 11.0
O.OJ 1.9
0.2 j 10.7
: O.O! 05
0.0
0.0
0.0
03
0.0
0.0
00
0.3
8.3
0.9
2.6
1.8
3.5
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
o.oi o.o
O.OJ 0.0
O.Oj 0.0
0 0: 0.6
O.Oi 2.5
0.0
9.7
12.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.9
07
_.
O.Oj 0.0
o.oi o.o
00
2.1
0.0
22.1
8.6
00
0.2
1.5
0.2
01
o.oi o.o
8.1 11.8
13.4; 0.2
o.o! o.o
17.4J 0.8
0.0 0.1
4.9 0.3
o.oi oo
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.3
0.7
1.2
9.1
18.0
1.8
1.7
0.1
18.6
4.8
1.1
0.6
2.1
5.1
6.2
2.0
4.5
61 1
56.6
52.1
31 3
51.4
46.7
55.1
51.2
61.9
79.4
74.1
51.1
66.1
53.9
35.4
30.4
24.5
0.6 35.7
20.2J 9.8
2.5! 62.1
0.3! 79.8
10.5 53.3
4.6 1 69.3
3.8! 66.0
2.3 ! 68.5
O.OJ 75.4
0.2 j 74.2
0.5 j 67.8
07 68 1
O.OJ 0.3
O.Oj 1.8
0.0; 0.7
60.7
76.2
636
16.0
23.9
25.7
178
11.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
water
22.6
18.8
21.0
41 1
04! 16.3
16.9 0.4
10.4 0.0
7.7 i 0.1
14.5 00
94
4.9
13.6
5.5
18.4
23.8
14.3
35.9
19.3
10.0
7.5
18.4
4.8
24.0
13.1
28.6
24.2
16.8
30.2
303
36.0
19.9
796
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.9
0.0
no
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
03
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.5
22.8
28.9
4.0
6.1
19.9
34.6
26.3
20.3
32.2
31.1
25.9
44.3
39.9
14.2
1.5
13.1
2.1
11.6
0.7
0.5
8.8
1.5
0.6
3.0
2.1
6.1
nodala - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed soil
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
H14
HH
H16
H17
H18
H19
H20
H21
H22
H23
H24
H25
H26
H27
H28
H29
H30
H31
H32
H31
H34
H35
H36
H37
H38
H19
101
102
101
104
105
106
Watershed
JAMES RIVER/SYCAMORE CREEK
NORTH FORK ROCKFISH RIVER/SOUTH FORK ROCKFISH RIVER
LOWER ROCKFISH RIVER
JAMES RIVER/TOTIER CREEK/ROCK ISLAND CREEK
NORTH FORK HARDWARE RIVER/SOUTH FORK HARDWARE RIVER
HARDWARE RIVER
JAMES RIVER/BEAR GARDEN CREEK/SOUTH CREEK
UPPER SLATE RIVER
LOWER SLATE RIVER
MECHUMS RIVER
MOORMANS RIVER
BUCK MOUNTAIN CREEK
SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER/IV Y CREEK
NORTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER/SWIFT RUN/PREDDY CREEK
UPPER RIVANNA RIVER/MOORES CREEK
MIDDLE RIVANNA RIVER/BUCK ISLAND CREEK
MECHUNK CREEK
LOWER RIVANNA RIVER/BALLINGER CREEK
CUNNINGHAM CREEK
JAMES RIVER/DEEP CREEK/MUDDY CREEK
BYRD CREEK
UPPER WILLIS RIVER
LOWER WILLIS RIVER
BIG LICKINGHOLE CREEK
JAMES RIVER/BEAVERDAM CREEK/FINE CREEK
JAMES RIVER/TUCKAHOE CREEK/NORWOOD CREEK
UPPER JACKSON RIVER
BACK CREEK
LAKE MCOMAW/HUGHES DRAFT
JACKSON RIVER/FALLING SPRING CREEK
CEDAR CREEK
COVE CREEK/SWEET SPRINGS CREEK
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodal low high wood herb exp water
OOl OOJ 03J 798! 174= 01= 24
O.OJ O.Ol 0.4l 76.6: 228! OOi 0.1
0.0j 0.0j 0.7= 81.7J 17.4J O.OJ 0.2
0.0; 0.0! 0.5J 64.5! 32.8! O.OJ 2.2
0.0! O.OJ l.ll 69.2J 29.5J O.lj 0.2
0.0: O.OJ 0.4J 56.7: 42.5: O.Oj 0.4
O.OJ O.OJ 1.4! 64.5J 34.0J O.OJ 0.0
' 0.01 0.0! 0.7! 74.7! 24.4! O.OJ 0.2
O.O! 0.0! 1.2! 61.5! 365: 05; 0.4
::::::
0.0: 0.0: 2.2J 62.6J 34.8J 0.0! 0.5
O.OJ O.Oj O.OJ 82.2; 17.6J O.OJ 0.2
O.OJ O.OJ O.l! 62.5; 37.4! O.OJ 0.1
0.0! 0.4! 6.2! 50.6! 41. l! O.OJ 1.7
0.0! O.OJ 0.6; 58.0J 41.4J O.OJ 0.0
0.0j 3.1J 17.5! 56.0J 22.8; O.OJ 0.7
O.o! 0.0! 2.2! 60.3! 36.6! O.OJ 0.9
00- 00; 13- 58 0! 404= 00! 04
0.0; O.OJ' 3.6! 60.5J 34.41 O.OJ 1.5
O.OJ 0.0! 0.2! 67.2! 32.2J 0.0; 0.4
0.0; 0.0! 1.2! 60.7; 36.1 1 O.OJ 2.1
: : : : : :
o.o! oo! 04; 602! 393! ooi 02
O.OJ 0.0; l.lj 64.6! 33.6; O.OJ 0.7
O.O! O.o! O.s! 63.1! 35.8! 0.0; 0.3
0.0! 0.0; 1.3 ! 60.4! 38.0! O.OJ 0.3
0.4! o.i! 1.7! 57.7; 40.i! o.o! 0.0
O.o! 1.8: 18.2J 53.l! 26.8! O.Oi 0.0
0.0! O.o! 0.6! 69.8! 29.6! O.o! 0.0
25.7; 0.0; 0.4J 61.2J 11.9J 0.9! 0.0
26^7; OO! Oil 71.5! 1 7J 0 OJ 00
O.OJ 0.4J 1.3J 78.9J 18.6J O.OJ 0.8
o.o! o.o! i.ol 86.7! 12.2! o.o i o.o
0.0! 0.0; 0.1! 78.6! 21.3! O.OJ 0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
00= 00: 03! 692! 129= 07= 169
o.o! o.oi o.ei es.o! 336! oo! 0.9
0.0; 0.0! 1.4J 73.1 J 24.3! O.Oj 1.2
0.0! 0.0! 0.6= 60.7! 23.4! 0.0; 15.3
o.oj 0.0! i.s; 56.4; 40.2! o.o; 1.7
0.0; O.OJ 0.4J 60.3J 36.7! O.OJ 2.7
O.o! 0.0; 1.7J 58.5J 24.4; O.OJ 15.4
O.fl! 0.0; 0.1! 80.4! 18.3= 0.0! 1.3
0.0! 0.0! 0.3! 64.7= 336! 0.5J 0.8
O.o! o.oj 2.5! 57.5! 36.o! o.o! 4.1
0.0; O.OJ 0.0; 70.5! 27.3! 0.0; 2.2
0.0! 0.0! 0.3J 47.9! 50.7! 0.3; 0.8
O.OJ O.OJ 2.9j 52.0 j 30.3 j O.Oj 14.8
O.OJ O.OJ 0.5J 44.9; 50.8J 0.2J 3.7
0:OJ O.OJ 12.8J 48.9; 31.3! O.Oj 6.5
O.o! o.O; 1.5! 55.2! 37.3; 0.0! 5.9
::::::
00= 00= 20! 52 l! 426= 00= 33
O.OJ O.OJ 4.7J 59.5J 27.7J O.OJ 8.1
O.OJ O.OI O.lj 67.7J 29.0J 0.0; 3.1
0.0! 0.0! 1.4! 59.1! 26.3! 0.0! 13.1
0.0! 00= 02; 659! 32 8J OOJ 10
0.0: O.OJ 0.6J 71.4J 24.4J 0.0; 3.6
O.o! O.fl! 0.2; 72.6! 24.7! o.fl! 2.5
0.0! 0.0= 0.7= 64.5! 31.8= 0.0; 3.0
0.5! O.O! 1.2! 57.1= 26.6! O.OJ 14.6
0.1= O.l! 9.9! 53.7! 20.0! 0.0! 15.4
o.o! o.o! 2.7! 47.0! 50.2! o.o! 0.2
12.5; O.OJ 2.5! 51.4; 28.2! 2.6J 2.8
13.3! OO! 04: 564= 5l! 00: 24'7
O.OJ 0.0; 1.6J 68.5J 25.2J O.OJ 3.8
o.o! o.o! 2.e! 73.3! 24.1! o.o! o.o
5.4! 0.0= 0.1; 49.2! 45.3= O.OJ 0.0
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
00= 00= 02! 702! 100! 08= 18.8
O.o! 0.0! 08! 65.7: 32.4! O.Oi 1.1
0.0! O.OJ 1.2; 71.5= 25.3J O.OJ 2.0
0.0! O.l! 0.4! 62.5! 20.3! 0.0! 16.7
O.OJ O.OJ 1.6J 56.9J 39.4J O.OJ 2.1
0.0; O.OJ 0.4J 61.6J 35.0! 0.0! 3.0
O.OJ O.OJ 1.9] 59.3J 21.6! O.Oj 17.1
0.0! 0.0= O.l! 83.6! 14.8; 0.0! 1.6
0.0! O.OJ 0.2! 65.4! 33.l! 0.4! 0.8
0.0! O.OJ 2.3J 58.9! 34.3J O.OJ 4.6
0.0; O.OJ O.OJ 72.9! 24.8J O.Oj 2.3
O.OJ O.OJ 0.2J 48.4! 50.2= 0.4J 0.9
O.OJ O.OJ 2.2! 53.0! 27.6! O.OJ 17.2
0.0; O.OJ 0.2i 43.6J 51.9: 0.2J 4.0
O.Oj 0.3J 12.0J 48.2! 30.6 j O.OJ 8.9
0.0; 0.0! 1.3! 54.1! 36.0! 0.0= 8.6
::::::
00! 00! 19: 524! 419= 00: 38
O.OJ O.OJ 4.3; 58.7J 25.8J O.OJ 11.3
O.OJ O.OJ 0.0; 67.0! 29.3J O.Oj 3.6
O.OJ 0.0= 1.4! 59.6J 23.9J O.OJ 15.1
00= 00: 03! 669: 317! 00= 1 1
O.OJ O.OJ 0.5! 72.8J 22.5J O.OJ 4.3
o.o! o.o! 0.2! 74.1! 22.9! o.o! 2.8
O.OJ O.OJ 0.6J 65.4J 30.5! O.OJ 3.4
0.4! O.l! l.Ol 58.6! 23.4! 0.0= 16.5
o.o! os! 86! 56 1! 173! oo! 171
o.o! o.o! 3.9! 47.6! 483! o.o! 0.2
12.5! O.Oj 3.4J 50.3! 28.1= 2.6! 3.1
133= Ol! 06= 537J 60= Ofl! 263
O.OJ 0.8J 1.2J 66.3J 25.7J O.OJ 5.9
O.o!. oo! 2.9! 73.2! 24 o! o.o! o.o
5.4J O.OJ O.OJ 48.4J 46.2= 0.0= 0.0
nodata - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Watershed
DUNLAP CREEK
OGLE CREEK
LOWER JACKSON RIVER/WILSON CREEK/KARNES CREEK
UPPER POTTS CREEK
LOWER POTTS CREEK
UPPER COWPASTURE RIVER
BULLPASTURE RIVER
COWPASTURE RIVER/THOMPSON CREEK/DRY RUN
STUART RUN
COWPASTURE RIVER/MILL CREEK
LOWER COWPASTURE RIVER/SIMPSON CREEK/PADS CREEK
UPPER JAMES RIVER/SINKING CREEK/MILL CREEK
UPPER CRAIG CREEK
MEADOW CREEK
JOHNS CREEK
LOWER CRAIG CREEK/PATTERSON CREEK/LOWER BARBOURS CREEK
UPPER BARBOURS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/LAPSLEY RUN
CATAWBA CREEK
LOONEY CREEK/MILL CREEK
JAMES RIVER/ JENNINGS CREEK
JAMES RIVER/ELK CREEK/CEDAR CREEK
UPPER CALFPASTURE RIVER
LOWER CALFPASTURE RIVER/MILL CREEK
BRATTONS RUN
LITTLE CALFPASTURE RIVER
UPPER MAURY RIVER/KERRS CREEK
HAYS CREEK
MIDDLE MAURY RIVER/MILL CREEK
SOUTH RIVER
LOWER MAURY RIVER/POAGUE RUN
BUFFALO CREEK
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodat low high wood herb exp .water
9.6] 0.1
o.oi o.o
O.oi 0.8
o.oi o.o
o.oi 0.0
0.0) 0.0
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oj o.o
o.oi oo
o.oi oo
o.o i o.o
o.o i o.o
o.oi o.o
4.3 i 0.0
o.oi o.o
0.0 1 0.0
o.oi 0.0
5.5J 0.0
16.1 i 0.0
1.0
1.8
4.8
01
01
0.3
01
0.6
0.6
04
2.8
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.0
2.6
2.7
41
5.5 1 O.OJ 3.4
0.5 j 0.2 i 3.5
0.0 j O.Oj 0.5
O.oi O.Oi 1.3
o.oi o.i
O.Oj 0.1
O.Oi 0.0
o.oi o.o
o.o| 1.1
o.oi o.o
o.oj i.o
o.oi o.o
1.0
2.4
3.2
1.4
13.8
2.8
6.4
2.1
81.7
92.0
86.7
89.7
87.4
86.6
68.2
80.7
87.7
86.2
902
81.8
91.6
50.4
85.5
7.6
6.2
6.9
10.2
174
13.1
31.5
18.4
11.6
127
6.6
15.8
8.1
49.2
100
84.9 14.4
96. ij 3.9
65.6 j 30.1
59.?i 32.2
39.5
40.1
76.7J 14.4
75.4; 20.4
9I.5J 8.1
83.fli 15.6
90.0
78:8
62.0
48.7
41.8
69.4
64.6
69.6
8.5
17.9
34.1
49.8
42.7
27.8
26.9
28.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0:1
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.0
o.oi o.o
0.0: 0.0
O.Oj 0.0
O.Oi 0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.6
0.1
1.1
0.1
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp water
8.0
23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
14.0
5.9
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.oi o.o
O.Oj 0.1
o.oi o.o
1.9
3.0
7.9
0.3
0.6
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.3
0.7
5.9
75.8
60.1
77.0
81 ?
78.5
66.5
42.8
68.9
70.5
80.4
837
3.1 68.9
0.5 81.9
0.5 i 36.3
0.4 78.5
0.7
0.2
6.2
4.2
8.0
6.5
5.3
2.3
5.2
0.6
8.4
5.8
5.3
15.3
5.2
8.3
4.6
78.8
91.8
48.6
51.4
145
61 1
14.1
12.9
8.0
18.6
20.9
31.6
55.3
25.8
26.0
144
83
20.0
16.6
63.1
18.8
20.0
80
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.1
0.0
6.1
0.0
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi o.o
o.oi 31
0.0
0.0
1.3
45
00 2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
on
I
O.oi 0.5
ool oo
30.7J 0.0
40.3 i 00
43.5
150
14.5
00
o.oi o.o
0.1 115
68.2 i 17.5 0.0
80.6J 16.9J 0.0
68.?i 24.6i 0.0
87.8
59.4
53.8
39.8
38.6
66.3
55.2
59.1
10.8
27.2
36.4
54.9
422
28.1
28.3
35.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
8.9
0.2
1.5
0.0
4.7
4.0
0.0
1 6
o.oi 0.4
O.Oj 7.1
O.oi 0.8
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
8.0
23.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
o.oi o.o
0.0: 00
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
140
0.0
1.6
3.0
6.6
0.3
0.5
3.0
2.7
2.1
2.5
04
5.3
O.Oj 2.8
0.0 1 0.4
O.Oj 0.2
ooi 04
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
00
5.9 i 0.0
o.oi o.i
O.Oj 0.0
o.oi o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
04
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.6
76.2 i 14.0
60.0 j 13.2
76.6; 7.3
82.31 17.4
80.0
66.3
40.4
71 7
195
30.7
56.9
21.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
72.2 i 23.8] 0.0
80.0 i 10.7i 0.0
83. 8i 67= 00
69.1
82.1
33.3
80.0
81.5
02! 92.3
5.2J 48.3
4.5i 51.6
8.9
58
4.2
.3.0
54
34.4
60.1
69.2
81.3
70.9
0.3 i 89.0
8.5J 61.8
5.7J 51.7
6.1J 40.7
12 4i 19 1
5.7
6.8
4.1
66.5
54.3
60.6
17.2
16.4
66.5
17.3
17.1
75
27.7
39.8
477
13.0
15.4
15.5
21.2
10.1
24.4
35.3
53.3
475
27.4
26.1
34.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
O.I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
water
0.1
0.0
8.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.5
1.5
89
42
11.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.7
00
18.7
0.0
0.0
15.1
11.1
0.3
2.5
0.0
5.0
7.3
0.0
56
0.4
12.0
1.1
nodala - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed soil
-------
Table 10. Land use data within 100 and 300 foot stream buffers and entire subwatersheds for 11-digit hydrologic units in Virginia.
ID
J01
J02
J03
J04
JOS
JOS
J07
JOS
J09
J10
Jll
J12
J13
J14
J15
J16
J17
K15
Watershed
UPPER APPOMATTOX RIVER
BUFFALO CREEK/SPRINO CREEK
SANDY RIVER
BUSH RIVER
BRIERY CREEK
APPOMATTOX RIVER/BIG GUINEA CREEK/SAYLERS CREEK
APPOMATTOX RIVER/SKINQUARTER CREEK/ROCKY FORD CREEK
FLAT CREEK
NIBBS CREEK
APPOMATTOX RIVER/SMACKS CREEK/SAPPONY CREEK
DEEP CREEK
LAKE CHESDIN/WTNTERPOCK CREEKWINTICOMACK CREEK
NAMOZINE CREEK
LAKE CHESDIN/WHIPPONOCK CREEK
LOWER APPOMATTOX RIVER/ASHTON CREEK
UPPER SWIFT CREEK/SWIFT CREEK RESERVOIR
LOWER SWIFT CREEK
LITTLE NOTTOWAY RIVER
Land use statistics for the entire watershed
nodal low high wood herb exp water
0.3
8.9
0.6
10.1
14.1
0.0
0.3
00
0.0
0.2
6 5
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
00
0.2
00
0 1
0.1 0.0
7.9 0.0
1.1 0.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
76.6
2.1 65.4
1.4 60.0
1.9 585
1.3
1.9
0.8
62.5
52.6
564
0.5 1 60.4
13 567
23
32.1
29.7
38.4
26.0
31.4
42.4
38.8
470
453! 51.9
1.8! 69 8J 2JM
:
10 56 9
0.9
0.5
0.8
3.6 j 20.2
O.ll 6.5
0.6 9.2
0?
76.3
68.2
65.8
38.6
71.0
69.0
35 5
20.2
22.7
T?7
26.0
18.4
19.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
01
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.5
0.0
00
0.3
00
o oi o.o
O.OJ 2.5
0.0 j 0.8
0.0 ! 0.0
o.o! o.o
o.o i 4.0
0.0
1.5J 10.4J 11.3! 0.0
1.3
0.0
Land use statistics for the 300' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
0.2
5.9
0.0
6.8
14.2
0.0
0.2
00
0.0
0.2
57
0.1
5.7
0.0
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.9' 734
0.0 ! 0.9
O.o! 1.1
69.8
702
O.OJ 0.4| 73.7
O.OJ 0.7J 51.4
0.0 1 0.2 1 70.5
23.8i 0.0
19.1
23.6
18.4
21.1
761
water
1.5
0.0 j 4.4
O.o! 5.1
O.Oj ' 0.7
O.OJ 12.7
O.OJ 3.1
O.OJ 0.4: 75.0J 20.7J 0.0
0.0: 04! 727: 253! 00
0.0 i 1.21 63 5 1 342 0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1: 79 ll 157J 00
: : :
Oil 71 OJ M.7! 00
.
O.OJ 0.1
O.OJ 0.3
O.OJ 0.5
0,
0.0
0.0; 0.1
0.0
0.0
97
6.8
49
81.3J 10.0
78.6 ! 11.9
56.7J 14.5
483
in 5
72. ll 9.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
75.4! 9.3 0.0
10.8J 33.2= 31.4 0.0
3.7
16
1.2
3.9
23
8.5
3.6
28.3
237
11.4
9.8
24.6
Land use statistics for the 100' buffer
nodat low high wood herb exp
0.2= 0.1 : 0.8
5.9 1 0.0! 0.9
o.o! o.o! 09
6.8J O.OJ 0.4
14.1J 0.0; 0.4
00! 0.0* 02
0.2: O.OJ 0.4
ooi oo! 03
o.oi o.o! 1.1
02! Ofll 09
: :
57: 00! 03
0.1; 0.0 j 0.1
5.7J O.OJ 0.3
O.Oj O.OJ 0.3
52! 23: 80
O.o! 0.0 1 6.2
o.oi o.si 4.0
0.0! O.O! 13.7
77.0
70.9
726
75.2
52.7
71 1
77.2
752
68.5
793
733
81.0
80.6
57.2
475
73.8
76.3
in
20.11 0.0
17.5 1 0.0
21. ll 0.0
water
1.9
4.7
5.4
16.5; 0.0: 1.1
18.9! 0.0! 13.8
23.3! Oo! 3.5
17.4: 0.0
22.7i 0.0
29.0 j 0.0
13.7i 00
18. l! 00
7.8! 0.0
10.2 j 0.0
11.1 1 0.0
79: 00
7.5! o.o
7.2J 0.0
26.71 0.0
4.8
1.8
1.4
6.0
2.6
11.0
3.2
31.3
29 1
12.5
11.9
28.1
nodala - EMAP data unavailable
low - low intensity developed
high - high intensity developed
wood - wooded
herb - herbaceous vegetation
exp - exposed soil
-------
Head water streams (1-2 order) located on ridge tops were buffered 300' or more on both
sides a larger percent of the time contrasted with higher ordered streams located in the
valleys which were not buffered as well. Larger (> 5th order) and trunk streams were
generally showed relatively low buffering. Further fragmentation and correlation analysis
is necessary to support and quantify these observations.
The percentage of land use was generally comparable between the 100 and 300' buffer
zones. However two minor differences were noted between the land use statistics in the
buffers and the overall watershed. A higher percentage of water and lower percentage of
urbanization was observed in the 100' and 300' riparian corridor. The former makes
sense given that the riparian corridor contains fewer total pixels, allowing the water pixels
caused by streams to be more influential in the statistics. Casual observation of the raw
pixels in one 300' corridor in one quadrangle revealed that water pixels were not always
observed in the riparian corridor. Furthermore, when water pixels were observed, they
were not always located in the center. Several possible interpretations can explain this
including, (1) streams are sometimes obscured by surrounding land use (canopy, for
example) or local conditions at the time the imagery was collected so as to not be
classified as water, (2) thematic mapper imagery and classification procedures were not
sensitive enough to pick up water bodies below the 30m pixel size, or (3) streams
coverages may not always accurate represent the location of stream margins, causing the
location of the riparian corridor to be offset of its true position. This third interpretation is
definitely true in some areas, where the stream meander can be directly observed at the
edge of the data.
Evaluation of the approximately 100 quality control quadrangles suggest that the
algorithm performs pretty well for predicting streams with 300' or greater buffering on
one or both sides but is more inaccurate at predicting streams with 100-300' of buffering
(Table 11). The median absolute error between the miles of streams predicted by the
automated algorithm to be buffered both 300' or more on both sides for a quarter
quadrangle and the quality control results using aerial photography or digital orthophotos
is 7.3% for the Bay and varies from 5-7% among the states. Algorithm accuracy was
generally less for the 100 foot buffer compared to the 300 foot buffer. This was expected
due limitations caused by the scale and quality of the input datalayers as discussed above.
The variability in error among the states was generally very consistent suggesting that the
algorithm worked equally well throughout the Bay watershed.
The inconsistencies in stream density throughout the Chesapeake Bay streams datalayer
may be reflected in the data. For example, Pennsylvania exhibits a relatively low
percentage of streams that have a buffer less than 100 feet. This may be due to the fact
that the streams data for Pennsylvania was digitized at a larger scale than other parts of
the Bay streams layer and exhibits a visibly higher density of streams. It may be that small
intermittent streams have been digitized in Pennsylvania and not throughout other parts of
the Bay and that these small streams may be more likely to be on steeper terrain that is less
likely to be disturbed and has a higher chance of being forested. We will look at these
types of data artifacts in the future.
-------
Table 11. Quality control summary statistics Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Chesapeake Bay.
Region
Statistic
Relative Error1
Both sides 300' -t Both sides 100-300 One side 300' + One side 100-300
Absolute Error1
Both sides 300' + Both sides 100-300 One side 300' + One side 100-300
MD
PA
VA
C.BAY
n
mean.
median
minimum
maximum
5% rank
95%rank
n
mean
median
minimum
maximum
5% rank
95%rank
n
mean
median
minimum
maximum
5% rank
95%rank
n
mean
median
minimum
maximum
5% rank
95%rank
12
..ini
-43.87
9.11
-40.67
8.50
44
2.01
m
-21.49
38.28
-18.49
21.64
41
1.14
'-26.52
25.66
-15.94
17.09
103
0.58
"43.87
38.28
-21.44
19.71
12
-3.61
^40*99
18.29
-36.43
17.48
44
15.64
-13.24
48.09
-6.32
43.09
41
18.26
-13*63
51.26
-0.07
42.85
103
14.37
m
-40.99
51.26
-13.47
42.72
12
-1.6.7.4
-78*22
15.85
-71.34
13.50
44
2.94
»««
-23.34
33.80
-17.14
18.78
41
-2.24
H
-29.30
33.26
-22.76
21.09
103
-1.69
mm
-78.22
33.80
-28.71
19.01
12
-4.87
NwSPs?!
-34.T9
19.45
-34.05
16.71
44
0.29
-3150
44.40
-17.79
20.28
103
-2.29
-"3&60
44.40
-30.71
19.45
12
11.00
*0.67
43.87
40.67
44
9.80
0.24
38.28
0.62
21.90
41
8.75
0.04
26.52
0.34
21.00
103
9.50
?x$:t
tiff Vt ^
0.04
43.87
0.62
26.16
12
13.16
0.06
40.99
1.55
36.43
44
17.42
&K!
0.09
48.09
1.07
43.09
41
19.09
OJD7
51.26
1.89
42.85
103
17.60
0.06
51.26
0.28
42.72
12
23.43
0.72
78.22
3.31
71.34
44
9.39
0.18
33.80
0.79
22.72
41
9.26
wSSSsS?
0.03
33.26
0.37.
23.43
103
11.07
0.03
78.22
0.68
32.95
.12
11.76
0.49
34.19
0.70
34.05
44
9.56
0.70
44.40
1.21
22.87
41
10.7J
~0.20
38.99
1.06
24.66
103
10.34
0.20
44.40
0.72
33.70
Notes: 1 - Automated method results minus quality control results
2 - Absolute value of relative errors
-------
The automated algorithm took only 20 days on a SUN Ultra Spare workstation to process
the entire Bay watershed. This is much less than any manual inventory method and will
produce better, more consistent results. This provides a good tool to reevaluate buffer
conditions in the future as better data layers become available and will allow us to
inexpensively keep up with rapidly changing land use conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
Riparian stream conditions throughout the Bay watershed estimated using the automated
approach show lower percentages of streams with 300 foot forest buffers compared to
100 foot buffers. Results for the Bay were approximately 34% for 300 ft. buffers on both
sides, 53% for 100-300 ft. buffers on both sides, 53% for 300 ft. buffers on one side and
60% for 100-300 ft. buffers on one side. Approximately 40% of the streams in the Bay
watershed have less than 100 ft. of forest buffer. Variability among the states less than
10% in all buffer categories.
Significant variability was found in buffer conditions among 8 and 11-digit subwatersheds
within the Bay. Some correlation between stream buffering conditions and stream order,
topography and landscape position were noted.
The automated algorithm was able to predict stream buffer conditions within 8% for 300
ft. buffers and 7-15% for 100 ft. buffers. Algorithm error levels were relatively consistent
among states indicating equal reliability throughout the Bay watershed.
The automated algorithm is a significantly better method to inventory riparian forest buffer
conditions compared to other manual methods. The method is fast and provides repeatable
and consistent results. It provides a powerful tool that will reduce future assessment costs
as improved stream and land cover datasets become available.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The algorithm could be rerun on improved streams, land cover, and watershed boundary
datasets. The streams coverage for the Bay watershed used in this project had obvious
inconsistencies in scale, density and accuracy that may have impacted the results.
Improved streams coverages should be produced and used in future analyses. Stream
attributes characterizing the stream type, size etc. should be added to the coverage. Land
use data is available for the Bay as part of the MRLC program and should be evaluated as
an improved land use coverage. Watershed boundaries (11-digit), which currently do not
edge-match correctly at state boundaries should be improved.
-------
Additional analyses can be done to better evaluate riparian forest buffer conditions.
Fragmentation analyses can be used to quantify the spatial distribution of forest buffer
conditions along streams to enhance the current knowledge of percent buffer. Separations
could be made in watersheds that may have equal percentages of streams buffered but with
differing distributions. The fragmentation analysis could be combined with a better
assessment of potential contaminant loadings (nutrient and sediment) for each
subwatershed to separate basins that may have similar buffer conditions but different
contaminant pressures being exerted upon the buffer. In other words, the analysis would
help identify and prioritize those subwatershed that have low buffering coupled with high
contaminant pressures. Simple non-point source modeling could be done for each
subwatershed using largely available GIS data.
Additional analyses can be done to quantify the relationships between riparian forest buffer
conditions and other stream conditions. This might include, but not be limited to, stream
order, landscape position, topography, geology, and stream gradient. For example, it
might be interesting to see including or not including intermittent streams would affect the
results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the USFS and the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office under a Cooperative Agreement.
-------
SECTION 5:
STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND GUIDELINES
-------
1X3
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-1
DEFINITION
An area of trees and/or shrubs located adja-
cent to and up-gradient from water bodies.
PURPOSES
1) Reduce excess amounts of sediment, or-
ganic material, nutrients, pesticides and
other pollutants in surface runoff and re-
duce excess nutrients and other chemicals
in shallow ground water flow.
2) Create shade to moderate water tempera-
tures to improve habitat for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
3) Provide a source of detritus and large
woody debris for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
4) To provide riparian habitat and corridors
for wildlife.
CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE
APPLIES
On stable areas adjacent to permanent or in-
termittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and
areas with ground water recharge, (For areas
with unstable banks refer to Streambank
Stabilization, practice 580.)
CRITERIA
Criteria Applicable To All Purposes
The location, layout, width, length and woody
plant density of the riparian forest buffer will
be selected to accomplish the intended pur-
pose and function. The buffer will consist of a
zone (identified as zone 1) that begins top of
bank, and extends a minimum distance of 15
feet, measured horizontally on a line perpen-
dicular to the water course or water body.
NOTE: The ability to sustain a healthy forest
condition, and reduction of sedi-
ment, organic material, nutrients and
pesticide will be limited if only Zone
1 is established. A minimum buffer
width of 35 feet is required in the
Chesapeake Bay drainage area.
Dominant vegetation will consist of existing
or planted trees and shrubs suited to the site
and the intended purpose. Selection of locally
native species will be a priority when feasible.
Plantings will consist of two or more species
in an attempt to achieve greater diversity.
Individual plants selected will be suited to the
seasonal variation of soil moisture status of
individual planting sites. Plant types and spe-
cies shall be selected based on their
compatibility in growth rates and shade toler-
ance. Select species from the Plant Lists
located in Specifications.
Occasional removal of some tree and shrub
products such as high value trees is permitted
provided the intended purpose is not com-
promised by the loss of vegetation or
harvesting disturbance. (An approved sedi-
ment and erosion control plan is required
when harvesting disturbs over 5000 sq. ft.,
and in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area a
Timber Harvest Plan is required.)
An adequate upstream or adjacent seed source
must be present when using natural regenera-
tion to establish a buffer. Planting is preferred
over natural regeneration due to control of
plant species present and reduced time for
woody plants to reach maturity.
Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically, and updated if needed. To obtain the current version of this standard,
contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-2
Necessary site preparation and planting for
establishing new buffers shall be done at a
time and manner to insure survival and growth
of selected species. Refer to Specifications
for care, handling, and planting requirements
for woody planting stock.
Only viable, high quality, and adapted planting
stock will be used. The method of planting
for new buffers shall include hand or machine
planting techniques, suited to achieving
proper depths and placement for intended
purpose and function of the buffer.
Site preparation shall be sufficient for estab-
lishment and growth of selected species and
be done in a manner that does not compro-
mise the intended purpose. Refer to
Specifications for woody planting stock qual-
ity requirements and detailed site preparation
procedures. Supplemental moisture will be
applied if and when necessary to assure early
survival and establishment of selected species.
Livestock shall be controlled or excluded as
necessary to achieve and maintain the in-
tended purpose. Water course crossings and
livestock watering shall be located and sized
to minimize impact to buffer vegetation and
function. (See Fencing, 382 and Stream
Crossing, 232 Standards.)
Harmful pests present on the site will be con-
trolled or eliminated as necessary to achieve
and maintain the intended purpose.
Additional Criteria Purpose 1
To reduce excess amounts of sediment, or-
ganic material, nutrients, pesticides and
other pollutants in surface runoff and re-
duce excess nutrients and other chemicals
in shallow ground water flow.
An additional strip or area of land, (Zone 2),
will begin at the edge and up-gradient of zone
1 and extend a minimum distance of 20 feet,
measured horizontally on a line perpendicular
to the water course or water body. The
minimum combined width of zones 1 and 2
will be 100 feet OR 30 percent of the geo-
morphic flood plain whichever is less, but not
less than 35 feet. A Geomorphic floodplain is
defined as the area adjacent to a river or
stream that is built of alluvial sediments that
are associated with the present depositional
activity. (Note: The geomorphic floodplain
does not include older land forms, such as
terraces, that were formed by similar process
but under different hydrologic conditions.
These upland terrace positions no longer
flood and subsequently do not receive addi-
tional alluvial sediments.) Figure 1 illustrates
examples of zone 1 and 2 widths for water
courses and water bodies.
Zone 2 may need to be adjusted to include
important resource features such as wetlands,
steep slopes, or critical habitats.
In this zone the removal of tree and shrub
products such as timber, nuts and fruit is
permitted on regular basis provided the in-
tended purpose is not compromised by loss of
vegetation or harvesting disturbance.
Additional Criteria Purpose 2
To create shade to moderate water tem-
peratures to improve habitat for fish and
other aquatic organisms.
A buffer for controlling warm-season water
temperatures shall consist of at least zone 1
for water course reaches or water bodies less
than or equal to 30 feet in width or water
bodies greater than 30 feet wide but less than
1 acre. (NOTE: Buffers for wider water
courses or larger water bodies may be valu-
able but will have only site-specific effects.)
Buffers shall be established or maintained on
south and west sides of water courses and
bodies insofar as practical. The buffer canopy
shall be established to achieve at least 50 per-
cent crown cover with average canopy heights
equal to or greater than the width of the water
course or 30 feet for water bodies. (See fig-
ure 2.)
Buffer species shall include those species
listed in the Plant List, Table 1, Specifications,
with sufficient height potential. Place droop-.
ing or wide-crowned trees and shrubs nearest
the water course or body. Shoreline or chan-
nel relief (e.g., deeply incised channels) and
topographic shading will be taken into ac-
count in selecting species.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-3
Terrace or
upland
Inactive floodplain
on valley floor
Active floodplain
(greater than 333
feet)
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 100 feet
on either side. Calculation:
Floodplain width x 0.30
Active floodplain
(greater than 333-*l
feet)
A. Active Floodplains Greater Than 333 Feet in Width
Active
channel
(showing bankfull
high water)
Terrace or
upland
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 45 feet
on either side. Calculation:
150 feet x 0.30 = 45 feet
> Upland
Active floodplain Active channel Active floodplain
150 feet (showing bankfull150feet
nigh water)
B. Active Floodplains Less Than 333 Feet in Width
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 35 feet
on either side
Upland
Note: Incised
channel banks
in this example
may be subject to
failure'during buffer
establishment period
Active channel
(incised) or water
body (showing
bankfull high water)
C. Incised Channel Without Floodplains
and All Water Bodies
High terrace
or upland
Low terrace
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 35 feet
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 60 feet
on floodplain side. Calculation:
200 feet x 0.30 = 60 feet
Active floodplain
200 feet "
D. Active Floodplain On Only One Side of the Channel
Active channel
(showing bankfull
high water)
Figure 1. Examples of riparian forest buffer widths for water courses and water bodies.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-4
Canopy height equal to or
greater than the width of
the watercourse or 30 feet
for water bodies
Figure 2. Canopy height for water temperature control
Additional Criteria Purpose 3
To provide a source of detritus and large
woody debris for fish and other aquatic or-
ganisms.
Within zone 1 as a minimum, establish, favor
or manage species capable of producing stems
and limbs of sufficient size to provide an
eventual source of large woody debris for in-
stream habitat for fish and other aquatic organ-
isms.
Additional Criteria Purpose 4
To provide wildlife habitat.
Select trees and shrubs that provide food cover
and shelter for the targeted wildlife species.
See Plant list in the Specifications section and
refer to Wildlife/Wetland Habitat Management
Standards 644, 645 for more information.
Buffer Width Guide for Selected Wildlife
Species.
Widths below include the sum of buffer widths
on one or both sides of water courses or water
bodies and may extend beyond riparian
boundaries (in such cases refer to Tree/Shrub
Establishment, 612 for design of upland for-
ests).
Species:
Bald eagle nesting, cavity
nesting ducks, heron rook-
ery
Neotropical migrants
Beaver, dabbling ducks,
mink, salmonids
Deer
Frog, salamander
Desired Width
in Feet
600
300
300
200
100
CONSIDERATIONS
The severity of bank erosion and its influence
on existing or potential riparian trees and
shrubs should be assessed. Watershed-level
treatment or bank stability activities may be
needed before establishing a riparian forest
buffer. (Refer to Streambank Protection Stan-
dard, 580 and to Chapter 18 of the
Engineering Field Handbook:)
Complex ownership patterns of riparian areas
may require group planning for proper buffer
design, function and management.
Where ephemeral, concentrated flow or sheet
and rill erosion and sedimentation is a concern
in the area up-gradient of zone 2, consider the
application of a vegetated strip consisting of
grasses and forbs, (Zone 3). Grasses and forbs
from plant list #2 established at the up-gradient
'edge of zone 2 will accelerate deposition of
sediment. (See figure 3.) When concentrated
flow or excessive sheet and rill erosion and
sedimentation cannot be controlled vegeta-
tively, consider structural or mechanical
treatments.
Joining existing and new buffers increases the
continuity of cover and will further moderate
water temperatures, improve habitat and en-
hance water quality functions. A mix of
species with growth forms that are tall and
wide-crowned or drooping will increase mod-
eration effects. For water courses, buffers
established on both sides will enhance multiple
values.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-5
Favor tree and shrub species that are native
and have multiple values such as those suited
for timber, biomass, nuts, fruit, browse, nest-
ing, aesthetics and tolerance to locally used
herbicides. Consider species that resprout
when establishing new rows nearest to water
courses or bodies. For detritus and large
woody debris, use species that will meet the
specific requirements of fish and other aquatic
organisms for food, habitat, migration and
spawning.
Use recommendations from regional or other
large-scale evaluations and plans when design-
ing, locating and connecting buffers for
indicator and/or target species of wildlife, fish
and other aquatic organisms.
Avoid tree and shrub species which may be
alternate hosts to undesirable pests or that may
be considered noxious or undesirable. Species
diversity should be considered to avoid loss of
function due to species-specific pests.
Temporary and local population control meth-
ods of these kinds of local species should be
used cautiously and within state and local
regulations.
Consider the type of human use (rural, subur-
ban, urban) and the aesthetic, social and safety
aspects of the area to determine the vegetation
selection, arrangement and management. For
example, avoiding tall shrubs that block views
and pruning low tree branches near recreation
trails allows for ease of patrolling.
Species selection criteria to improve aesthetics
include seasonal foliage color, showy flowers
and fruit, foliage texture, form and branching
habit. The layout and design should be appro-
priate for the setting as determined by adjacent
land uses.
The location, layout and density of the buffer
should complement natural features. Avoid
layouts and locations that would concentrate
flood flows or return flows. Low, flexible-
stemmed shrubs will minimize obstruction of
local flood flows.
Consider the positive and negative impacts
beaver, muskrat, deer, rabbits and other local
species may have on the successful manage-
ment of the riparian and stream system.
Stiff-stemmed grasses
(area may require some
shaping before grass
establishment)
Figure 3. Sediment-trapping above zone 2.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-6
SPECIFICATIONS
each plant to assist with the design process for
establishing new buffers.
pared for each site. Requirements for Care, Handling, Size And Planting Re-
quirements For Woody Planting Stock
During all stages of handling and storage, keep
stock tops dry and free of mold and roots
moist and cool. Destroy stock that has been
allowed to dry, to heat up in storage (e.g.,
within a bale, delivery carton or container), or
that has developed mold or other pests.
Seedlings shall no be less than 1/4" in caliper at
1" above the root collar. Rooted planting
stock must not exceed a 2:1 shoot-to-root ra-
tio. (See figure 4.) Container stock shall
normally not exceed a 1-gallon size.
Roots of bareroot stock shall be kept moist
during planting operations by placing in a wa-
ter-soil (mud) slurry, peat moss,
superabsorbent (e.g., polyacrylamide) slurry or
other equivalent material. Rooting medium of
container or potted stock shall be kept moist at
all times by periodic watering. Stock shall not
be planted when the soil frozen or dry. Rooted
stock will be planted in a vertical position with
the root collars approximately 1/2-inch below
the soil surface. Insert cuttings to the depth
Specifications for this practice shall be
pared for each site. Requirements for
operation and maintenance of the practice shall
be incorporated into site specifications.
Procedures, technical details and other infor-
mation listed below provide additional
guidance for carrying out selected components
of the named practice. This material is refer-
enced from the conservation practice standard
for the named practice and supplements the
requirements and considerations listed therein.
Planting Densities
Initial plant-to-plant densities for trees and
shrubs will depend on their potential height at
20 years of age. Be sure to consider manage-
ment when planting. If mowing will be
method of weed control, row widths must be
wide enough to allow access. Heights may be
estimated based on: 1) performance of the in-
dividual species (or comparable species) in
nearby areas on similar sites, or 2) predeter-
mined and documented heights using
Conservation Tree/Shrub Suitability Groups,
Section II of the Field Office Technical Guide.
Planting density specifications are:
Plant
Types/Heights:
Shrubs less than
1 0 feet in height
Shrubs and trees
from 10 to 25 feet
in height (includes
columnar trees)
Trees greater than
25 feet in height
Plant-to-Plant
Spacing in feet:
6
6 to 8
8 to 12
V4" caliper or
diameter at 1
above root
Ground line
Root collar
(planted at
Vi" below
ground line)
Shoot
length
(e.g. 12"
Root
length
(e.g. 6")
Plant List
Table 1 lists woody plant species (trees and
shrubs) commonly associated with and suited
to riparian areas. Key attributes are listed for
Shoot-to-root ratio Js 12" to 6" or 2:1
Figure 5. Plant or stock size requirements.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-7
n<\
required to reach adequate soil moisture with
at least 2-3 buds above ground. The planting
trench or hole must be deep and wide enough
to permit roots to spread out and down with-
out J-rooting or L-rooting. After planting of
rooted stock, pack soil around each plant
firmly to eliminate air pockets. (See figure 5.)
Figure 5. Proper plant and root placement of rooted
stock using a planting bar.
Recommended Planting Dates
MLRA 149A, 153C and 153D - March 1 to
May 11; planting may be done on sandy soils,
when soil is not frozen, during the fall and
winter months. (After November 1)
MLRA 148 - March 1 to May 1
MLRA 147 and 130 - March 15 to May 1
MLRA 127 - April 1 to May 15
Containerized stock can be planted at any time
the ground is not frozen provided a water
source is available.
Preparation Of Planting Sites
Planting sites shall be properly prepared based
on the soil type and vegetative conditions
listed below. For sites to be tilled, leave a 3-
foot undisturbed strip at the edge of the bank
or shoreline. Competitive weeds, particularly
Canada Thistle and Multiflora Rose should be
controlled prior to planting. Avoid sites that
have had recent application of pesticides
harmful to woody species to be planted. If
pesticides are used, apply only when needed
and handle and dispose of properly and within
federal, state and local regulations. Follow
label directions and heed all precautions listed
on the container.
Fabric mulch may be used for weed control
and moisture conservation for new plantings,
particularly those with pronounced growing
season moisture deficits or invasive, weedy
species. Refer to Mulching, 484, for installa-
tion procedures.
Based on site conditions and predominant soil
texture of the fine earth fraction, procedures
include:
Tillable sites with loamy/clayey soils:
- Sod and alfalfa sites
Summer fallow 1 year to kill the sod or al-
falfa. Till (moldboard plow, disk plow,
rototiller or similar equipment) in the
spring before planting the stock. A fall-
sown crop of oats may be used where
needed to control erosion.
Sod may be killed by non-selective herbi-
cides the year previous to planting stock.
Plant stock in the residue. On heavy soils,
tillage is usually necessary to achieve a
satisfactory planting when a tree planting
machine is used.
- Small grain or row crop sites
If the site is in row crop, till (moldboard
plow, disk plow, rototiller or similar
equipment) in the fall or in the spring prior
to planting the trees or shrubs. If the site
has a plow or hard pan in subsoil, perform
a deep disking or ripping operation in the
fall. A fall-sown crop of oats may be used
where needed to control erosion.
If the site is in small grain stubble, the
stock may be planted in the spring without
further preparation. If fabric mulch is to be
installed, till in the spring before planting.
Tillage on steep slopes must be on the
contour or cross-slope. A cover crop be-
tween the rows may be necessary to
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
130
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-8
control erosion and sediment deposition on
planted stock.
Tillable sites with sandy soils:
- Sod and alfalfa sites
Till (moldboard plow, disk plow, rototiller
or similar equipment) and plant to a spring
cover crop (corn, grain, sorghum, etc.) the
year prior to planting. Leave a stubble
cover in which to plant. A light disking
may be needed before planting if fabric
mulch is used.
Sod may be killed by nonselective herbi-
cides the year prior to planting. Plant trees
or shrubs in the residue.
When hand planting, scalp or strip an area
at least 3 feet in diameter and two-to-four
inches deep, (place plants in the center of
the scalped area.)
Rototill a 3-foot wide strip. (Place plants
in the center of the tilled area.) Where a
drip watering system will not be used, ro-
totill the strip the year prior to planting.
- Small grain or row crop sites
If the site is in small grain, corn, or similar
clean tilled crop, and it is reasonably free
of weeds, plant stock in the stubble with-
out prior preparation. It may be necessary
to till a narrow strip with a disk or other
implement to kill weeds or volunteer grain,
or to prevent stalks and other residue from
clogging the tree planter. If fabric mulch is
used, disking may also be needed. A cover
crop or stubble may be needed between the
rows to protect the planting from water or
wind erosion.
Non-tillable sites and/or erosive sites
(including sites with undesirable brushy or
herbaceous species):
On sites where it is not practical or possible to
operate equipment (steepness, rockiness, etc.),
where tillage of the site will cause excessive
erosion, or where tillage of the site is impracti-
cal, the methods listed below may be used.
Sites with undesirable brush will need initial
treatments that physically removes and kills the
brush species to facilitate planting of desired
stock and prevent re-encroachment of the
brush. Suitable methods include hand-cutting
and removal, brush hogging, brush-blading, or
other equivalent procedure with repeated
treatment or use of herbicides to control re-
sprouting.
Machine or hand scalp an area at least 36
inches in diameter with subsequent plant
placement in the center of the scalped area.
Rototill a strip at least 36 inches wide the
year prior to tree planting with subsequent
plant placement in the center of the tilled
strip.
Kill the vegetation in a 36-inch diameter or
larger area or in a 36-inch or wider strip
with a non-selective herbicide the year
prior to planting and plant in the center or
along the center-line of the treated area.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
PLANTING GUIDE
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-9
Growing Season
Water Table
(GSWT)
Drainage Area 1
GSWT 0-20"
from surface
Figure 6. Drainage Class Suitability
Drainage Area 2
GSWT 20-60"
from surface
This is a simplified drawing depicting the major drainage areas found
in a riparian area and is intended to facilitate the plant selection
process. Area 1 is made up of poorly drained to somewhat poorly
drained soils with the growing season water table (GSWT) fluctuat-
ing from 0 to 20" from the soil surface in most years. This area has
the greatest potential for inundation.
Area 2 is made up of moderately well to well-drained soils with the
GSWT fluctuating from 20" to 60" from the soil surface in most
years. This area is prone to moisture stress during the summer
months.
The plants in the following tables have been separated according to
their suitability for the conditions in Area 1 or 2. Plants with both
areas listed are tolerated of a wide range of conditions.
TABLE 1 - TREES
Plant Names
ATLANTIC WHITE CEDAR
Chamaecyparis thyoides
BALD CYPRESS
Taxodium distichum
BLACK ALDER
AInus glutinosa
BLACK WALNUT
Juglans nigra
BLACK WILLOW
Salix nigra
Drainage
Area
Suitability
1
1
1
1
1
Tolerance
to
Flooding
M
H
H
M
H
Shade
Value
M
M
M
H
H
Height
20
Years
30'
40'
40'
60'
75'
Native
Species
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Wildlife
Value
Low: seed and browsing
Low: seeds, food for ducks and
marsh birds
Medium: food for beaver and
ruffed goose
Medium: twigs and nuts, food
for some wildlife
Medium: nesting, food for
grouse, beaver, and deer
Notes
cannot compete with hardwoods,
best planted in stands
' recommended for lower Eastern
Shore only
seeds freely along banks, nitro-
gen fixing
very important lumber tree
important for stream stabiliza-
tion, fast growth rate
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-10
0>
TABLE 1 - TREES
Plant Names
BOX ELDER
Acer negundo
RIVER BIRCH
Betula nigra
SANDBAR WILLOW
Salix exigua
SILVER MAPLE
Acer saccharinum
SWAMP WHITE OAK
Quercus bicolor
CHINQUAPIN
Quercus muehlenbergii
GREEN ASH
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
HACKBERRY
Celtis occidentalis
OVERCUP OAK
Quercus lyrata
PIN OAK
Quercus palustris
RED MAPLE
Acer rubrum
SWEET GUM
Liquidambar styraciflua
Drainage
Area
Suitability
1
1
1
1
1
1&2
1&2
1&2
1&2
1&2
1&2
1&2
Tolerance
to
Flooding
H
H
H
M
H
M
M
M
M
M
H
M
Shade
Value
M
M
M
H
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
H
Height
20
Years
30'
40'
25'
50'
30'
40'
50'
40'
30'
40'
40'
60'
Native
Species
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Wildlife
Value
Low: seeds, food for some
wildlife
Medium: food for ducks,
songbirds, rabbits, and fox
Low: nesting
Low: nesting
High: acorns, food for quail,
turkey, grouse, woodpeckers,
raccoons, opossum and deer
High: acorns, food for quail, ,
turkey, grouse, and deer
Medium: seeds and foliage,
food for wood ducks, gros-
beaks, squirrels, and deer
High: fruits and twigs, food for
mourning doves, quail,
squirrels, and deer
High: same as Swamp White
Oak
High: same as Swamp White
Oak
High: seeds and sap, food for
songbirds, chipmunks, and
deer
Low: seeds for mourning
doves, beaver, squirrels, and
chipmunks
Notes
fast growth rate
unique peeling reddish bark
forms thickets by suckering
good source of woody debris
good choice for wet sites, impor-
tant lumber tree
under used, native tree
important lumber tree
adaptable to a wide range of
conditions
important lumber tree
bronze or red fall foliage
red fall color and bloom
yellow-red fall color
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-11
TABLE 1- TREES
Plant Names
SYCAMORE
Platanus occidentalis
BLACK LOCUST
Robinia pseudoacacia
LOBLOLLY PINE
Pinus taeda
RED OAK
Quercus rubra
WHITE OAK
Quercus alba
Drainage
Area
Suitability
1&2
2
2
2
2
Tolerance
to
Flooding
M
L
L
L
L
Shade
Value
H
M
M
M
M
Height
20
Years
60'^
40'
60'
40'
30'
Native
Species
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Wildlife
Value"
Low: nesting cavities, seeds,
food for finches, and squirrels
Low: seeds, food for some
wildlife
Medium: seeds and sap, food
for doves, woodpeckers, nut-
hatches, and squirrels
High: same as Swamp White
Oak
High: same as Swamp White
Oak
Notes
unique peeling bark, fast growth
rate
nitrogen fixing, seeds freely and
suckers
recommended for coastal plain
area, fast growth rate
excellent red fall color
variable fall color, stately tree
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-12
TABLE 1 - SHRUBS
Plant Names
BUTTONBUSH
Cephalanthus occidentalis
SILKY DOGWOOD
Cornus amomum
SMOOTH ALDER
Alnus serrulata
WINTERBERRY
Ilex verticillata
ARROWWOOD VIBURNUM
Viburnum dentatum
CRANBERRY BUSH
Viburnum trilobum
ELDERBERRY
Sambucus canadensis
GRAY DOGWOOD
Cornus racemosa
Drainage
Area
Suitability
1
1
1
1
1&2
1&2
1&2
1&2
Tolerance
to
Flooding
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
L
Shade
Tolerance
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
shade
Shade
Value
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Height
20
years
8'
10'
10'
10'
10'
12'
12'
10'
Native
Species
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
- Y
Wildlife
Value
Medium: seeds and
nectar, food for
hummingbirds, ducks,
beavers, and rails
High: berries and
twigs, food for wood-
peckers, pine
warblers, finches,
cardinals, and deer
Medium: seeds, food
for ducks, quail, doves
and deer
High: berries, food
for woodpeckers,
waxwings, cardinals,
chickadees and deer
Medium: berries and
foliage, food for
grouse, squirrels, and
deer
Medium: same as
Arrowwood Viburnum
High: berries and
nectar, food for wood-
peckers, blue jays,
grosbeaks, rabbits, and
squirrels
High: same as Silky
Dogwood
Notes
unusual, round white
flowers
produces fruit at 3-5
years of age
nitrogen fixing
need male and female
plants for fruit produc-
tion
suckers freely, wood
used to make arrows
yellow to red fall color,
white flower clusters
large clusters of white
flowers followed by
purple berries, fast
growth rate
White flowers, white
berries
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-13
TABLE 1 - SHRUBS
Plant Names
NANNYBERRY
Viburnum lentago
PAWPAW
Asimina triloba
REDOSEER DOGWOOD
Cornus sericea
BRISTLY LOCUST
Robinia hipsida
NINEBARK
Physocarpus opulifolius
SPICEBUSH
Lindera benzoin
Drainage
Area
Suitability
1&2
1&2
1&2
. 2
2
2
Tolerance
to
Flooding
L .
M
L
L
M
M
Shade
Tolerance
full sun to
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
full sun to
partial
shade
Shade
Value
M
M
L
L
L
L
Height
20
years
20'
20'
8'
8'
9'
12'
Native
Species
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Wildlife
Value
Medium: same as
Arrowwood Viburnum
High: important food
source for fox and
opossum
High: same as Silky
Dogwood
Low
Low
Medium: berries, food
for thrushes, catbirds,
and kingbirds
Notes
often suckers
suckers and forms
colonies
good for streambank
stabilization
nitrogen fixing, good
for steep sandy slopes
peeling bark, hidden by
dense foliage
fragrant leaves and
twigs, yellow fall color
NOTE: Native refers to species that occur naturally in the state of Maryland.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-14
TABLE 2: Zone 3 Planting
1. Native, warm-season grass mix for somewhat poorly to well drained sites
Name
SWITCHGRASS
Panicum virgatum
'shelter'
EASTERN GAMAGRASS
Tripsacum dactyloides
'Pete'
OATS
Planting Rate - Pure Live Seed
Ibs/ac
8
10
20
Drilled
Seeds per
linear ft.
30
4
Row
spacing
36"
36"
Broadcast seeds per
sq. foot
40
For added wildlife and aesthetic value add % Ib/ac to Vi Ib/ac of a mix of 2 or more of the following:
GREAT ASTER Aster grandiflorus (height 2-5')
SMOOTH ASTER Aster laevis (height 2-5')
FALL PHLOX Phlox paniculata (height 2-5')
SNEEZEWEED Helenium flexuosum (height 2-5')
WILD BERGAMONT Monarda fistulosa (height 2-4')
PURPLE CONEFLOWER Echinacea purpurea (heights')
MONKEY FLOWER Mimulus alatus & M. Ringens (height 1')
BLAZING STAR Liatris spicata (height 2-5')
BEE BALM Monarda didyma (height 2-4')
GREEN CONEFLOWER Rudbeckia lanciniata (height 2-8')
2. Native, warm-season grass for mix moderately well to well drained sites
Name
BIG BLUESTEM
Andropogon gerardii 'niagara'
SWITCHGRASS
Panicum virgatum
'shelter'
INDIANGRASS
Sorghastrum nutans
OATS
Planting Rate - Pure Live Seed
Ibs/ac
10
8
5
20
Drilled
Seeds per
linear ft.
30
30
30
Row
spacing
30"
36"
30"
Broadcast seeds per
sq. foot
40
40
30
For added wildlife and aesthetic value add % Ib/ac to '/> Ib/ac of a mix of two or more of the following:
MARYLAND GOLDEN ASTER Chrysopsis mariana (height 1-2')
TICKSEED v Coreopsis tinctoria (height 2-3')
WILD BLUE INDIGO Baptisia australis (height 3-5')
SHOWY ASTER Aster spectabilis (height 2-5')
BUTTERFLYWEED Asclepias tuberosa (height 1-2')
COMMON MILKWEED Asclepias syriaca (height 2-5')
WILD COLUMBINE Aquilegia canadensis (height 1-2')
BLACK-EYED SUSAN Rudbeckia hirta (height 2-3')
'golden jubilee'
NOTE: On slopes greater than 6% plant a cover crop in the fall, cut in the spring and no-till warm season grass
seed into the stubble.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-15
TABLE 2: Zone 3 Planting
For each of the following mixes, add one of these crops:
Winter Rye 20 Ibs/ac
Winter Wheat 20 Ibs/ac
Spring Oats 20 Ibs/ac
3. Cool-season grass and legume mix for well drained sites:
(This is a non-competive mix and can be used to stabilize areas where trees and shrubs will be planted.)
Name
CREEPING RED FESCUE Festuca rubra
HARD FESCUE Festuca longifolia
WHITE CLOVER Trifolium repens
Lbs/Ac
10
10
2
Planting
Date
early spring or fall
early spring or fall
early spring or fall
Cool-season grass and legume mix for poorly drained sites:
REED CANARY GRASS Phalaris arundinacea
BIRDSFOOT TREFOIL Lotus corniculatus
10
6
spring
4. Cool-season grass mix for moderately well drained sites
Name
KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS Poa pratensis
PERENNIAL RYEGRASS Lolium perenne
RED TOP Argostis gigantea
Lbs/Ac
25
15
5 '
Planting
Date
spring or fall
spring or fall
spring or fall
5. Cool-season grass & wildflower mix for moderately well to excessively drained sites
Name
CHEWTNGS FESCUE Festuca rubra L. Ssp. falax
HARD FESCUE Festuca longifolia
WILDFLOWER SEED MIX
(Choose 4 or more species from wildflowers in mix 2)
Lbs/Ac
10
10
6
Planting
Date
spring or early fall
spring or early fall
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-16
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The following actions shall be carried out to
insure that this practice functions as intended
throughout its expected life. These actions
include normal repetitive activities in the
application and use of the practice
(operation), and repair and upkeep of the
practice (maintenance):
The riparian forest buffer will be inspected
periodically, protected and restored as
needed, to maintain the intended purpose
from adverse impacts such as excessive ve-
hicular and pedestrian traffic, pest
infestations, pesticide use on adjacent lands,
livestock damage and fire.
Replacement of dead trees or shrubs and
control of undesirable vegetative competition
will be continued until the buffer is, or will
progress to, a fully functional condition.
As applicable, control of concentrated flow
erosion or mass soil movement shall be con-
tinued in the up-gradient area immediately
adjacent to zone 2 to maintain buffer func-
tion.
Any removals of tree and shrub products
shall be conducted in a manner that maintains
the intended purpose and is consistent with
state and local law.
For purposes of moderating water tempera-
tures and providing detritus and large woody
debris, riparian forest buffer management
must maintain a minimum of 50 percent can-
opy cover. To achieve benefits provided by
large woody debris, natural mortality of trees
and large shrubs may need to be supple-
mented by periodically falling and, placing
selected stems or large limbs within water
courses and water bodies to reach original
design specifications.
For providing habitat and corridors for wild-
life, manage the buffer to favor food, shelter
and nesting cover that would satisfy the
habitat requirements of the indicator or target
wildlife species. Refer to MD Wildlife Biol-
ogy and Management Handbook for more
information.
For purposes of reducing excess pollutants in
surface runoff and shallow groundwater
(zone 1 and 2), or providing habitat and cor-
ridors for wildlife (zone 1 at a minimum),
manage the dominant canopy to maintain
maximum vigor of overstory and understory
species.
Weeds should be controlled for 2 - 3 years
after planting. Any use of fertilizers, me-
chanical treatments, prescribed burning,
pesticides and other chemicals to assure
buffer function shall not compromise the in-
tended purpose. Biological control of
undesirable plant species and pests (e.g.,
using predator or parasitic species), shall be
implemented where available and feasible.
Additional operation and maintenance re-
quirements shall be developed on a site-
specific basis to assure performance of the
practice as intended.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-17
DATA AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION
The following is a list of information to be
recorded in the case file.
1) Purpose of riparian forest buffer
2) Field location and plan view
3) Size of planting
width of floodplain (ft)
- width of planting (ft)
length of stream (ft)
- acres of riparian forest buffer
4) Planting details
- date planted
- species planted
- spacing of planting
5) Operation and maintenance plan
NRCS -MARYLAND JULY 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 391-18
REFERENCES
American Fisheries Society, 1991. Influences
of Forest and Range land Management on
Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Special
Publication 19, Editor: William R. Meehan.
Belhesda, MD.
Brown, R.G., Brown, M.L. 1972. Woody
Plants of Maryland. Baltimore, MD
California Department of Fish and Game,
1994. California Salmonid Stream Habitat
Restoration Manual. Second Edition. Pre-
pared by: Gary Flosi and Forrest L.
Reynolds. Sacramento, CA.
Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Land-
scape Plants. Stipes Publishing Co.,
Champaign, 1L 1977.
Keller, ChenyM.E., etal. 1993. Avian
Communities in Riparian Forest of Different
Widths in Maryland and Delaware. Wetlands
V.I 3(2): 137-144.
Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim andA.L. Nelson.
1961. American Wildlife & Plants: A Guide
to Wildlife Food Habitats. New York, NY.
Dover Publications.
Nutrient Subcommittee of Chesapeake Bay
Program. 1995. Water Quality Functions of
Riparian Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed. EPA 903-R-95-004.
Olson, Rich and W.A. Hubert, 1994. Beaver:
Water Resources and Riparian Habitat
Manager. University of Wyoming. Laramie,
WY.
Rosgen, David L. 1994. A Classification of
Natural Rivers. Catena: An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Soil Science, Hydrology, Geo-
morphology, Vol. 22, No. 3, Elsevier
Science. Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M Isenhart,
W.W. Simpkings, C.W. Mize, and M.L.
Thompson. 1995. Design and Placement of a
Multi-species Riparian Buffer Strip. Agro-
forestry Systems 29:201-225.
State of Maryland, Department of Natural
Resources, Public Lands, Forest Service,
1993. Soil Erosion and Sediment Chiidelines
for Forest Harvest Operations in Maryland.
BMP Pocket Guide. Annapolis, MD.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Area State and Private
Forestry, 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers
Function and Design for Protection and En-
hancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-07-
91. Prepared by. David J. Welsch Altanta,
GA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Southern Region, 1992. Stream
Habitat Improvement Handbook. Tech. Publ.
R8-TP 16. Prepared by: :Monte E Seehorn
Radnor, PA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station,
1989. Managing Grazing of Riparian Areas
in the Intermountain Region. General Tech-
nical Report INT-263. Prepared by: Warren
P. Clary and Bert F. Webster. Ogden, UT.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate
Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in
the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
EPA/910/9-91-001. Prepared by: Lee H.
MacDonald with Alan W. Smart and Robert
C. Wissmar. Seattle, WA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake
Bay Field Office with the Natural Science
Center and Adkins Arboretum, 1995. Native
Plants for Wildlife Habitat. Annapolis, MD.
NRCS - MARYLAND
JULY 1996
-------
mi
NRCS Standards - Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania is currently in the process of developing a state NRCS standard for riparian
forest buffers. Until the state standard is finalized, the following national standard will be
used in Pennsylvania. For more information, contact the Pennsylvania NRCS office listed
below.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Suite 340
One Credit Union Place
Harrisburg, PA 17110-2993
Phone:(717)782-2206
FAX: (717)782-4469
-------
391-1
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
(Acre)
CODE 391
DEFINITION
An area of trees and/or shrubs located
adjacent to and up-gradient from water bodies.
PURPOSES
Create shade to lower water temperatures
to improve habitat for aquatic organisms.
Provide a source of detritus and large
woody debris for aquatic organisms and
habitat for wildlife.
Reduce excess amounts of sediment,
organic material, nutrients and pesticides
in surface runoff and reduce excess
nutrients and other chemicals in shallow
ground water flow.
CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE
APPLIES
On areas adjacent to permanent or intermittent
streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands and areas
with ground water recharge.
CRITERIA
General Criteria Applicable To All Purposes
Named Above.
The location, layout and density of the riparian
forest buffer will accomplish the intended
purpose and function. The buffer will consist
of a zone (identified as zone 1) that begins at
the normal water line, or at the top of the bank,
and extend a minimum distance of 15 feet,
measured horizontally on a line perpendicular
to the water body.
Dominant vegetation will consist of existing or
planted trees and shrubs suited to the site and
the intended purpose. Occasional removal of
some tree and shrub products such as high
value trees is permitted provided the intended
purpose is not compromised by the loss of
vegetation or harvesting disturbance.
Necessary site preparation and planting shall
be done at a time and manner to insure
survival and growth of selected species. Only
viable, high quality, and adapted planting stock
will be used. Site preparation shall be
sufficient for establishment and growth of
selected species and be done in a manner thai
does not compromise the intended purpose.
Livestock shall be controlled or excluded as
necessary to achieve and maintain the
intended purpose.
Harmful pests present on the site will be
controlled or eliminated as necessary to
achieve and maintain the intended purpose.
Additional Criteria To Reduce Excess
Amounts of Sediment, Organic Material,
Nutrients and Pesticides in Surface
Runoff and Reduce Excess Nutrients and
Other Chemicals in Shallow Ground
Water Flow.
An additional strip or area of land, zone 2, will
begin at the edge and up-gradient of zone 1
and extend a minimum distance of 20 feet,
measured horizontally on a line perpendicular
to the water body. The minimum combined
width of zones I and 2 will be 100 feet or 30
percent of the geomorphic flood plain
whichever is less, but not less than 35 feet.
Criteria for zone 1 shall apply to zone 2 except
that removal of tree and shrub products such
as timber, nuts and fruit is permitted on a
periodic and regular basis provided the
intended purpose is not compromised by loss
of vegetation or harvesting disturbance.
Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically, and updated if needed. To obtai
the current version of thfe standard, contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
NRCS, NHCP
May, 1996
-------
391 -2
IM-3
Concentrated flow erosion or mass soil
movement shall be controlled in the up-
gradient area immediately adjacent to zone 2
prior to establishment of the riparian forest
buffer.
CONSIDERATIONS
The severity of bank erosion and its influence
on existing or potential riparian trees and
shrubs should be assessed. Watershed-level
treatment or bank stability activities may be
needed before establishing a riparian forest
buffer.
Where ephemeral, concentrated flow erosion
and sedimentation is a concern in the area
upgradient of zone 2, consider the application
of a vegetated strip consisting of grasses and
forbs.
When concentrated flow erosion and
sedimentation cannot be controlled
vegetatively, consider structural or mechanical
treatments.
Favor tree and shrub species that are native
and have multiple values such as those suited
for timber, biomass, nuts, fruit, browse,
nesting, aesthetics and tolerance to locally
used herbicides.
Avoid tree and shrub species which may be
alternate hosts to undesirable pests. Species
diversity should be considered to avoid loss of
function due to species-specific pests.
Woody phreatophytes and hydrophytes that
deplete ground water should be used with
caution in water-deficit areas.
The location, layout and density of the buffer
should compliment natural features.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Specifications for this practice shall be
prepared for each site. Specifications shall be
recorded using approved specifications sheets,
job sheets, narrative statements in the
conservation plan, or other acceptable
documentation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The following actions shall be carried out to
insure that this practice functions as intended
throughout its expected life. These actions
include normal repetitive activities in the
application and use of the practice (operation),
and repair and upkeep of the practice
(maintenance):
The riparian forest buffer will be inspected
periodically and protected to maintain the
intended purpose from adverse impacts such
as excessive vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
pest infestations, pesticide use on adjacent
lands, livestock damage and fire.
Replacement of dead trees or shrubs and
control of undesirable vegetative competition
will be continued until the buffer is, or will
progress to, a fully functional condition.
As applicable, control of concentrated flow
erosion or mass soil movement shall be
continued in the up-gradient area immediately
adjacent to zone 2 to maintain buffer function.
Any removals of tree and shrub products shall
be conducted in a manner that maintains the
intended purpose.
Any use of fertilizers, pesticides and other
chemicals to assure buffer function shall not
compromise the intended purpose.
NRCS, NHCP
May, 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 392 -1
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
CONSERVATION PRACTICE STANDARD
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
(Acre)
CODE 392
DEFINITION
An area of trees and/or shrubs located adjacent to
and up-gradient from water bodies.
PURPOSES
Create shade to lower water temperatures to
improve habitat for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
Provide a source of detritus and large woody
debris for fish and other aquatic organisms
and riparian habitat and corridors for wildlife.
Reduce excess amounts of sediment, organic
material, nutrients, pesticides and other
pollutants in surface runoff and reduce excess
nutrients and other chemicals in shallow
ground water flow.
NOTE: Reduction of sediment, organic material,
nutrients and pesticides will be limited if only Zone
1 is established.
Dominant vegetation will consist of existing or
planted trees and shrubs suited to the site and the
intended purpose. Selection of locally native
species will be a priority when feasible. Plantings
.will consist of two or more species with individual
plants suited to the seasonal variation of soil
moisture status of individual planting sites (see
Figure 1 and Table 1). Plant types and species
shall be selected based on their compatibility in
growth rates and shade tolerance. Select species
from the Plant List, Table 1, located in General
Specifications.
CONDITIONS WHERE PRACTICE APPLIES
On areas adjacent to permanent or intermittent
streams,.lakes, ponds, wetlands and areas with
ground water recharge.
CRITERIA
GENERAL CRITERIA APPLICABLE To ALL PURPOSES
NAMED ABOVE
The location, layout, width, and woody plant
.density of the riparian forest buffer will accomplish
the intended purpose and function. See General
Specifications for required plant densities for
buffer plantings. The buffer will consist of a zone
(identified as zone 1) that begins at the bank full
water line, or at the upper edge of the active
channel or shore, and extend a minimum distance
of 15 feet, measured horizontally on a line
perpendicular to the water course or water body.
Plants tolerant of dormant
season water table but
able to withstand site's
moisture deficit during the
growing season
Plants tolerate or
depend on growing
season moisture
Edge of
Active
Channel
Growing Season
Water Table
Dormant Season j
Water Table
Figure 1. Plant adaptation to soil moisture.
Conservation practice standards are reviewed periodically, and updated if needed. To obtain the
current version of this standard, contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
Occasional limited removal of some tree and
shrub products such as high value frees is
permitted provided the intended purpose is not
compromised by the loss of vegetation or
harvesting disturbance. Felling and skidding of
frees shall be directed away from the water course
or wafer body. Skidding will be done in a manner
to prevent creation of ephemeral channels
perpendicular to the stream.
An adequate upstream or adjacent seed source .
must be present when using natural regeneration
to supplement or establish a buffer. Generally
planting is preferred over natural regeneration due
to control of plant species present and reduced
time for woody plants to reach maturity.
Necessary site preparation and planting for
establishing new buffers shall be done at a time
and manner to insure survival and growth of
selected species. Refer to General Specifications
for care, handling, and planting requirements for
woody planting stock.
Only viable, high quality, and adapted planting
stock will be used. Refer to General Specifications
for size and quality requirements for woody
planting stock.
The method of planting for new buffers shall
include hand or machine planting techniques, be
suited to achieving proper depths and placement
of planting stock roofs, and not impair the intended
purpose and function of the buffer.
Site preparation shall be sufficient for
establishment and growth of selected species and
be done in a manner that does not compromise
the intended purpose. See General Specifications
for detailed site preparation procedures.
Supplemental moisture will be applied if and when
necessary to assure early survival and
establishment of selected species.
Livestock shall be excluded except for designed
stream crossing and livestock watering sites.
These stream access areas shall be located and
sized to minimize impact to buffer vegetation and
function. (See Fencing [Code 382] and Stream
Crossing [Code 232] Standards.)
Harmful pests present on the site will be controlled
or eliminated as necessary to achieve and
maintain the intended purpose.
ADDSTIONAL GRITERIA TO REDUCE EXCESS AMOUNTS
OIF 1ID1MEWT, ORGANIC MATERIAL, NUTRIENTS, AND
reSTOOES ON SURFACE RUNOFF AND REDUCE
NUTRIENTS AND OTHER CHEMICALS IN
SHALLOW ©ROUND WATER PLOW.
An additional strip or area of land, zone 2, will
begin at the edge and up-gradient of zone 1 and
extend a minimum distance of 20 feet, measured
horizontally on a line perpendicular to the water
course or water body. The minimum combined
width of zones 1 and 2 will be 100 feet or 30
percent of the geomorphic flood plain whichever is
less, but not less than 35 feet. (Note: The
geomorphic flood plain may be narrower than the
valley bottom if the valley formed under different
hydrologic conditions.) Figure 2 illustrates
examples of zone 1 and 2 widths for water
courses and water bodies.
Criteria for zone 1 shall apply to zone 2 except that
removal of free and shrub products such as
timber, nuts and fruit is permitted on a periodic
and regular basis provided the intended purpose is
not compromised by loss of vegetation or
harvesting disturbance.
Concentrated flow erosion, excessive sheet and
rill erosion or mass soil movement shall be
controlled in the up-gradient area immediately
adjacent to zone 2 prior to establishment of the
riparian forest buffer (see figure 3).
ADDITIONAL CRITERIA TO CREATE SHADE TO LOWER
WATER TEMPERATURES TO IMPROVE HABITAT FOR
FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC ORGANISMS.
A buffer for lowering warm-season water
temperatures shall consist of at least zone 1 for
water course reaches or water bodies less than
Aproi
-------
IH1-
Rjparian Forest Buffer 392-3
. Terrace or
Inactive floodplain
on valley floor
Active floodplain
(greater than 333
feet)
A. Active Floodplalns Greater Than 333 Feet In Width
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 100 feet
on either side. Calculation:
Roodplain width x 0.30
Active feet)
channel
(showing bankfull
high water)
Active floodplain
(greater than 333H
n
Terrace or
upland
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 45 feet
on either side. Calculation:
150 feet x 0.30 = 45 feet
Upland
Active floodplain Active channel
150 feet (showing bankfull150 fect
high water)
B. Active Floodplalns Less Than 333 Feet in Width
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 35 feet
on either side
Upland
Note: Incised
channel banks
in this example
may be subject to
failure during buffer
establishment period
Active channel
(incised) or water
body (snowing
bankfull high water)
C. Incised Channel Without Roodplains
and All Water Bodies
Terrace or
upland
Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
equals a minimum of 35 feet
Inactive floodplain Buffer width (zones 1 and 2)
on valley floor equals a minimum of 60 feet
on floodplain side. Calculation:
200 feet x 0.30 = 60 feet«
Active floodplain
200 feet ~
D. Active Floodplain On Only One Side of the Channel
Active channel
(showing bankfull
high water)
Figure 2. Examples of riparian forest buffer widths for water courses and water bodies.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
concentrated flow erosion but
' additional up-gradient treatment
is necessary
Erosion must be controlled in
> the area up-gradient
from Zone 2
Figure 3. Control of concentrated flow erosion.
or equal to 30 feet in width or water bodies greater
than 30 feet wide but less than 1 acre in size.
(Note: Buffers for wider water courses or larger
water bodies may be valuable but will have only
site-specific effects.) Buffers shall be established
or maintained on south and west sides of wafer
courses and bodies insofar as practical. The
buffer canopy shall be established to achieve at
least 50 percent crown cover with average canopy
heights equal to or greater than the width of the
water course or 30 feet for water bodies. See
figure 4.
Canopy height equal
to or greater than the
width of the
watercourse or 30 feet
for water bodies
Figure 4. Canopy height for water temperature
control.
Suggested buffer species shall include those
species listed in the Plant List, Table 1 , General
Specifications, with sufficient height potential. .
Place drooping or wide-crowned trees and shrubs
nearest the water course or body. Shoreline or
channel relief (e.g., deeply incised channels) and
topographic shading will be taken info account in
selecting species.
OF
i AWES LARSI WOODY DEBRIS FOR FISH AMD
Within zone 1 as a minimum, establish, favor or
manage species capable of producing stems and
limbs of sufficient size to provide an eventual
source of large woody debris for in-stream habitat
for fish and other aquatic organisms.
The severity of bank erosion and its influence on
existing or potential riparian frees and shrubs
should be assessed. Watershed-level treatment or
bank stability activities may be needed before
establishing a riparian forest buffer. Refer to
Streambank Protection Standard (Code 580) and
Chapter 18 of NRCS Engineering Field Handbook
on I
Complex ownership patterns of riparian areas may
require group planning for proper buffer design,
function and management.
Where ephemeral, concentrated flow or sheet and
rill erosion and sedimentation is a concern in the
area up-gradient of zone 2, establish or maintain
where practical a vegetated strip consisting of
grasses and forbs. A minimum width of 20 feet is
needed. Stiff-stemmed grasses, such as
switchgrass, established at the up-gradient edge
of zone 2 will accelerate deposition of sediment.
See figure 5. When concentrated flow or
excessive sheet and rill erosion and sedimentation
cannot be controlled vegetatively, establish
structural or mechanical treatments.
Joining of existing and new buffers increase the
continuity of cover and will further moderate wafer
temperatures. A mix of species with growth forms
that are fall and wide-crowned or drooping will
increase moderation effects. For wafer courses,
buffers established on both sides will enhance
multiple values.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-5
Stiff-stemmed grasses
(area may require
some shaping
before grass
establishment)
Zone 2 <
Zone
Figure 5. Sediment-trapping above zone 2.
Favor tree and shrub species that are native and
have multiple values such as those suited for
timber, biomass, nuts, fruit, browse, nesting,
aesthetics and tolerance to locally used -
herbicides. Consider species that resprout when
establishing new rows nearest to water courses or
bodies.
Avoid tree and shrub species which may be
alternate hosts to undesirable pests or that may
be considered noxious or undesirable. Species
diversity should be considered to avoid loss of
function due to species-specific pests.
The location, layout and density of the buffer
should complement natural features. Avoid layouts
and locations that would concentrate flood flows or
return flows. Low, flexible-stemmed shrubs will
minimize obstruction of local flood flows.
Consider the positive and negative impacts
beaver, muskrat, deer, rabbits and other local
species may have on the successful management
of the riparian and stream system. Temporary and
local population control methods of these kinds of
local species should be used cautiously and within
state and local regulations.
Consider the type of human use (rural, suburban,
urban) and the aesthetic, social and safety
aspects of the area to determine the vegetation
selection, arrangement and management. For
example, avoiding shrubs that block views and
pruning low tree branches near recreation trails
allows for ease of patrolling.
Species selection criteria to improve aesthetics
include seasonal foliage color, showy flowers and
fruit, foliage texture, form and branching habit.
The layout and design should be appropriate for
the setting as determined by adjacent land uses.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
Specifications for this practice shall be prepared
for each site. Specifications shall be recorded
using approved specifications sheets, job sheets,
narrative statements in the conservation plan, or
other acceptable documentation. Requirements
for operation and maintenance of the practice
shall be incorporated into site specifications.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The following actions shall be carried out to insure
that this practice functions as intended throughout
its expected life. These actions include normal
repetitive activities in the application and use of
the practice (operation), and repair and upkeep of
the practice (maintenance):
The riparian forest buffer will be inspected
periodically, protected and restored as needed, to
maintain the intended purpose from adverse
impacts such as excessive vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, pest infestations, pesticide use
on adjacent lands, livestock damage and fire.
Replacement of dead trees or shrubs and control
of undesirable vegetative competition will be
continued until the buffer is, or will progress to, a
fully functional condition. Consideration will be
given to retaining snags and den trees for wildlife
use.
As applicable, control of concentrated flow erosion
or mass soil movement shall be continued in the
up-gradient area immediately adjacent to zone 2
to maintain buffer function.
Any removals of tree and shrub products shall be
conducted in a manner that maintains the
intended purpose.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
150
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-6
For purposes of moderating water temperatures W. M. Harlow and E. S. Harrar, 1958, Textbook of
and providing detritus and large woody debris, Dendrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
riparian forest buffer management must maintain York, 1958.
a minimum of 50 percent canopy cover.
For providing habitat and corridors for wildlife,
manage the buffer to favor food, shelter and
nesting cover that would satisfy the habitat
requirements of the indicator or target wildlife
species.
For purposes of reducing excess pollutants in
surface runoff and shallow groundwater (zone 1
and 2 at a minimum), or providing habitat and
corridors for wildlife and/or fish (zone 1 at a
minimum), manage the dominant canopy to
maintain maximum vigor of overstory and
understory species.
Any use of fertilizers, mechanical treatments,
prescribed burning, pesticides and other
chemicals to assure buffer function shall not
cpmpromise the intended purpose. Biological
control of undesirable plant species and pests
(e.g., using predator or parasitic species) shall be
implemented where available and feasible.
Additional operation and maintenance
requirements shall be developed on a site-specific
basis to assure performance of the practice as
intended.
REFERENCES
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Site Index Curves for Forest Tree Species in the
Eastern U.S.. Tech Report NC-128.
Parkey, A. W. and B. L. Wilkins, Crop Tree
Management in Eastern Hardwoods. USDA,
Forest Service Morgantown, West Virginia. NA-
TP-19-93.
Nutrient Subcommittee of Chesapeake Bay
Program, 1995, Water Quality Functions of
Riparian Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. EPA 903-R-95-004.
A. C. Martin, H. S. Zim. A. L Nelson, 1951,
American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife
Food Habits. Dover Publications, NY.
NRCS, Virginia April 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-1
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
CONSERVATION PRACTICE SPECIFICATIONS
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
(Acre)
CODE 392
\5\
GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS
Procedures, technical details and other
information listed below provide additional
guidance for carrying out selected components of
the named practice. This material is referenced
from the conservation practice standard for the
named practice and supplements the
requirements and considerations listed therein.
PLANTING DENSITIES
Initial plant-to-plant densities for trees and shrubs
will depend on their potential height at 20 years of
age. Heights may be estimated based on: 1)
performance of the individual species (or
comparable species) in nearby areas on similar
sites, or 2) predetermined and documented
heights using the attached Table 1. Planting
density specifications are:
Plant Types/Heights:
(Potential in 20 Years)
Shrubs and trees
from 10 to 25 feet
in height
Trees greater than
25 feet in height
Plant-to-Plant Spacing
in feet:
5 to 8
8 to 12
PLANT LIST
Table 1 lists some woody plant species (trees and
shrubs) commonly associated with and suited to
riparian areas. Key attributes are listed for each
plant to assist with the design process for
establishing new buffers.
CARE, HANDLING, SIZE AND PLANTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR WOODY PLANTING
STOCK
Planting stock will be stored in a cool, moist
environment (34-38 degrees F) or heeled in.
During all stages of handling and storage, keep
stock tops dry and free of mold and roots moist
and cool. Destroy stock that has been allowed to
dry, to heat up in storage (e.g., within a bale,
delivery carton or container), or that has
developed mold or other pests. Live cuttings that
will not be immediately planted shall be promptly
placed in controlled storage conditions (34-38
degrees F) and protected until planting time.
Seedlings shall not be less than 1/4" in diameter at
1" above the root collar. For cuttings, avoid using
material less than 1/2" - 3/4" in diameter, cut off
tops with apical buds, remove side branches, and
produce lengths long enough to reach adequate
soil moisture required by the individual species
during the growing season. Tops of dormant-
season collected cuttings may be dipped into latex
paint, paraffin or sealing wax to prevent
desiccation and mark the up-end. Rooted planting
stock must not exceed a 2:1 shoot-to-root ratio.
See figure 1. Container stock shall normally not
exceed a 1 -gallon can size.
Conservation practice general specifications are reviewed periodically, and updated rt needed. To
obtain the current version, contact the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
152.
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-2
Shoot
length
(eg. 12')
1/4" caliper
or
diameter at
1"
above root
Ground line
Root collar
(planted at,
1/2" below
ground line)
Shoot-to-root ratio is 12" to 6" or 2:1
Figure 1. Plant or stock size requirements.
Roots of bareroot stock shall be kept moist during
planting operations by placing in a water-soil
(mud) slurry, peat moss, super-absorbent (e.g.,
polyacrylamide) slurry or other equivalent material.
Rooting medium of container or potted stock shall
be kept moist at all times by periodic watering.
Pre-treat stored cuttings with several days of
soaking just before planting. Stock shall not be
planted when the soil is frozen or dry. Rooted
stock will be planted in a vertical position with the
root collars approximately 1/2-inch below the soil
surface. Insert cuttings to the depth required to
reach adequate soil moisture with at least 2-3
buds above ground. The planting trench or hole
must be deep and wide enough to permit roots to
spread out and down without J-rooting or L-
rooting. After planting of rooted stock or cuttings,
pack soil around each plant firmly to eliminate air
pockets.
BUFFER WIDTH GUIDE TO IMPROVE
SUITABILITY FOR SELECTED WILDLIFE
SPECIES
Widths below include the sum of buffer widths on
one or both sides of water courses or water bodies
and may extend beyond riparian boundaries (in
such cases refer to Tree/Shrub Establishment,
612, for design of upland forests).
Species:
Bald eagle, cavity
nesting ducks,
heron rookery
Pileated
woodpecker
Deer
Amphibians, quail,
rabbit, songbirds
Desired Width
in feet:
600
450
200
100
PREPARATION OF PLANTING SITES
Planting sites shall be properly prepared based on
the soil type and vegetative conditions listed
below. For sites to be tilled, leave a 3-foot
untreated strip at the edge of the bank or
shoreline. Avoid sites that have had recent
application of pesticides harmful to woody species
to be planted. If pesticides are used, apply only
when needed and handle and dispose of properly
and within federal, state and local regulations.
Follow label directions and heed all precautions
listed on the container.
Fabric or other mulch may be used for weed
control and moisture conservation for new
plantings on all sites, particularly those with
pronounced growing season moisture deficits or
invasive, weedy species. Refer to Mulching, 484,
for installation procedures.
Based on site conditions and predominant soil
texture of the fine earth fraction, procedures
include:
Tillable sites with loamv/clavev soils
- Sod and alfalfa sites
Summer fallow 1 year to kill the sod or alfalfa.
Till (moldboard plow, disk plow, rototiller or
similar equipment) in the spring before planting
the stock. A fall-sown crop of small grain may
be used where needed to control erosion.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-3
153
Sod may be killed by non-selective herbicides
the year previous to planting stock. Plant stock
in the residue. On heavy soils, tillage is usually
necessary to achieve a satisfactory planting
when a tree planting machine is used.
- Small grain or row crop sites
If the site is in row crop, till (moldboard plow,
disk plow, rotiller or similar equipment) in the
fall or in the spring prior to planting the trees or
shrubs. If the site has a plow or hard pan in
subsoil, perform a deep disking or ripping
operation in the fall. A fall-sown crop of small
grain may be used where needed to control
erosion.
If the site is in small grain stubble, the stock
may be planted in the spring without further
preparation. If fabric mulch is to be installed,
till in the spring before planting.
Tillage on steep slopes must be on the contour
or cross-slope. A cover crop between the rows
may be necessary to control erosion and
sediment deposition on planted stock.
Tillable sites with sandy soils
- Sod and alfalfa sites
Till (moldboard plow, disk plow, rototiller or
similar equipment) and plant to a spring cover
crop (corn, grain, sorghum, etc.) the year prior
to planting. Leave a stubble cover in which to
plant. A light disking may be needed before
planting if fabric mulch is used.
Sod may be killed by nonselective herbicides
the year prior to planting. Plant trees or shrubs
in the residue.
When hand planting, scalp or strip an area at
least 3 feet in diameter and two-to-four inches
deep, (place plants in the center of the scalped
area.)
Rototill a 3-foot wide strip. (Place plants in the
center of the tilled area.) Where a drip watering
system will not be used, rototill the strip the
year prior to planting.
- Small grain or row crop sites
If the site is in small grain, com, or similar
clean tilled crop, and it is reasonably free of
weeds, plant stock in the stubble without prior
preparation. It may be necessary to till a
narrow strip with a disk or other implement to
kill weeds or volunteer grain, or to prevent
stalks and other residue from clogging the tree
planter. If fabric mulch is used, disking may
also be needed. A cover crop or stubble may
be needed between the rows to protect the
planting from water or wind erosion.
Non-tillable sites and/or erosive sites (including
sites with undesirable brushy or herbaceous
species)
On sites where it is not practical or possible to
operate equipment (steepness, rockiness, etc.),
where tillage of the site will cause excessive
erosion, or where tillage of the site is impractical,
the methods listed below may be used. Sites with
undesirable brush will need initial treatments that
physically removes and kills the brush species to
facilitate planting of desired stock and prevent
reencroachment of the brush. Suitable methods
include hand-cutting and removal, brush hogging,
brush-blading, or other equivalent procedure with
repeated treatment or use of herbicides to control
resproirting.
Machine or hand scalp an area at least 36
inches in diameter with subsequent plant
placement in the center of the scalped area.
Rototill a strip at least 36 inches wide the year
prior to tree planting with subsequent plant
placement in the center of the tilled strip.
Kill the vegetation in a 36-inch diameter or
larger area or in a 36-inch or wider strip with a
non-selective herbicide the year prior to
planting and plant in the center or along the
center-line of the treated area.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-4
TABLE 1. PLANT LIST.
Common Name Scientific Name
Tree (Deciduous)
Black Walnut Juglans nigra
Blttemut Hickory Carya cordiformis
Green Ash Fraxlnus pennsylvanca
Oaks
Cherry Bark Quercus falcata var.
paqodif olia (S.E. Va.) *
Pin Q. palustris
Overcup Q. lyrata (S.E. Va.) *
Swamp Chestnut Q. michauxii (E. PiedVCP) *
Swamp White Q. blcolor (Cent/No. Va.) *
White Q. alba
Willow Q. phellos (PiedVCP) *
Red Maple Acer rubmm
Swamp tupelo . Nyssa sylvatica var.
biflora (CP) *
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Shrubs -
Bankers Willow Salix cottettii
Purple Osier Willow Salix purpurea
Smooth Alder Alnus serrulata
1. 20 yr.ave. height (ft). |
35
25
45
50
30
25
25
25
25
25
28
40
60
15
15
15
2. Shade Tolerance I
L
L
M
L
L
M
L
M
M
L
H
H
L
L
L
L
3. Shade Value I
M-H
M
M
H
M
M
M
M
H
H
M
M
H
L
L
L
4. Nutrient Uptake I
L
L
H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M-H
M
L
H
L
L
L
5. Inundation Tolerance I
L-M
M
M
M
M
H
M
M-H
L-M
M
H
H
L
H
H
H
6. Soil Saturation Tolerance I
L
M
M-H
L-M
M
M-H
L-M
M-H
L-M
M
H
H
L-
H
H
H
7. Native Species I
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
8. Wildlife Value |
M
M-H
M
M-K
H
M-r
M-r
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
L
9. Timber Value I
H
M
M
H
M
M
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
_
_
L=Low
M=Med
H=High
Y=Yes
N=No
* Best suited to indicated sections of Virginia (CP = Coastal Plain, Cent = Central Va.,
Pied. = Piedmont)
" Place adjacent to water; especially useful in high velocity flood areas
*** Low due to small size
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
155"
Riparian Forest Buffer 392-5
EXPLANATION OF TERMS - TABLE 1.
Species are grouped by plant type and arranged in
alphabetical order by common name. Heights and
attributes represent expected performance and
characteristics of the individual plant at the
reference age in dominant canopy positions on
medium-textured, neutral pH soils. The reference
age for trees is 20 years of age. The reference
age for shrubs is 10 years.
Attributes: (codes include H = High, M = Medium,
L = Low, Y = Yes, N = No)
1.20 Yr. Ave. Height. The average height (in feet)
that a plant is expected to reach in 20 years.
2. Shade Tolerance. The plant's capacity to grow
in a shaded condition. H = can grow in the shade
of an overstory; M = can grow in partial shade; L =
needs full or nearly full sunlight.
3. Shade Value. The density or fullness of shade
provided by an individual plant's crown in a full
leaf-out condition. H = provides full shade; M = a
partially open crown that provides patchy or
incomplete shade; L = a very open crown that
provides little shade.
4. Nutrient Uptake. The plant's general capacity to
use excess nutrients such as nitrate-nitrogen. H =
can use large amounts; M = some excess
nutrients used; L = plant is a low-nutrient user.
5. Inundation Tolerance. General capacity of the
plant to withstand standing water, low soil aeration
conditions. H = can tolerate 5 or more days of
inundation; M = can tolerate 2-5 day events; L =
can tolerate 1 -day or less of inundation.
6. Soil Saturation Tolerance. The plant's capability
to grow in near or saturated soil conditions. H =
plant can withstand "wet feet;" M = some tolerance
to saturated conditions; L = little or no tolerance of
water-saturated soil.
7. Native Species. Y indicates the plant is native to
the state; N indicates it is introduced.
8. Wildlife Value. Relative capacity of the plant to
provide food and cover to various wildlife species.
H = High value by several species, M = Moderate
to high value for few to several species, L = Little
'use or value to wildlife.
9. Timber Value. Relative monetary value of
timber and other forest products. H = Generally
brings high value under average site conditions, M
= Medium value for average site conditions, L =
Low value for average site conditions.
NRCS, Virginia
April 1996
-------
USDA FOREST SERVICE STANDARD
Source: Welsch, David J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA FS Publ. No. NA-PR-07-91.
USDA FS, Radnor, PA.
SPECIFICATION
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
Definition
An area of trees and other vegetation located in areas adjoining and upgradient from surface water bodies and designed to
intercept surface runoff, wastewater, subsurface flow and deeper groundwater flows from upland sources for the purpose of
removing or buffering the effects of associated nutrients, sediment, organic matter, pesticides or other pollutants prior to entry into
surface waters and groundwater recharge areas.
Scope
This specification establishes the minimally acceptable requirements for the reforestation of open lands and renovation of existing
forest to be managed as Riparian Forest Buffers for the purposes stated.
Purpose
To remove nutrients, sediment, animal-derived organic matter, and some pesticides from surface runoff, subsurface flow and
near root zone groundwater by deposition, absorption, adsorption, plant uptake, denitrification, and other processes, thereby
reducing pollution and protecting surface water and groundwater quality.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Subsurface nutrient buffering processes, such as denitrification, can take place in the soil wherever carbon energy, bacteria, oxygen.
temperature and soil moisture are adequate. Nutrient uptake by plants occurs where the water table is within the root zone. Surficial
filtration occurs anywhere surface vegetation and forest litter are adequate.
The riparian forest buffer-will be most effective when used as a component of a sound land management system including nutrient
management and runoff, sediment and erosion control practices. Use of this practice without other nutrient and runoff, sediment
and erosion control practices can result in adverse impacts on buffer vegetation and hydraulics including high maintenance costs.
the need for periodic replanting and the carrying of excess nutrients and sediment through the buffer by concentrated flows.
This practice applies on lands:
1) adjacent to permanent or intermittent streams which occur at the lower edge of upslope cropland, grassland or pasture;
2) at the margins of lakes or ponds which occur at the lower edge of upslope cropland, grassland or pasture;
3) at the margin of any intermittent or permanently flooded, environmentally sensitive, open water wetlands which occur at the
lower edge of upslope cropland, grassland or pasture;
4) on karst formations at the margin of sinkholes and other small groundwater recharge areas occurring on cropland, grassland or
pasture.
Note: In high sediment production areas (8-20 in/ 100 yrs.), severe sheet, rill and gully erosion must be brought under control
on upslope areas for this practice to function correctly.
Design Criteria.
Riparian Forest Buffers
Riparian forest buffers will consistof three distinct zones and be designed to filter surface runoff as. sheet flow and downslope
subsurface flow which occurs as shallow groundwater. For the purposes of these buffer strips, shallow ground water is defined
as saturated conditions which occur near or within the root zone of trees and other woody vegetation and at relatively shallow
depths where bacteria, oxygen, and soil temperature contribute to denitrification. Streamside Forest Buffers will be designed
to encourage sheet flow and infiltration and impede concentrated flow.
Zone 1
Location
Zone I will begin at the top of the stream bank and occupy a strip of land with a fixed width of fifteen feet
measured ho'ri/.ontally on a line perpendicular to the streambank.
Purpose
The purpose of Zone I is to create a stable ecosystem adjacent to the water's edge, provide soil/water contact area to facilitate
nutrient buffering processes, provide shade to moderate and stabilize water temperature encouraging the production of
beneficial algal forms and to contribute necessary detritus and large woody debris to the stream ecosystem.
-------
SPECIFICATION/RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
Requirements
Runoffand wastewater to be buffered or filtered by Zone 1 will be limited to sheet flow or subsurface flow only. Concentrated
flows must be converted to sheet flow or subsurface flows prior to entering Zone 1. Outflow from subsurface drains must not
be allowed to pass through the riparian forest in pipes or tile thus circumventing the treatment processes. Subsurface drain
outflow must be converted to sheet flow for treatment by the riparian forest buffer or treated elsewhere in the system prior to
entering the surface water.
Dominant vegetation will be composed of a variety of native riparian tree and shrub species and such plantings as necessary
for streambank stabilization during the establishment period. A mix of species will provide the prolonged stable leaf fall and
variety of leaves necessary to meet the energy and pupation needs of aquatic insects.
Large overmature trees are valued for their detritus and large woody debris contributions to the stream ecosystem. Therefore.
management of Zone 1 will be limited to bank stabilization and removal of potential problem vegetation. Occasional removal
of extreme high value trees may be permitted where water quality values are not compromised. Logging and other overland
equipment shall'be excluded except for streamcrossings and stabilization work.
Livestock will be excluded from Zone 1 except for designed stream crossings.
Zone 2
Location
Zone 2 will begin at the edge of Zone 1 and occupy an additional strip of land with a minimum width of 60 feet measured
horizontally in the direction of flow. Total minimum width of Zones 1 & 2 is therefore 75 feet. Note that this is the
minimum width of Zone 2 and that the width of Zone 2 may have to be increased as described in the section "Determining
the Total Width of Buffer" to create a greater combined width for Zones 1 & 2.
Purpose
The purpose of Zone 2 is to provide necessary contact time and carbon energy source for buffering processes to take place
and to provide for long term sequestering of nutrients in the form of forest trees. Outflow from subsurface drains must not be
allowed to pass through the riparian forest in pipe or tile thus circumventing the treatment processes. Subsurface drain out
flow must be converted to sheet flow for treatment by the riparian forest buffer or treated elsewhere in the system prior to enter-
ing the surface water.
Requirements
Runoffand wastewater to be buffered or filtered by Zone 2 will be limited to sheet flow or subsurface flow only. Concentrated
flows must be converted to sheet flow or subsurface flows prior to entering Zone 2.
Predominant vegetation will be composed of riparian trees and shrubs suitable to the site, with emphasis on native species and
such plantings as necessary to stabilize soil during the establishment period. Nitrogen fixing species should be discouraged
where nitrogen removal or buffering is desired. Species suitability information should be developed in consultation with state
and federal forestry agencies, Soil Conservation Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Specifications should include periodic harvesting and timber stand improvement (TSI) to maintain vigorous growth and leaf
litter replacement and to remove nutrients and pollutants sequestered in the form of wood in tree boles and large branches.
Management for wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and timber are not incompatable with riparian forest buffer objectives as long as
shade levels and production of leaf litter, detritus and large woody debris are maintained. Appropriate logging equipment
recommendations shall be determined in consultation with the state and federal forestry agencies.
Livestock shall be excluded from Zone 2 except for necessary designed stream crossings.
Zone 3
Location
Zone 3 will'begin at the outer edge of Zone 2 and have a minimum width of 20 feet. Additional width may be desirable to
accommodate land shaping and mowing machinery. Grazed or ungrazed grassland meeting the purpose and requirements
stated below may serve as Zone 3.
Purpose
The purpose of Zone 3 is to provide sediment filtering, nutrient uptake and the space necessary to convert concentrated flow
to.uniform, shallow, sheet flow through the use of techniques such as grading, and shaping, and devices such as diversions,
basins and level lip spreaders.
-------
SPECIFICATION/RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
Requirements
Vegetation.will be composed of dense grasses and forbs for structure stabilization, sediment control and nutrient uptake.
Mowing and removal of clippings is necessary to recycle sequestered nutrients, promote vigorous sod and control weed growth.
Vegetation must be maintained in a vigorous condition. The vegetative growth must be hayed, grazed or otherwise removed
from Zone 3. Maintaining vigorous growth of Zone 3 vegetation must take precedence and may not be consistent with
wildlife needs.
Zone 3 may be used for controlled intensive grazing when conditions are such that earthen water control structures will
not be damaged.
Zone 3 may require periodic reshaping of earth structures, removal or grading of accumulated sediment and reestablish-
ment of vegetation to maintain effectiveness of the riparian buffer.
Determining need for protection
Buffers should be used to protect any body of water which will not be:
treated by routing through a natural or artificial wetland determined to be adequate treatment;
treated by converting the flow to sheet flow and routing it through a forest buffer at a point lower in the watershed.
Determining total width of the buffer
Note that while not specifically addressed, slope and soil permeability are components of the following buffer width criteria.
Each of the following criteria is based on methods developed or used by persons conducting research on riparian forests.
Streamside Buffers
The minimum width of streamside buffer areas can be determined by any of several methods suitable to the geographic area.
1) Based on soil hydrologic groups as shown in the county soil survey report, the width of Zone 2 will be increased to occupy
any soils designated as Hydrologic Group D and those soils of Hydrologic Group C which are subject to frequent flooding.
If soils of Hydrologic Groups A or B occur adjacent to intermittent or perennial streams, the combined width of Zones 1
& 2 may be limited to the 75 foot minimum.
2) Based on area, the width of Zone 2 should be increased to provide a combined width of Zones 1 & 2 equal to one-third
of the slope distance from the stream bank to the top of the pollutant source area. The effect is to create a buffer strip
between field and stream which occupies approximately one-third of the source area.
3) Based on the Soil Capability Class of the buffer site as shown in the county soil survey, the width of Zone 2 should
be increased to provide a combined width of Zones 1 & 2 as shown below.
Capability Class Buffer Width
Cap. I, II e/s, V 75'
Cap. Ill e/s, IV e/s 100'
Cap. VI e/s, VII e/s 150'
Pond and Lake-Side buffer strips
The area of pond or lake-side buffer strips should be at least one-fifth the drainage area of the cropland and pastureland source
area. The width of the buffer strip is determined by creating a uniform width buffer of the required area between field and
pond. Hydrologic Group and Capability Class methods of determining width remain the same as for streamside buffers.
Minimum widths apply in all cases.
Environmentally Sensitive Wetlands
Some wetlands function as nutrient sinks and when they occur in fields or at field margins can be used for renovation of
agricultural surface runoff and/or drainage. .However, most wetlands adjoining open water are subject to periodic flushing
of nutrient-laden sediments and, therefore, require riparian buffers to protect water quality.
Where open water wetlands are roughly ellipsoid in shape, they should receive the same protection as ponds.
Where open water wetlands exist in fields as seeps along hillslopes, buffers should consist of Zones 1,2& 3 on sides receiving
runoff and Zones 1 & 3 on the remaining sides. Livestock must be excluded from Zones 1 & 2 at all times and controlled
in Zone 3. Where Zones 1 & 3 only are used, livestock must be excluded from both zones at all times, but hay removal
is desirable in Zone 3. , .
-------
SPECIFICATION/RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER
Vegetation Selection
Zone 1 & 2 vegetation will consist of native streamside tree species on soils of Hydrologic Groups D and C and native upland tree
species on soils of Hydrologic Groups A and B.
Deciduous species are important in Zone 2 due to the production of carbon leachate from leaf litter which dri ves bacterial processes
that remove nitrogen as well as to the sequestering of nutrients in the growth processes. In warmer climates evergreens are also
important due to the potential for nutrient uptake during the winter months. In both cases a variety of species is important to meet
the habitat needs of insects important to the aquatic food chain.
Zone 3 vegetation should consist of perennial grasses and forbs.
Species recommendations for vegetated buffer areas depend on the geographic location of the buffer. Suggested species lists should
be developed in collaboration with appropriate state and federal forestry agencies, the Soil Conservation Service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Species lists should include trees, shrubs, grasses, legumes, forbs, as well as site preparation techniques. Fertilizer
and lime, helpful in establishing buffer vegetation, must be used with caution and are not recommended in Zone I . -
Maintenance Guidelines
General
Buffers must be inspected annually and immediately following severe storms for evidence of sediment deposit, erosion or con-
centrated flow channels. Prompt corrective action must be taken to stop erosion and restore sheet flow.
The following should be avoided within the buffer areas: excess use of fertilizers, pesticides, or other chemicals, vehicular traffic
or excessive pedestrian traffic and removal or disturbance of vegetation and litter inconsistent with erosion control and buff-
ering objectives.
Zone 1 vegetation should remain undisturbed except for removal of individual trees of extremely high value or trees presenting
unusual hazards such as potentially blocking culverts.
Zone 2 vegetation, undergrowth, forest floor, duff layer and leaf litter shall remain undisturbed except for periodic cutting of
trees to remove sequestered nutrient and to maintain an efficient filter by fostering vigorous growth, and for spot site preparation
for regeneration purposes. Controlled burning for site preparation, consistent with good forest management practice could also
be used in Zone 2. ,
Zone 3 vegetation should be mowed and the clippings removed as necessary to remove sequestered nutrient and promote dense
growth for optimum soil stabilization. Hay or pasture uses can be made compatible with objectives of Zone 3.
Zone 3 vegetation should be inspected twice annually and remedial measures taken as necessary to maintain vegetation den-
sity and remove problem sediment accumulations.
Stable Debris
As Zone 1 reaches 60 years of age, it will begin to produce large stable debris. Large debris, such as logs create small dams which
trap and hold detritus for processing by aquatic insects thus adding energy to the stream ecosystem, strengthening the food chain
and improving aquatic habitat. Wherever possible, stable debris should be conserved.
Where debris dams must be removed, try to retain useful, stable portions which provide detritus storage.
Deposit removed material a sufficient distance from the stream that it will not be refloated by high water.
Planning Considerations
1. Evaluate the type and quantity of potential pollutants that will be derived from the drainage area.
2. Select species adapted to the zones based on soil and site factors and possible commercial goals such as timber and forage.
3. Plan to establish trees early in the dormant season for maximum viability.
4. Be aware of visual aspects and plan for wildlife habitat improvement, if desired.
5. Consider provisions for mowing and removing vegetation from Zone 3. Controlled grazing may be satisfactory in Zone 3 when the
filter area is dry and firm.
-------
Environmental Land Planning Series
Site Planning
for
Urban Stream Protection
prepared by:
Tom Schueler
The Center for Watershed Protection
8737 Colesville Road, Suite 300
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
prepared for
Lome Herson-Jones
Project Manager
Department of Environmental Programs
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
777 N. Capitol Street, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20002
with assistance from:
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Grant #X-818188-01-6
December, 1995
-------
\U>2_
Chapter 5
1 he Architecture of Stream Buffers
Introduction
This chapter emphasizes the importance of
protecting key natural areas at the
development site. This is done by delineating
these areas and protecting them within a
buffer system. This chapter provides detailed
guidance on how to design and maintain
effective buffer systems within a community.
Three primary aquatic areas provide the
foundation for the buffer system. They include
the shoreline of a lake or estuary, a delineated
wetland, or a stream channel. Some of the
common delineation criteria for each aquatic
area are shown in Table 21.
Additional buffer width can be reserved
around aquatic areas to provide further
protection. These buffer areas may include
sensitive habitats, steep slopes, floodplains
and other important resource areas. The width
and uses of the buffer zone also depend to
some extent on the kind of aquatic area being
TABLE 21. DELINEATION CRITERIA FOR SHORELINE, WETLAND AND STREAM BUFFERS
BUFFER TYPE
Delineation
Main Objectives:
Width varies by:
Measured from:
Stormwater
management
View corridors
Access
Median Width
(from Heraty, 93)
SHORELINE BUFFER
OOPC31DC3 «=> C3C3C
o<&0o°
/ /!»><: ore&nn) j j
Separation of land
development from aquatic
areas, pollutant removal
Water use class or designation
of lake or estuary
Mean high water or high tide
line
Bypass or treat
Important
Water-dependent
75
ft. (lake) 50 ft. (ocean)
STREAM BUFFER
a e=r c=» e=» c=> oa (-, c=» e>
_^o^o_o,
0 O 0) C
C3 » <=J «=» C3 C3e» c=»C3 1*
Preserve stream ecology,
prevent flood damage and
bank erosion, habitat
Stream order, and adjacent
slopes
Bank or stream centerline
Bypass, but some limited
treatment
Seldom important
Restricted
88ft.
WETLAND BUFFER
,<^
'O~V
Prevent wetland
disturbance
Size, type and
quality of wetland
Edge of field delineated
wetland
Avoid direct
entry
Seldom important
Prohibited
100ft.
Each type of buffer - shoreline, stream and wetland - are different in their design objectives
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
considered for protection (see Table 19).
The remainder of this chapter explores the
architecture of a buffer system, with a strong
emphasis on how buffers can be applied to
protect urban streams. With some subtle
refinements, the same basic approach and
concepts can also be applied to shorelines and
wetland areas.
Some Buffer Geometry and Terminology
To design an effective stream buffer system,
it is important to understand spatial
connections between the stream and its
watershed. A network of streams drain each
watershed. Streams can be classified
according to their order in that network (Fig.
21). A stream that has no tributaries or
branches is defined as a first-order stream.
When two first-order streams combine
together, a second-order stream is created,
and so on. Headwater streams are defined as
first- and second-order streams. Although
they are short in length and drain relatively
small areas, these headwater streams comprise
of roughly 75% of the total stream and river
mileage in the United States (see Table 22).
The next key concept is drainage density or
the length of stream channel per unit area. A
region with steep topography, poor cover, and
less permeable soils tends to have more
stream mileage than a region with less relief
and more permeable soils. Geomorphic
research has shown that drainage density is
remarkably constant within the same
physiographic region. Thus, for much of the
eastern US, a one-square-mile watershed
often has a total stream channel length of 1.4
miles (range 1.0-2.5).
Determining where a first-order stream
actually begins in the landscape is not an easy
matter. This is due to the complicated path
that runoff follows to reach a stream channel.
The total distance from the ridgetop (or
watershed divide) to the stream channel is
known as the overland flowpath (Fig. 22).
Typically, this distance ranges from 750 to
1,500 feet in many regions of the country.
Runoff begins as "sheet flow"the flow is
very shallow and spread uniformly over the
land surface. Very quickly, however, this
uniform flow concentrates to form shallow
and then progressively deeper channels,
usually within 300 feet of the ridgetop
(Ferguson and Debo 1991). These channels
only have running water during storm events
and are known as intermittent channels.
At some point further downstream,
groundwater supplies running water to the
channel on a year-round basisthese streams
are perennial. The transition from intermittent
channel to perennial stream is not fixed.
Indeed, it often moves up or downstream from
season to season and year to year, in response
to changes in the local water table.
The cross-sectional area of a perennial stream
channel fixes that stream's capacity to convey
runoff. Typically, an undeveloped stream
channel can fully accommodate the peak
discharge from a two-year storm event, but no
more. When the peak discharge rate exceeds
the two-year storm event, runoff volume
exceeds the capacity of the channel and must
88
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
FIGURE 21: STREAM ORDER CONCEPT
1 V
\ v_
\ (1)
KEY
» watershed boundry
stream
confluence
0(D(5) stream order
"N~\
1 7
i /
' X
1 ©
\ r
\ v-
N
S
«v
^
Stream order is a useful tool to classify (he many elements of the stream network.
TABLE 22: PROPORTION OF NATIONAL STREAM AND RIVER MILEAGE IN HEADWATER STREAMS
Stream
Order*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Number of streams
1,570,000
350,000
80,000
18,000
4,200
950
200
41
8
1
2,023,400
Total Length of
Streams, miles
1,570,000
810,000
420,000
220,000
116,000
61,000
30,000
14,000
6,200
1,800
3,250,000
Mean Drainage
Area (sq. miles) **
1.0
4.7
23
109
518
2,460
11,700
55,600
264,000
1,250,000
N/A
* stream order based on Strahler method, analyzing maps at a scale of. 1:24,000.
*'* cumulative drainage area, including tributaries.
Note: 75% of the total stream and river mileage in the country is in either first or second order streams
89
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
FIGURE 22: THE OVERLAND FLOW PATH TO A STREAM
(cross-section)
a predovetopment. pervious
flow path
b - post development. Impervious
(plan view)
The distance between the ridgetop and the stream is known as the overland flow path. Even in undisturbed watersheds,
flow tends to quickly concentrate over a short distance (plan view, panel A). In urban watersheds, flow tends to
concentrate even more quickly, requiring stabilization of the intermittent channel (panel B).
spill ova the banks into the adjacentjloodplain on
either side of the channel (Fig. 23). By
convention, the area and height of the floodplain is
defined using the 100-year storm event The
runoff from this event is determined from the
maximum rainfall that has a probability of
occurring once every 100 years. The width of the
floodplain tends to be narrower in headwater
streams and much broader in higher order streams
and rivers.
A developed watershed has a remarkably greater
rate and volume of runoff for a given storm event
than an undeveloped one (cf Chapter 2). As a
consequence, both the cross-sectional area of the
stream channel and the elevation of the 100-year
floodplain (area immersed during the 100-year
flood) are increased hi more practical terms, the
stream channel erodes, becoming wider and/or
deeper. During extreme floods, a larger land area is
subject to flooding after development (see Fig. 23).
The severity of the response is a direct function of
the amount of impervious cover that is created in
the watershed.
The geometry of streams and their floodplains is
formed by rainfall and runoff. After development,
more rainfall is translated into runoff, and the
geometry of both the stream and the floodplain.
changes. A clear understanding of the dynamics of
these variables is essential in designing an effective
stream buffer scheme.
90
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
FIGURE 23: THE STREAM AND ITS FLOODPLAIN, BEFORE AND AFTER DEVELOPMENT
Response ol Stream Geometry
Floodplam Limit
JP
Summer Low Flow Level
The increase in the peak discharge rates following urbanization shifts the elevation of the 100 year floodplain upward,
which may put more property and structures at risk (Source: Schueler 1987).
Benefits of Forested Stream Buffers
A wide forest buffer is an essential component
of any local stream protection strategy. Its
primary value is to physically protect the
stream channel from future disturbance or
encroachment. A network of buffers act as the
right-of-way for a stream and functions as an
integral part of the stream ecosystem. But a
stream buffer also provides many other
important benefits that contribute to the
quality of the stream and the adjacent
community. The many benefits of stream
buffers are summarized in Table 23. In many
regions, these benefits are amplified when the
streamside zone is kept in a forested
condition. Recent research indicates that
forested stream buffers provide the following
benefits:
1. Reduced watershed imperviousness
The use of stream buffers can indirectly
reduce a site's impervious cover in several
ways. To begin with, land within the stream
buffer network cannot be developed, and thus
will not have impervious cover. How much
land does the stream buffer network consume?
This question can be answered at the
landscape scale by examining the drainage
density relationship. In the East Coast, for
example, a watershed with a drainage area of
one square mile will have a total stream
channel length of about 1.4 miles, on average.
91
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
TABLE 23: BENEFITS OF URBAN STREAM BENEFITS (/, BENEFIT AMPLIFIED BY OR REQUIRES FOREST COVER)
1. Reduces watershed imperviousness by 5%. An average buffer width oflOO ft protects up to 5% of watershed area from future development
2. Distances areas of impervious cover from the stream. More room is made available for placement of BMPs and septic system performance is
improved.(/)
3. Reduces small drainage problems and complaints. When properties are located too close to a stream, residents are likely to experience and
complain about backyard flooding, standing water, and bank erosion. A buffer greatly reduces complaints.
4. Stream "right of wsy" allows for lateral movement Most stream channels shift or widen ova time; a buffer protects both the stream and
nearby properties.
£ Effective flood control. Other, expensive flood controls not necessary if buffer includes the 100-yr floodplain.
6. Protection from streambank erosion. Tree roots consolidate the soils of floodplain and stream banks, reducing the potential for severe bank
erosion (/)
7. Increases property values. Homebuyers perceive buffers as attractive amenities to the community. 90% of buffer administrators feel buffers
have a neutral or positive impact on property values. (/)
8. Increased pollutant removal. Buffers can provide effective pollutant removal for development located within 1 SO feet of the buffer boundary,
when designed properly.
9. Foundation for present or future greenways. Linear nature of the buffer provides for connected open space, allowing pedestrians and bikes to
move more efficiently through a community. (/)
10. Provides food and habitat for wildlife. Leaf litter is the base food source for many stream ecosystems; forests also provides woody debris that
creates cover and habitat structure for aquatic insects and fish! (/)
11. Mitigates stream warming. Shading by the forest canopy prevents further stream warming in urban watersheds. (/)
12. Protection of associated wetlands. A wide stream buffer can include riverine and palustrine wetlands that are frequently found near streams.
13. Prevent disturbance to steep slopes. Removing construction activity from these sensitive areas are the best way to prevent severe rates of soil
erosion (/)
14. Preserves important terrestrial habitat Riparian corridors are important transition zones, rich in species. A mile of stream buffer can
provide 25-40 acres of habitat areas(/)
15. Corridors for conservation. Unbroken stream buffers provide "highways" for migrations of plant and animal populations.(/)
16. Essential habitat for amphibians. Amphibians require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats and are dependent on riparian environments to
complete their life cyc|e (/)
17. Fewer barriers to fish migration. Chances for migrating fish are improved when stream crossings are prevented or carefully planned.
18. Discourages excessive storm drain enclosures/channel hardening. Prevents increases in runoff from impervious cover and subsequent
eroding or overflowing of headwater streams.
19. Provides space for stormwater ponds. When properly placed, structural BMPs within the buffer can be an ideal location to remove
pollutants and control flows from urban areas.
20. Allowance for future restoration. Even a modest buffer provides space and access for future stream restoration, bank stabilization, or
reforestation.
92
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
If a 100-ft wide stream buffer is reserved on
each side of the channel, then the buffer would
consume about 34 ac or about 5% of the total
watershed area. If the zoning density was
fixed, this would reduce impervious cover by
a like amount. While this represents a modest
reduction in total imperviousness at a site, it
can be combined with other techniques to
achieve a significant watershed reduction.
The second way that stream buffers reduce
imperviousness is by forcing a more clustered
and compact development pattern. The linear
nature of the stream buffer, along with the
limitations on roadway crossings, make it
nearly impossible to use traditional roadway
networks that create needless imperviousness
area, (see Chapter 6). Shorter-and more
economical branching or cul-de-sac road
networks are often more feasible residential
street designs.
2. Distance from imperviousness to the
stream
A stream buffer is also useful in that it
increases the distance from impervious areas
to the stream. This allows more room to locate
effective stormwater BMPs, or to utilize
innovative stormwater conveyance systems,
such as biofilters. In rural areas, the separation
distance helps to improve the performance of
on-site septic systems. The greater the
distance that subsurface septic system effluent
must travel, the greater the chance that soils
and plants will remove harmful bacteria and
nutrients.
3. Reduce small drainage complaints
Probably the most frequent complaints fielded
by local public works agencies concern small
residential drainage problemsbackyard
flooding, streambank erosion, standing water,
clogged culverts and the like. The common
root of these problems is that property is
simply located too close to a stream. By
reserving a forested buffer that creates more
distance between the residents and the stream,
the number of complaints should drop, giving
much needed relief to local governments from
this time-consuming maintenance burden.
Forest buffers, particularly those with a deep
layer of organic matter, can have 10 times
more runoff storage capacity and infiltration
capacity than a grass or turf area (CBP 1993).
This "spongy" quality helps the buffer forests
absorb more runoff and should also help
reduce drainage problems.
4. Space in \vhich streams can move laterally
over time
In a very real sense, a buffer is the
right-of-way for a stream, and allows for the
physical protection of the stream channel.
Stream channel location is not constant over
time. Over the course of decades, the actual
position of the channel may wander back and
forth across the floodplain (Leopold et al.
1964). Some lateral movement of the stream
can and should be expected, even in
undeveloped streams.
93
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
In urban streams, the lateral movement
becomes more rapid and unpredictable. To
begin with, most urban stream channels have
not yet adjusted to the increased frequency
and rate of stormwater runoff generated by
upstream development. It is therefore quite
common for an urban stream to double or
triple channel width before reaching a new
equilibrium. Fallen trees from undercut banks
can further accelerate the process, resulting in
localized widening as much as five times the
pre-development channel width.
Clearly, the existence of a wide buffer gives
the urban stream the room to move laterally or
widen over time, without threatening
structures or developed property. When a
stream is given room to move, communities
often spend fewer dollars for expensive
channel protection and stabilization methods
that are required to keep a channel in a fixed
place.
5. Effective flood insurance
Small stream flooding is a common
occurrence in urban areas, even during
moderate storm events. Floodwaters can
extend far from the channel and damage
property and structures. However, when the
post-development 100-year floodplain is
wholly contained within a stream buffer, the
risks of flood damage are greatly reduced.
Because structures are kept away from the
floodplain, they . do not need to be
"floodproofed" with expensive protective
measures. Thus a stream buffer is an effective
form of flood insurance for a community and
conforms with federal flood insurance
requirements (FEMA).
In addition, the dedication of a buffer provides
for temporary storage of floodwaters in
headwater streams (for extreme floods greater
than the two year event), thereby reducing the
height of the flood crest for downstream areas
(Karr and Schlosser 1978).
6. Protection against streambank erosion
A deep network of tree roots consolidate the
soils of the floodplain, making them more
resistant to erosive forces of runoff. The
shallow roots of grass, on the other hand,
provide little resistance to bank erosion (Karr
and Schlosser 1978). When deep tree roots are
absent, the toe of the streambank is very
susceptible to rapid erosion. The bank then
begins to undercut, and blocks of turf at the
top of the bank begin to slump into the
channel (Sweeney 1993). These eroded
sediments are deposited in the channel, where
they can smother the existing stream substrate.
Also, deposited sediments temporarily reduce
the cross-sectional area of the channel, thus
leading to a new and more severe phase of
bank erosion.
7. Increased property values
Forested buffers create a more natural and
attractive sense of community. A national
survey of 36 stream buffer program
administrators indicated that stream buffers
were perceived to have either a neutral or
positive impact on adjacent property values
(Heraty 1993). None of the respondents
indicated that buffers had a negative impact
94
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
on land value.
This finding is consistent with numerous other
studies that have found that greenways and
buffers increase property values of adjacent
homes (Correl et al. 1978, Seattle Office of
Planning (1987) and Mazour (1988).
8, Increased pollutant removal
Urban stream buffers have the potential to
remove pollutants that move through them, in
groundwater or sheet flow. Soils and
vegetation within the buffer act as a living
filter. Pollutants in stormwater settle out,
adsorb to soil, or are taken up by vegetation.
Performance monitoring studies suggest that
stream buffers can remove the majority of
sediment and trace metals that are delivered to
them, as long as even and uniform sheet flow
is maintained across the outer edge of the
buffer. Removal of phosphorus and nitrogen
appears to be modest, and more unreliable
(see Table 28).
It is important to note that stream buffers
cannot be relied on as the sole urban BMP at
most development sites. Most of the runoff
produced in urban areas concentrates too
quickly to be effectively treated by a buffer,
and other, more structural, BMPs must still be
installed (e.g., stormwater ponds, wetland
infiltration or filtering system).
9. A foundation for greenways
At the landscape scale, a buffer network
provides a connected system of open space
that can link a community together. A buffer
serves as the foundation of a greenway that
can meet the recreational needs of adjacent
urban residents. The greenway can contain
foot 'trails, which allow for easier pedestrian
movement through the community or to
provide an opportunity for nature enjoyment.
Surveys by Adams (1994) indicate that 58%
of suburban residents actively engage in
wildlife watching and nature enjoyment near
their homes. Residents also exhibit a keen
desire to live next to natural areas and are
willing to pay a premium for homes located
next to them (Adams et al. 1983)
Where the stream buffer is wide enough and
publicly owned, it can also serve as the site of
a bikeway that links the community together.
Because bikepaths are impervious and require
clearing of vegetation, they should be
carefully located in the outer zone of a buffer.
10. Provision of food, cover, and stream
habitat
Riparian forests are an integral part of the
stream ecosystem. Trees supply the stream
with leaf litter, which constitutes the major
source of energy in headwater streams in most
parts of the country. Leaf litter and woody
debris literally form the base of the food
chain. Bacteria and fungi colonize these packs
of organic matter and are in turn consumed by
aquatic insects, which are eaten by other
insects and fish. Thus the annual leaf fall
supplied from a forested buffer is the key
energy source for every trophic level in the
stream.
The adjacent forests also supply large woody
95
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
debris to the stream channel. These logs,
branches and twigs create more structural
complexity within the channel and thus more
habitat area for aquatic insects. The woody
material often forms natural debris dams that
help a headwater stream retain more of its
nutrients and organic matter. For example,
Sweeney (1993) noted that forested streams
had 17 times as much wetted benthic habitat
area as unforested streams. In addition,
forested streams had eight times as much
woody debris and 38 times as much leaf litter
as unforested streams. The presence of a forest
buffer also appears to directly influence the
quality and the diversity of the stream
community: Both Steedman (1988) and
Sweeney (1993) have extensively documented
that a stream insect community declines in
total area and diversity when the forest cover
is lost.
11. Stream warming is mitigated
Mature forests provide shade that keeps
stream temperatures from rising during the
summer months. When the forest cover is
removed, an urban stream will invariably heat
up by as much as 5-10 degrees F (Greene
1950, Pluhowski 1970, Sweeney 1993, and
Galli 1991). A temperature increase of this
magnitude can seriously threaten the survival
of trout and other salmonid fish species, as
well, as well as some sensitive aquatic insects,
such as stoneflies.
12. Wetland protection
Wetlands often are the surface expression of
the underlying water table. Some type of
wetland is almost always found where the
water table is at or near the surface. Likewise,
perennial streams are also an expression of the
water table where it meets the lowest point in
the local landscape. As such, streams are
almost always associated with certain types of
riverine and palustrine wetlands. Located near
the stream channel or in the adjacent
floodplain, these wetlands are often forested
and of high functional quality. Clearly, by
reserving a wide stream buffer, it is possible
to more systematically protect these important
wetlands from disturbance. In addition,
extending the buffer network beyond the
limits of a wetland provides a more effective
transition zone between the wetland and
upland urban areas.
13. Prevention of soil erosion from steep
slopes
Steep slopes and streams are often located
near each other, as the stream has historically
been the erosional agent that creates sharp
relief. Steep slopes pose the greatest risk of
sediment delivery during construction. The
combination of steepness and proximity to the
stream make these slopes the most susceptible
areas for erosion at any development site.
Sediment loads from these areas can be
exceptionally high, even when the best
erosion and sediment control techniques are
applied. Where stream buffers are expanded to
fully include all adjacent steep slopes and
thereby prevent their clearing and disturbance,
they can be a very effective component of an
erosion and sediment control plan.
96
-------
ChaplerS: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
14. Preservation of wildlife habitat
A continuous one-mile stream buffer that
extends 100 ft outward on either side of the
channel preserves about 25 ac of contiguous
stream or riverine habitat. A stream buffer acts
as a habitat "island," a transition zone between
aquatic and terrestrial environments. Most
ecologists have concluded that the total
number of species of birds, mammals, reptiles,
and amphibians, is strongly related to the area
of a habitat islandas it gets larger, more
species are recorded.
Studies of wildlife diversity in urban habitat
islands suggest that a surprising number of
bird, mammal and reptile species can be found
in contiguous habitat island that are 25 ac or
greater in, area (Table 24).
75. Creation of wildlife corridors
In addition to their intrinsic value as wildlife
habitat, stream buffers also create potential
corridors for wildlife travel between larger
habitat islands in the urban landscape (e.g.,
urban forest preserves, natural wetland
complexes, stormwater wetlands and
community parks). Not only do stream buffers
increase the effective size of the total habitat
island, but they provide source populations of
organisms for future recolonization. To be
most effective, a wildlife corridor should be
300-600 ft wide (Desbonnet et al. 1994).
16. Critical amphibian habitat
Amphibians have a terrestrial and aquatic life
cycle and require both habitats in close
TABLE 24: URBAN WILDLIFE SPECIES DIVERSITY AS A FUNCTION OF HABITAT ISLAND SIZE
Habitat Bland Sfee /
* " i
Woodland Birds*
Woodland Birds*
Woodland Birds*
Chaparral Birds
Land Vertebrates
Beetles
5
acre
_
24
14
2.5
14
-
io
acre
13
27
21
3.4
21
6.6
20
acre
21
31 .
29
4.3
33
7.7
30
acre
27
33
33
4.8
42
8.5
40
acre
29
36
36
5:2
51
9.0
50 !
Acre
31
37
38
5.5
59
9.5
'75
acre
33
40
43
6.0
76
10.4
ioo
-- acre
34
43
46
6.4
95
11.2
* Studies from three different eco-regions around the world
As Adams (1994) data illustrates, the number of bird, mammal and insect species increases as the area of the "habitat
island" increases
97
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
proximity. Thus amphibian species are
commonly found in greatest abundance within
the stream buffer zone. Tree frogs,
salamanders, spring peepers, and other species
create the diverge musical chorus heard in the
spring and summer riverine woods.
Amphibians appear to be undergoing a
world-wide decline in abundance, particularly
hi urban and suburban areas (Minton 1968,
Cochran 1989). A number of researchers have
noted the importance of stream buffers to
support amphibian populations hi urban areas.
17. Barriers to fish migration are discouraged
Stream buffer programs regulate the manner
in which the stream channel is crossed by
highways, utilities, and other linear
development When utilized properly, a
stream buffer regulation can prevent the
creation of unintentional barriers to upstream
fish migration, such as roadway culverts,
grade control structures, hardened utility
crossings and the like.
18. Excessive storm drain enclosures/channel
hardening avoided
Headwater streams are exceptionally
vulnerable to physical elimination hi urban
watersheds. Once impervious cover in the
watershed exceeds 30 to 60%, stormwater
flow becomes so great that many natural
channels cannot withstand them without
severely eroding or overflowing (cf Chapter
2). As a consequence, many open channels
and headwater streams are enclosed in storm
drains to more quickly route stormwater
runoff off the site and prevent temporary
flooding of streets and parking lots.
The loss of headwater streams can be striking.
In some highly developed urban areas, the
majority of headwater streams have been
enclosed by storm drams or hardened
channels. While a stream buffer may not fully
protect an urban stream channel from erosion
(upstream BMPs are still needed), it may
reduce the need for costly bank and channel
protection techniques.
19. Good sites provided for stormwater ponds
A buffer system provides an excellent
framework within which stormwater BMPs
can be integrated. It is the most effective and
economical place in the landscape to provide
stormwater quantity and quality control. When
carefully located and designed, these ponds
can maintain the quality of the stream and the
buffer network.
20. Allowance forfeiture restoration
Stream buffers are a prerequisite for future
watershed restoration. Most urban watershed
restorationists have discovered that the best
locations and opportunities for restoration
projects are along the stream buffer. This
relatively narrow strip of land provides
numerous sites for riparian reforestation,
access for stream restoration projects, and
many candidate locations for stormwater
retrofit projects. At its most fundamental
level, the reservation of a stream buffer
enables a community to fix in the future some
of the mistakes it may have made in the past.
Without a pre-existing stream buffer, such
98
-------
m
Chapters: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
restoration is seldom possible.
Local Experience with Buffer Programs
Communities have learned that they must go
beyond merely drawing a line on a map during
the development review process. They must
also actively manage and protect a stream
both during the construction process and over
time hi the changing landscape.
Our most detailed knowledge about the
quality of local buffer programs comes from a
detailed national survey of 36 local and state
programs by Heraty (1993) The responses
from planners and engineers suggest that most
local buffer programs could stand significant
improvement in how they are administered.
Indeed, respondents in nearly 25% of all
programs surveyed have already recognized
this need and have revisited their buffer
programs to improve then" effectiveness.The
survey results are supplied in Appendix B, and
some of the key findings are provided below:
!
1. Buffer boundaries are largely invisible to
local governments, contractors and residents.
Stream buffer boundaries may be drawn on
development plans, but they often become
invisible after the plans are approved. The
survey indicated that over two-thirds of all
communities that required buffers did not
record then- presence on then- official maps.
Without buffer maps, local governments
cannot systematically inspect or manage their
network of buffers. In addition, less than half
of all communities required that the buffer
boundaries be shown on construction plans,
such as clearing and grading plans or erosion
and sediment control plans. The absence of
buffer limits on construction stage plans
increase the risk that contractors will encroach
upon or disturb the buffer during the
construction phase.
The survey also revealed that 60% of property
owners were largely unaware of the boundary
or purpose of the stream buffer in their
community. This ignorance could generally be
traced to the lack of active notification by
local governments about the boundaries of
buffers to new property owners.
2. Buffers are subject to extensive
encroachment in urban areas.
When boundaries are not well defined, buffers
become an urban "commons" area, subject to
encroachment pressures from adjacent
property owners and other users. The
pressures begin during the construction stage,
where a buffer may be subject to illegal
clearing and grading, compaction of soils, tree
damage from heavy equipment, and sediment
impacts due to poor erosion ^controls
elsewhere on the site. Corish (1995) notes that
over 50% of communities surveyed reported
that site clearing and grading operations
frequently do not protect preserve vegetated
areas, and that 25% of all buffers are
materially damaged during construction.
Corish's finding is comparable to Heraty's,
indicating that 26% of jurisdiction report
frequent buffer encroachment during
construction.
Encroachment pressures continue well after
99
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
the site has been developed. Some indication
of the extent of these pressures can be gleaned
from Cooke's 1991 study of 21 urban wetland
buffers in the State^of Washington (Table 25).
TABLE 25: ENCROACHMENT PRESSURES ON URBAN
WETLAND BUFFERS IN WASHINGTON (COOKE 91)
Category of Disturbance
Dumping of Yard Wastes
Conversion of Natural Vegetation
into Lawn or Turf
Tree Removal
Evidence of Fertilizer Impact
Evidence of Stormwater Short-
Circiiiting Buffer
Increased Dominance of
Invasive/Exotic Plants
Evidence that Buffer had been
Maintained
Trails Established in Buffer
Buffers Exhibiting Signs of
Alteration
Severely Altered Buffers (Not
Protecting Adjacent Wetland)
%of Buffers
Dfettttfeed
76
100
50
55
28
67
5
29
95
43
The buffers ranged in age from two to eight
years. Ninety-five percent of the buffers
showed visible signs of encroachment or
disturbance, including mowing, dumping of
yard wastes, tree removal, trails, and erosion.
Those buffers located next to residential areas
were often cleared of native vegetation and
replaced with lawns (often with high fertilizer
input).
3. Few jurisdictions have effective buffer
education programs
The lack of awareness about stream buffers is
not surprising since only 15% of all programs
marked or posted buffer boundaries. Usually the
only notification given about the existence of
buffers was a one-time legal disclosure, such as
recordation on the property deed, language in a
homeowner association charter, or a written
disclosure upon resale. Surprisingly, 47% of all
buffer programs had no specific notification
program for individual property owners at all.
Increasingly, communities are experimenting
with new and innovative techniques to educate
their residents about buffers, including
pamphlets, boundary markers, buffer walks,
regular homeowner's association meetings, and
individual maintenance agreements. One
promising approach involves enlisting residents
to plant native trees and shrubs in their
backyards to attract wildlife and save water.
This
-------
Chapters: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
gazebos, decks, streambank stabilization
projects, parallel pipe systems, and many
others (Table 26).
TABLE 26: ALLOWABLE AND UNALLOWABLE USES IN
THE STREAM BUFFER ZONE (SOURCE: HERATY 1993)
Use
Footpaths
Utility Jine crossings
Water dependent uses
Bike paths
$torjnwater]BMP$
Home additions/decks/gazebos
Maintenance for flood control
Pumphouses
Sewage treatment plants
Golf Courses
Campground
Timber Harvesting
Hydropower
Roads/Bridges
Athletic Melds -
PlaygroundEquipraent
Coinpast/Yard Wasted >\
Lajttdscaping : ' -
No Uses Permitted (30%) -
Allowed Denied
60 8
52 5
45 10
. 30 IS
28 10
10 55
Often Allowed
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
Restricted
- Restricted
1 Restricted
Restricted
" Restricted
Restricted
, Unrestricted
Unrestricted
Percentages of buffer programs that specifically
allow or deny a given use. The "Restricted" and
"Unrestricted" entries refer to other stream buffer
uses that are not commonly addressed in local
ordinances.
Many communities have.revisited their stream
buffer ordinance to make better decisions on
the use of the buffer. In general, uses that
create impervious surfaces, require extensive
clearing, generate pollutants, or that can be
located elsewhere are not allowed (MWCOG
1995). Uses that create minimal or temporary
changes to the buffer, such as foot paths or
stormwater BMPs, or that cannot be located
away from the stream (utility crossings,
water-dependent access) are generally
allowed.
5. Few jurisdictions specified mature forest
as a vegetative target
Few jurisdictions clearly specify a vegetative
goal of mature forest for their stream buffer
program. Heraty (1993) found that over
two-thirds of all programs simply required
that pre-development vegetative cover be
maintained, regardless of whether it was trees,
weeds, or turf. Indeed, 20% of all buffer
programs failed to specify any vegetative goal
at all. Given the importance of riparian forests
in the ecology of headwater streams, the
adoption of a specific vegetative target for the
stream buffer would be wise.
6. Accuracy of buffer delineation seldom
confirmed in the field
Local programs encounter a number of
difficulties in accurately delineating buffer
boundaries at individual development sites.
For example, Heraty (1993) reported that
nearly 50% of the buffer programs find that
buffer widths are not measured &om an
appropriate baseline, or that consultants do not
properly expand the buffer width to pick up
floodplains, wetlands or critical habitats
specified in their ordinance. One-third of the
governments indicate that consultants fail to
draw buffer boundaries on site plans or
construction drawings, even when this has
101
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
been mandated. Some 30% of all respondents
indicated that they did not have the time or
resources to check the validity of the
developer's buffer.delineation on the plans at
all. It is speculated that an even greater
number failed to confirm stream and buffer
boundaries in the field.
Twenty percent of jurisdictions had no
mechanism to inform the contractor about
buffer boundaries during construction. On the
positive side, Corish (1995) reported that 75%
of respondents did inspect the condition of the
buffer at least once after construction had
begun. In general, local governments
consistently noted problems during the
construction stage. For example, respondents
reported that erosion control structures were
not properly maintained (67%), cleared areas
were poorly revegetated (56%), cleared slopes
were not adequately stabilized (44%), cleared
land was exposed for longer than the
prescribed maximum time period (44%) and
that soils were heavily compacted (28%).
Indeed, only a mere 18% of all jurisdictions
surveys concluded that "few problems were
encountered in implementation" (Corish
1995).
7. Most buffers remain in private ownership
The vast majority of buffers (90%) remain hi
private ownership after development (Heraty
1993). Access and use is solely restricted to
the property owner. In some subdivisions, the
buffer is considered semi-private open space
and is dedicated to a homeowner association,
which manages the buffer and can control or
restrict access. Only 10% of all communities
require that the buffer be public open space,
and dedicated to the local parks authority. In
privately owned buffers, use restrictions are
primarily spelled out in the property deed of
record. A formal conservation easement is
utilized in only about 11% of cases.
Residents appear to broadly support privately
owned stream buffer programs in their
community. Over 80% of local governments
agreed with the statement "that a majority of
our citizens think that the community is better
off having stream buffers," and that the stream
buffers had a neutral (54%) or positive (40%)
influence on adjacent land values.
This is not to imply that buffers are popular
with all residents. A sampling of the most
frequently cited complaints about buffers from
residents include:
D the buffer system gives strangers access
to my backyard
D the buffer is a breach of my property
rights
D access along the stream buffer is denied
D vagrants and teenagers use the buffer
for illegal purposes
D trees obstruct water or scenic views
D I am taxed on land that I cannot develop
D buffers are a source of varmints, weeds,
ticks, feral dogs, etc.
D the process for adding decks, sheds,
gazebos is too restrictive
D the buffer is in an unsightly condition
during early stages of forest growth
D unfair to those who owned land prior
to the buffer law
102
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
By and large, resident complaints about
stream buffers are uncommon and can be
directly addressed through a concerted
education program to inform residents of the
many benefits buffers provide, as well as clear
enforcement of trespassing laws. Interestingly,
many communities often receive an equal
number of complaints from residents that
demand better stewardship of the buffer
system.
8. The stream buffer program needs to be
responsive to the interests of the development
community
Although the stream buffer system is not
likely to consume more than 5% of the land
area of a watershed (much of which cannot be
developed anyway because it is also a
floodplain, wetland, or steep slope), it can
consume a much larger proportion of an
individual development site. Clearly, the
potential exists to generate complaints about
excessive regulation and property right issues.
While only one community reported
developer complaints that stream buffers
actually stifled development activity (Heraty
1993), the development community does
express strong concerns in several areas:
D inflexible buffer delineation
D inconsistent application of buffer
guidelines
D lengthy approval process
D lost lots that could have been
developed
D extra costs for development submittal
D buffer use are too restrictive (e.g.,
stormwater BMPS are not allowed)
While the philosophical issue of property
rights infringement can never be satisfactorily
resolved for all developers, local governments
are encouraged to craft their programs to be
responsive to the economic needs of the
development community. After all, the
primary purpose of the stream buffer program
is to place some distance between
development and the streamand not to
discourage development from taking place.
Pollutant Removal Capability of Stream
Buffers
While an urban stream buffer provides many
impressive benefits, it must be emphasized
that they often have a limited capability to
remove pollutants borne in urban stormwater
runoff. This is a surprising conclusion for a
number of reasons. First, many communities
have cited pollutant removal as the key
justification for establishing buffer programs
(Heraty L993). Second, high removal rates
have been frequently reported for forested
buffers in rural areas (Desbonnet et al. 1994).
Why, then, do stream buffers have limited
value to remove pollutants in stormwater
runoff?
The primary reason relates to how flow
reaches the stream buffer in urban watersheds.
Buffers require the presence of sheet flow to
be effective. Once flow concentrates to form
a channel, it effectively short-circuits the
buffer and no treatment occurs. Unfortunately,
flow usually concentrates within a short
distance in urban areas. It is doubtful, for
example, whether sheetfiow conditions can be
103
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
maintained over a distance of:
D 150 ft for pervious areas
D 75 ft for impervious areas
This constraint sharply reduces the percentage
of a watershed that can be effectively treated
by a stream buffer. This can be illustrated
using the drainage density example that was
used earlier. If we assume that (a) 1.4 miles of
stream exist hi a one square mile watershed,
(b) a 100-ft buffer exists on each side of the
channel and (c) that each side of the buffer
serves the maximum limit of 150 ft of
contributing pervious area, we would be able
to directly treat about 50 ac total of pervious
area. This acreage represents only 8% of the
total drainage area to the stream (or 13% if we
include the area in the stream buffer) This
implies that the runoff from the remaining
87% of the total drainage area will be
delivered to the stream in one of three ways:
D hi an open channel
D within an enclosed stormdrain pipe, or
D a stabilized outfall channel from a BMP
In each case, the channel or pipe will cross the
stream buffer before it discharges into the
steam (Fig. 24) In addition, some kind of
structural BMP will still be needed to provide
water quality control for the runoff before it
reaches the stream.
FIGURE 24: THE ENTRY OF STORMWATER RUNOFF INTO THE URBAN STREAM BUFFER NETWORK
LEGEND
E» »«»
>.«.»
»,«
»»'\'
storm drain network
maximum limit of
buffer treatment
stream buffer
_ » watershed boundry
. stream
BMP
Due to the rapid concentration of flow, most runoff.enters the buffer in an open channel or stormdrain pipe. On a
watershed scale, a buffer only receives 10% of the sheet/low.
104
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
The four basic options for providing
stormwater quality control include:
D stormwater ponds
D shallow wetlands
D infiltration practices
D filtering systems
Each practice must be fully integrated within
the stream buffer system in order to maximize
treatment efficiency and ensure that the largest
possible contributing drainage area is
captured.
Urban Vegetative Treatment Systems
Under some circumstances, an urban stream
buffer can be employed as a vegetative filter
to treat the quality of stormwater runoff.
Indeed, a wide variety of vegetative filters
have been used for this purpose. While each of
these filters relies on the use of vegetation to
slow runoff velocity and filter out pollutants,
not all of them are comparable. Consequently,
their design and pollutant removal
performance are often quite different. The
differences are often amplified by the diverse
and conflicting terminology used to describe
urban vegetative filter systems (Table 27).
TABLE 27: SOME STANDARDIZATION OF URBAN VEGETATIVE FILTERING SYSTEMS
F
I
L
T
E
R
Open Channel Systems
Filter Strip Systems
Buffer Systems
F
L
O
W
\U six 1^ sU\y\l^
ooc:
shallow flow occurs through a
designed open channel,
concentrated outflow
grass filter that accepts
sheetflow from adjacent areas,
no concentrated
outflow
primarily used to protect
stream, but can act as a filter
under restricted
conditions
T
E
R
M
S
swale (wet or dry)
grass channel
grass swale
bioswale
biofilter
bioretention swale
filter strip
vegetated filter strip
grass.filter strip
grass buffer
bioretention area
forest buffer
stream buffer
riparian filter
buffer strip
urban buffer treatment
105
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
1*1
For example, as many as 15 different names
have been given to these practices, and these are
often used interchangeably. In reality, however,
most vegetative filters can be grouped in one of
three general categories:
Open Channels: designed to filter out pollutants
in stormwater as they are conveyed through an
open, grassy channel. Sometimes known as
swales, the channel conveys stormwater runoff
across the stream buffer and discharges directly
into the stream. From a pollutant removal
standpoint, there are four basic design options
for the open channel, which are described in
detail in Chapter 6 (Page 157).
Filter strips: designed as a grass filter that
accepts sheetflow from impervious or pervious
areas to pretreat it.before it is delivered to a
stream buffer or downstream BMP. As noted
before, urban filter strips can treat runoff over a
relatively short distance (usually 75 to 150 feet).
Some design guidance for urban filter strips can
be found on page 116.
Forested buffers: primarily designed to protect
streams; forest areas may provide some
treatment of stormwater runoff from nearby
pervious or impervious areas but this is only a
secondary benefit In most cases, stormwater
runoff from upland areas crosses the forested
stream buffer in the form of an open channel or
an enclosed storm drain. The pollutant removal
benefit of stream buffers can be more
significant in low-relief coastal areas, where
groundwater interaction is strong.
Performance of urban vegetative practices:
Our current knowledge about the pollutant
removal capability of each of the three
categories of urban vegetative practices is
summarized in Table 28, and is described
below:
Open Channels: the performance of grassed
open channels has been reasonably well
studied in a wide number of environments
around the country. The studies indicate that
grassed channels have a high capability to
reduce sediment, hydrocarbon and metals in
most situations (>50%). However, their ability
to remove phosphorus and nitrogen is much
more limited and unreliable, with removal
rates averaging only 10 to 50%. Grassed
channels have shown little capability to reduce
bacteria, chlorides or nitrate, with zero or
negative removal rates frequently reported.
Filter strips: only one study has assessed the
capability of a grass filter strip to treat urban
stormwater runoff. Yu et al. (1992) reported
moderate to high removal rates for a 150-ft
strip that treated runoff from a large parking
lot, but mediocre performance in a shorter,
75-ft strip.
Stream buffers: at the present time, there is no
performance data on the effectiveness of
forest stream buffers to treat urban stormwater
runoff.. Some indication of their potential
effectiveness can be inferred from the
performance of forest and grass buffers from
agricultural areas.
106
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
TABLE 28: MEASURED POLLUTANT REMOVAL CAPABILITY OF SELECTED URBAN VEGETATED
FILTERS
BMP System
Grass Channel (1)
Grass Channel (2)
Grass Channel (2)
Grass Channel (3)
Grass Channel (3)
Grass Channel (4)
Filter Strip-75' (5)
Filter Strip- 150'(5)
MEAN NON (6)
URBAN
MEAN URBAN
REFERENCE?
TSS
83
81
87
65
98
72
54
84
73
78
TP
29
17
83
41
18
54
(-25)
40
56
32
TN
(neg)*
40
84
>20.
>50
ND
(-27)*
(-20)*
63
25
Zinc
63
69
90
49
81
74
47
55
66
Lead
67
50
90
47
81
ND
(-16)
50
~
53
*nitrate-N only
(1) Seattle METRO 1992 (2) Harper 1988 (3) Dorman et al. 1989
(4) Yu et al. 1993 (5) Yu et al. 1992 (6) Desbonette et al. 1994
While grass channels generally are reported to have a high capability to remove sediment, their ability to remove
nutrients varies substantially, often due to soil, slope and other factors.
The moderate to high pollutant removal
observed in rural and agricultural buffers
appears to be due to the relatively slow
transport of pollutants across the buffer in
sheet flow or shallow ground water flow. In
either case, the relatively slow movement of
. water gives soil, roots and microbes more time
to trap or remove pollutants. Desbonnet et al.
(1994) recently reviewed over 35 monitoring
studies that investigated the pollutant removal
performance of rural and agricultural buffers
(Fig. 25).
107
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
FIGURE 25: SURFACE POLLUTANT REMOVAL IN AGRICULTURAL FILTER STRIPS
PANELA
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOUDS REMOVAL
100-
80-
I 60
&
8 40-
20-
O
e is (grassed) 0
l
SO
100 iso zoa
Buffer Width (m)
250
300
100- o O
PANELB,
TOTAL PHOSPOROUS
REMOVAL
o
£
a
' I ' ' ' M ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' .' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' '
102030405060708090
Buffer Width (m)
PANELC
TOTAL NITROGEN
REMOVAL
10 20 30 40 50 60
Buffer Width (m)
Desbonnet et aL (1994) compares the reported removal efficiency of35 buffer strips, most of which were located in rural
or coastal areas. The effect of buffer width on sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen removal are shown in panels a - c.
108
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
Although considerable variation was observed
among the studies, several performance trends
emerged:
D Buffers were generally capable of
removing 75% of the suspended sediment
delivered to them in surface runoff, even
when the grass buffer was as narrow as
25ft.
D Removal of nitrogen and phosphorus in
surface runoff seldom exceeded 50 or
60%, even in widest buffers monitored.
Further increases in nutrient removal
required that buffers extend 300 to 600 ft
long, a rather impractical length.
D Removal of nutrients in subsurface or
groundwater flow was very inconsistent.
Under ideal site conditionspoorly
drained and organic rich soils, deep root
systems and groundwater flow within two
to six feet of the surfacebuffers
exhibited exceptional removal of nitrate-
nitrogenoften 90% or more. When such
conditions exist, buffers can be very
useful in reducing the nitrogen effluent
from rural septic systems.
In general, most researchers consider
agricultural buffers to be a useful BMP, but
only when they are combined with other
practices (Magette et al. 1989). It is also
widely recognized that many agricultural
buffers fail to perform as designed after they
are installed in the field (Dillaha et al. 1989).
Field surveys indicate that many agricultural
buffers lack good vegetative cover, are subject
to excessive sediment deposition, or are
short-circuited by channels formed by
concentrated flow.
Summary: Potential Pollutant Removal
Capability of Urban Stream Buffers.
On the basis of performance data from related
vegetative systems, it is possible to estimate
the pollutant removal capability of an urban
stream buffer (i.e., explicitly designed to treat
stormwater using the design procedure
outlined in Buffer Criteria 7). The hybrid of
the grass strip in the outer zone and the
forested buffer in the middle and streamside
zone has the potential to achieve the following
removal rates:
Sediment
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Trace Metals
Hydrocarbons
75%
40%
50%
60 to 70%
75%
The ability of a particular buffer to actually
achieve these rates depends on many
site-specific factors that are outlined in Jordan
(1995). The design procedure outlined in
Criteria 7 is intended to restrict the use of the
stream buffers for stormwater treatment only
to those conditions where site-specific factors
assure reliable pollutant removal (Table 29).
Performance Criteria for Urban Stream
Buffers
The ability of a particular fouffer to realize its
many benefits depends to a large degree on
how well it is planned, designed, and
maintained. Ten practical performance criteria
are offered to govern how a buffer is sized,
managed, and crossed and how it is to
109
-------
ISS
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
TABLE 29: SITE FACTORS THAT ENHANCE OR DETRACT FROM POLLUTANT REMOVAL
PERFORMANCE IN URBAN VEGETATIVE FILTERING SYSTEMS
Factors that enhance performance
Slopes less than 5%
Contributing flow lengths < 150 ft.
Water table close to surface
Check dams/level spreaders
Permeable, but not sandy soils
Growing season
Long length of buffer or swale
Organic matter, humus or mulch layer
Small runoff events
Entry runoff velocity less than 1.5 fps
Swales that are routinely mowed
Poorly-drained soils, deep roots
Dense grass cover, six inches tall
Factors that reduce performance
Slopes greater than 5%
Overland flow paths over 300 feet
Groundwater far below surface
Contact times less than 5 minutes
Compacted soils
Non-growing season
Buffers less than 10 feet
Snowmelt conditions, ice cover
Runoff events > 2 year event
Entry runoff velocity more than 5 fps
Sediment buildup at top of swale
Trees with shallow root systems
Tall grass, sparse vegetative cover.
handle stormwater. The key criteria include:
1. Minimum total buffer width
2. Three-zone buffer system
3. Mature forest as a vegetative target
4. Conditions for buffer expansion or
contraction
5. Physical delineation requirements
6. Conditions where the buffer can be
crossed
7. Integrating stormwater and BMPs
within the buffer
8. Buffer limit review
9. Buffer education, inspection, and
enforcement
10. Buffer flexibility
Criteria 1. Minimum total buffer -width.
Most local buffer criteria consist of a single
requirement-that the buffer be a fixed and
uniform width'from the stream channel. Urban
stream buffers range from 20 to 200 ft in
width on each side of the stream according to
a national survey of 36 local buffer programs,
with a median of 100 ft (Heraty 1993). Most
110
-------
ChapterS: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
jurisdictions arrived at their buffer width
requirement by borrowing other state and local
criteria, local experience, and, finally, through
political compromise during the buffer adoption
process. Most communities require that buffers
to fully incorporate all lands within the 100-yr
floodplain, and others may extend the buffer to
pick up adjacent wetlands, steep slopes or
critical habitat areas.
In general, a minimum base width of at least
100 feet is recommended to provide adequate
stream protection. In most regions of the
country, this requirement translates to a buffer
that is perhaps three to five mature trees wide on
each side of the channel.
Criteria 2. Three-zone buffer system. Effective
urban stream buffers divides the total buffer
width into three lateral zones
streamside-middle zone and outer zone. Each
zone performs a different function, and has a
different width, vegetative target and
management scheme, as shown in Figure 26 and
described below:
The streamside zone protects the physical and
ecological integrity of the stream ecosystem.
The vegetative target is mature riparian forest
that can provide shade, leaf litter, woody debris
and erosion protection for the stream. The
minimum width is 25 ft from each stream
bankabout the distance of one or two mature
trees from the streambank.
FIGURE 26: THE THREE-ZONE URBAN STREAM BUFFER SYSTEM
Stream
ZONE
CHARACTERISTICS 1 STREAMSIDE ZONE 1 MIDDLE ZONE
FUNCTION
WIDTH
VEGETATIVE
TARGET
ALLOWABLE
USES
Protect the physical integrity
of the stream ecosystem
Min. 25 feet, plus
wetlands and critical habitats
Undisturbed mature forest.
Reforest if grass
Very Restricted
e-g.. flood control, utility
right of ways, footpaths, etc.
Provide distance between
upland development
and streamside zone
50 to 100 feet, depending
on stream order, slope,
and 100 year floodplain
Managed forest,
some clearing allowable
Restricted
e.g.. some recreational uses,
some stormwater BMPs, bike
paths, tree removal by permit
OUTER ZONE
Prevent encroachment
and niter backyard runoff
25 foot minimum
setback to structures
Forest encouraged.
but usually turfgrass
Unrestricted e.g., residential
uses Including lawn, garden.
compost, yard wastes.
most stormwater BMPs
Three lateral zones comprise the foundation of an effective urban stream buffer zone. The width, function, management
and vegetative target vary by zone.
Ill
-------
SUe Planning for Urban Stream Protection
Land use is highly restrictedlimited to
stonnwater channels, footpaths, and a few utility
or roadway crossings.
The middle zone extends from the outward
boundary of the streamside zone, and varies in
width, depending on stream order, the extent of
the 100-yr floodplain, adjacent steep slopes and
protected wetland areas. Its key functions are to
protect key components of the stream and
provide further distance between upland
development and the stream. The vegetative
target for this zone is also mature forest, but some
clearing may be allowed for stonnwater
management, access, and recreational uses. A
wider range of activities and uses are allowed
within this zone, e.g., recreation, bike paths, and
stonnwater BMPs. The minimum width of the
middle zone is about 50 ft, but it may be
expanded based on stream order, slope or the
presence of critical habitats.
The outer zone is the buffer's buffer, an
additional 25 ft setback from the outward edge of
the middle zone to the nearest permanent
structure. In most instances, it is a residential
backyard. The vegetative target for the outer zone
is usually turf or lawn, although the property
owner is encouraged to plant trees and shrubs,
and thus increase the total width of the buffer.
Very few uses are restricted in this zone. Indeed,
gardening, compost piles, yard wastes, and other
common residential activities are promoted within
the zone. The only major restrictions are no septic
systems cover, permanent structures, or
impervious cover.
Criteria 3. Pre-development vegetative target.
The ultimate vegetative target for the streamside
and middle zone of most urban stream buffers
should be specified as the pre-development
riparian plant community usually mature
forest Notable exceptions include prairie streams
of the midwest, or arroyos of the arid West, that
may have a grass or shrub cover in the riparian
zone. In general, the vegetative target should be
based on the natural vegetative community
present in me floodplain, as determined from
reference riparian zones. Turfgrass is allowed for
the outer core of the buffer and is mandatory if
the buffer is used as a stonnwater treatment
system (see Criteria 7).
A vegetative target has several management
implications. First, if the streamside zone does
not currently meet its vegetative target, it should
be managed to ultimately achieve it For
example, a grassy area should be allowed to grow
into a forest over time, hi some cases, active
reforestation may be necessary to speed up the
successional process. Second, a vegetative target
implies that the buffer will contain mostly native
species adapted to the floodplain. Thus,
non-native or invasive tree, shrub and vine
species should be avoided when revegetating the
buffer. Removal of exotic shrubs and vines (e.g.,
multiflora rose or honey suckle) that are so
prevalent along the buffer edge should be
encouraged.
Criteria 4. Buffer expansion and contraction.
Many communities require that the minimum
width of the buffer be expanded under certain
conditions. Thus, while the streamside and outer
zones of the buffer are fixed, the width of the
middle zone may vary. Specifically, the average
112
-------
Chapters: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
width of the middle zone can expanded to
include:
D the full extent of the 100-yr floodplain
D all undevelopable steep slopes (greater
than 25%)
D four additional ft of buffer for each one
percent increment of slope above 5%
D any adjacent delineated wetlands or
critical habitats
The middle zone also expands to protect
streams of higher order or quality in a
downstream direction (Fig. 27). For example,
the width of the middle zone may increase
from 50 ft (for first- and second-order
streams) to 75 ft (for third- and fourth-order
streams) and as much as 100 ft for fifth- or
higher order streams/rivers. The width of the
buffer can also be contracted in some
circumstances to accommodate unusual or
historical development patterns, shallow lots,
stream crossings, or stormwater ponds (see
Criteria 10).
Criteria 5. Buffer delineation. Three key
decisions must be made when delineating the
boundaries of a buffer. At what mapping scale
will streams be defined? Where does the
stream begin and the buffer end? And from
what point should the inner edge of the buffer
be measured?
FIGURE 27: EXPANSIONS TO THE WIDTH OF URBAN STREAM BUFFERS
The base width of the urban stream buffer may increase to pick up steep slopes, wetlands, andfloodplains adjacent to
the buffer. In addition, the base width often increases for larger streams and rivers.
113
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
The mapping unit: the traditional mapping
scale used to define the stream network are the
bluelines present on USGS 7.5 minute
quadrangle maps (1 inch=2,000 feet (Fig.
28)). It should be kept in mind that bluelines
are only a first'approxiniation for delineating
streams, as this scale does not always reveal
all first order perennial streams or intermittent
channels in the landscape, or precisely mark
the transition between the two (MOPS 1993
and Leopold et al. 1964). Consequently, the
actual location of the stream channel can only
be confirmed hi the field.
The origin of a first order stream is always a
matter of contention. As a practical rule, the
origin of the stream can be defined as the
point where an intermittent stream forms a
distinct channel, as indicated by the presence
of an unvegetated streambed and high water
marks. Other regions define the origin of a
stream as the upper limit of running water
during the wettest season of the year.
Problems have frequently been reported in
situations where the stream network has been
extensively modified by prior agricultural
drainage practices, such as ditching.
The inner edge of the buffer can be defined
from the centerline of small first- or
second-order streams. The accuracy of this
method is questionable in higher order streams
with wider channels. Thus, the inner edge of
the buffer is measured from the top of each
streambank for third and higher order streams.
FIGURE 28: USGS 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE MAP
......
J
Bluelines found on the U.S. Geological Survey's 7.5 minute quad maps provide the initial basis for delineating streams;
but final delineation often requires field confirmation.
114
-------
\qo
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
Criteria 6. Buffer crossings. Two major goals
of a stream buffer network are to maintain an
unbroken corridor of riparian forest and
maintain the upstream and downstream
passage offish in the stream channel. From a
practical standpoint, it is not always possible
to try to meet both goals everywhere along the
stream buffer network. Some provision must
be made for linear forms of development that
must cross the stream or the buffer (Fig. 29),
such as roads, bridges, fairways, underground
utilities, enclosed storm drains or outfall
channels.
It is still possible to minimize the impact to
the continuity of the buffer network and fish
passage. Performance criteria should
specifically describe the conditions under
which the stream or its buffers can be crossed.
Some performance criteria could include:
Crossing width: minimum width right of way
to allow for maintenance access.
Crossing angle: direct right angles are
preferred over oblique crossing angles, since
they require less clearing of the buffer.
Crossing frequency: only one road crossing is
allowed within each subdivision, and no more
than one fairway crossing is allowed for every
1,000 ft of buffer.
Crossing elevation: all direct outfall channels
should discharge at the invert elevation of the
stream. Underground utility and pipe
crossings should be located at least three feet
below the stream invert, so that future channel
erosion does not expose them, creating
unintentional fish barriers. All roadway
crossings and culverts should be capable of
passing the ultimate 100-yr flood event.
Bridges should be used in lieu of culverts
when crossings require a 72 inch or greater
diameter pipe. The use of corrugated metal
pipe for small stream crossings should be
avoided, as these often tend to create fish
barriers. The use of slab, arch or box culverts
are much better alternatives. Where possible,
the culvert should be "bottomless" to ensure
passage of water during dry weather periods
(i.e., the natural channel bottom should not be
hardened or otherwise encased).
Criteria 7. Stormwater runoff Buffers can be
an important component of the stormwater
treatment system at a development site. They
cannot, however, treat all the stormwater
runoff generated within a watershed
(generally, a buffer system can only treat
runoff from less than 10% of the contributing
watershed to the stream). Therefore, some
kind of structural BMP must be installed to
treat the quantity and quality and stormwater
runoff from the remaining 90% of the
watershed. More often than not, the most
desirable location for stormwater practices is
within or adjacent to the stream buffer. The
following guidance is recommended for
integrating stormwater BMPs into the buffer:
a. The use of buffers for stormwater treatment.
The outer and middle zone, of the stream
buffer may be used as a combination
grass/forest filter strip under very limited
circumstances (Fig. 30). For example:
The buffer cannot treat more than 75 ft of
115
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
141
FIGURE 29: CROSSING THE STREAM BUFFER
Crossing Options
a invert all open and enclosed
channel at stream bed and
stabilized
b no more than one roadway
crossing per subdivision
c reduced road right-of-way in
butler zone, utilities under
pavement
d perpendicular crossing re
suits in less buffer cleaning
than an oblique angle
e utility crossings narrow as
maintenance allows
< avoid crossing stream with
mainline sewer
g examine the stream to avoid
creation ot fish barriers
h culvert capacity to handle
ultimate 100 year peak dis
charge, at (ufl bufldout
i bottomless culvert allows up
stream fish passage
j lower one culvert below
stream invert to ensure water
during low-flow periods
^ utility crossing
buffer boundary
Two major goals of a stream buffer are to maintain an unbroken riparian corridor and to allow for fish passage.
Therefore, the conditions under which the buffer can be crossed should be clearly laid out.
116
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
FIGURE 30: DESIGN CRITERIA FOR USING A STREAM BUFFER FOR STORMWATER TREATMENT
outer zone mddfe & ttreamside lone
maximum 75 feel overland flow 25 (eel 75 feet
*- level spreader maximum 2% slope
residential
parting tot
* storm drain network
<-drainage divide
4-grass Alter (outer zone)
forested butler
Under some conditions, the stream buffer can be used to treat the quality ofstormwater runoff from adjacent pervious
and impervious areas.
overland flow from impervious areas and 150
ft of pervious areas (backyards or rooftop
runoff discharged to the backyard). The
designer should compute the maximum runoff
velocity for both the six-month and two-year
storm designs from each contributing overland
flow path, based on the slope, soil, and
vegetative cover present. If the computation
indicates that velocities will be erosive under
either condition (greater than 3 fps for 6-mo
storm, 5 fps for 2-yr storm), the allowable
length of contributing flow should be reduced.
When the buffer receives flow directly from
an impervious area, the designer should
include curb cuts or spacers so that runoff cart
be spread evenly over the filter strip. The filter
strip should be located 3 to 6 inches below the
pavement surface to prevent sediment deposits
from blocking inflow to the filter strip. A
narrow stone layer at the pavement's edge
often works well to protect the strip from
eroding.
The stream buffer can only be accepted as a
stormwater filtering system if basic
maintenance can be assured, such as routine
mowing of the grass filter, and annual
scraping and removal of sediments that build
up at the edge of the impervious area and the
grass filter. The existence of an enforceable
maintenance agreement that allows for public
117
-------
143
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
maintenance inspection is also helpful.
b. Locating stormwater ponds and wetlands in
the buffer. A particularly difficult
management issue involves where stormwater
ponds and wetlands be located in relation to
the buffer? Should they be located inside or
outside of the buffer? If they are allowed
within the buffer, where exactly should they
be put? Some of the possible options are
outlined in Table 30 and Figure 31.
A number of good arguments can be made for
locating ponds and wetlands within the buffer
or on the stream itself. Constructing ponds on
or near the stream, for example, affords
treatment of the greatest possible drainage
area treated at a topographic point that makes
construction easier and cheaper. Second,
ponds and wetlands require the dry weather
flow of a stream to maintain water levels and
prevent nuisance conditions. Lastly, ponds
and wetlands add a greater diversity of habitat
types and structure, and can add to the total
buffer width in some cases.
On the other hand, locating a pond or wetland
in the buffer can create environmental
problems, including the localized clearing of
trees, the sacrifice of stream channels above
the BMP, the creation of a barrier to fish
migration, modification of existing wetlands,
and stream warming. Locating ponds and
wetlands in buffers will always be a balancing
act. Given the effectiveness of stormwater
ponds and wetlands in removing pollutants, it
is generally not advisable to completely
prohibit then" use within the buffer. It does
make sense, however, to choose pond and
wetland sites carefully. In this respect, it is
useful to consider possible performance
criteria that restrict the use of ponds or
wetlands to:
D a maximum contributing area (e.g., 100
acres), or
D the first 500 feet of perennial stream
channel, or
D clearing of the streamside buffer zone only
for the, outflow channel (if the pond is
discharging from the middle zone into the
stream)
TABLE 30: OPTIONS FOR LOCATING STORMWATER BMPs WITHIN THE STREAM BUFFER ZONE
location of the Sttomwater BMP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
outside of the buffer system
upper end of the buffer zone
in the outer core
in the middle core
in the conveyance system
the outer core and middle zone
Preferred Stormwater BMF to tTse ,"-
infiltration, sand filters, pocket ponds and wetlands
Stormwater pond or wetland
filters, infiltration
off-line pond or wetland
biofilters, grassed swales
vegetated buffer treatment system
The preferred BMP option depends on where stormwater treatment is allowed within the stream buffer.
118.
-------
itH
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
FIGURE 31: OPTIONS FOR LOCATING STORMWATER PRACTICES IN THE BUFFER
watershed boundary
some options (or integrating
stormwater in the buffer zone
a pocket pond outside of buffer
b ponds allowed only in the
uppermost headwater reach
c off-line pond within buffer
d regional pond within stream
and buffer
e lateral pond, in buffer but not
stream
f smaD onsite BMPs
connected to storm drain
network
g biofiflers used in open
channel outside of buffer
A range of options are available for locating stormwater practices within the stream buffer. Ponds or wetlands can be
located only on (a) intermittent streams, (b) in the upper 300 feet of perennial streams, (c) off-line, (d) regional ponds
or (e) laterally within the buffer. Alternatively, other BMPs can be located outside of the buffer; although their outfalls
may still require a buffer crossing.
119
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
D off-line locations within the middle or
outer zone of the buffer, or
D use ponds only to manage stormwater
quantity within the buffer.
Criteria 8. Buffers during plan review and
construction. The limits and uses of stream
buffer systems should be well defined during
each stage of the development processfrom
initial plan review through construction. The
following steps are helpful during the
planning stage:
D require that the buffer be delineated on
preliminary and final concept plans
D verify the stream delineation in the field
D check mat buffer expansions are computed
and mapped properly
D check suitability of buffer for stormwater
treatment
D ensure that the other BMPs are properly
integrated in the buffer
D examine any buffer crossings for problems
Stream buffers are vulnerable to disturbance
during construction. Steps to prevent
encroachment during this stage include:
D mark buffer limits on all plans used during
construction (i.e., clearing and grading
plans, and erosion and sediment control
plans)
D conduct a preconstruction stakeout of
buffers to define limit of disturbance
D mark the limit of disturbance with silt or
snow fence barriers, and signs to prevent
the entry of construction equipment and
stockpiling
D familiarize contractors with the limit of
disturbance during a preconstruction
walk-through.
Criteria 9. Buffer education and enforcement.
The future integrity of a buffer system
requires a strong education and enforcement
program. Two primary goals of a buffer are to
make the buffer "visible" to the community,
and to encourage greater buffer awareness and
stewardship among adjacent residents. Several
simple steps that can accomplish these goals
include:
D mark the buffer boundaries with
permanent signs that describe allowable
uses
D educate buffer owners about the benefits
and uses of the buffer with pamphlets,
streamwalks and meetings with
homeowners associations
D ensure that new owners are fully informed
about buffer limits/uses when
property is sold or transferred.
D engage residents in a buffer stewardship
program that includes reforestation and
backyard "bufferscaping" programs
D conduct annual bufferwalks to check on
encroachment
The underlying theme of education is that
most encroachment problems reflect
ignorance rather than contempt for the buffer
system. The awareness and education
measures are intended to increase the
recognition of the buffer within the
community. Not all residents, however, will
respond to this effort, and some land of
limited enforcement program may be
120
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
necessary (Schueler 1994). This usually
involves a series of correction notices and site
visits, with civil fines used as a last resort if
compliance is not forthcoming. Some buffer
ordinances have a further enforcement option,
whereby the full cost of buffer restoration is
charged as a property lien (Schueler 1994). A
fair and full appeals process should
accompany any such enforcement action.
Criteria 10. Buffer flexibility. In most regions
of the country, a hundred foot buffer will take
about 5% of the total land area in any given
watershed out of production. While this
constitutes a relatively modest land reserve at
the watershed scale, it can be a significant
hardship for a landowner whose property is
adjacent to a stream. Many communities are
legitimately concerned that stream buffer
requirements could represent an
uncompensated taking of private property.
These concerns can be eliminated if a
community incorporates several simple
measures to ensure fairness and flexibility
when administering its buffer program. As a
general rule, the intent of the buffer program
is to modify the location of development in
relation to the stream but not its overall
intensity. Some flexible measures in the buffer
ordinance include:
Maintaining buffers in private ownership.
Buffer ordinances that retain property in
private ownership generally are considered by
the courts to avoid the takings issue, as buffers
provide compelling public safety, welfare and
the environmental benefits to the community
that justify partial restrictions on land use.
Most buffer programs meet the "rough
proportionality" test recently advanced by the
Supreme Court for local land use regulation
(Hornbach 1993). Indeed stream buffers are
generally perceived to have a neutral or
positive impact on adjacent property value.
The key point is that the reservation of the
buffer cannot take away all economically
beneficial use for the property. Four
techniques-buffer averaging, density
compensation, variances and conservation
easementscan ensure that property owners
are fully inoculated from this rare occurrence.
Buffer averaging. In this scheme, a
community provides some flexibility in the
width of the buffer. The basic concept is to
permit the buffer to become narrower at some
points along the stream (e.g., to allow for an
existing structure or to recover a lost lot), as
long as the average width of the buffer meets
the minimum requirement (Fig. 32). In
general, buffer narrowing is limited, such that
the streamside zone is not disturbed, and no
new structures are allowed within the 100-yr
floodplain (if this is a greater distance).
Density compensation. This scheme grants a
developer a credit for additional density
elsewhere on the site, in compensation for
developable land that has been lost due to the
buffer requirement. Developable land is
defined as the portion of buffer area remaining
after the 100-yr floodplain, wetland, and steep
slope areas have been subtracted. Credits are
granted when more than 5% of developable
land is consumed, using the formula shown in
Table 31. The density credit is accommodated
at the development site by allowing greater
flexibility in setbacks, frontage distances or
121
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
FIGURE 32: STREAM BUFFER DELINEATION: AVERAGING IN THE MIDDLE ZONE
Under buffer averaging, the width of the buffer can vary from point to point, as long as the average width in the parcel
meets the local criteria. The streamside zone, however, should not be encroached on.
TABLE 31: DENSITY COMPENSATION FORMULA FOR STREAM BUFFERS
0Wr«irtori^Lttrt ,
<\ >. 'to Buffers^ , ;
ltolO%
11 to 20%
21 to 30%
31 to 40%
41 to 50%
51 to 60%
61 to 70%
71 to 80%
81 to 90%
91 to 99%
" ;"D«ttsiQ* - ^
, "cwatM£ > x;*i
1.0
1.1
12
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
* Additional dwelling units allowed over based
density (1.0)
** Density credit may be transferred to a
different parcel
This density compensation formula, loosely adapted
from Burns (1992), is based on the premise that the
purpose of a buffer is to maintain distance from the
stream, and not to reduce allowable density.
122
-------
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
minimum lot sizes to squeeze in "lost lots."
Cluster development also allows the developer
to recover lots that are taken out of production
due to buffers and other requirements (cf
Chapter 4).
Variances. The buffer ordinance should have
provisions that enable a existing property
owner to be granted a variance or waiver, if
the owner can demonstrate severe economic
hardship or unique circumstances make it
impossible to meet some or all of the buffer
requirements. The owner should also have
access to an administrative appeals process
should a request for a variance be denied.
Conservation Easements. Landowners should
be afforded the option of protecting their
portion of the buffer in a perpetual
conservation easement. The easement
conditions the use of the buffer, and can be
donated to a land trust as a charitable
contribution that can reduce an owner's
income tax burden. Alternatively, an easement
can be donated to a local government, in
exchange for a reduction or elimination of
property tax on the parcel.
Resources Needed for Implementation
To implement a stream buffer program, a
community will need to adopt an ordinance,
.develop technical criteria, and invest in
additional staff resources and training.
The buffer ordinance should contain the ten
performance criteria described previously. A
suggested checklist for the ordinance can be
found in Table 32.
The real costs of instituting a buffer program
for local government involve the extra staff
and training time to conduct plan reviews,
provide technical assistance, field delineation,
construction and ongoing buffer education
programs. Seventy percent of the governments
surveyed by Heraty (1993) indicated that their
staff expended no more than 10% more time
to review buffers. In most cases, these
economies were achieved by combining plan
review and inspection functions with existing
environmental design requirements. However,
it should be noted that many of these
programs did not contain all of the
performance criteria recommended in this
chapter, so that the stated costs are probably
on the low side (i.e., many respondents did not
devote staff resources to delineate stream
boundaries in the field).
The adoption of a buffer program also requires
an investment in training for the plan reviewer
and the consultant alike. Manuals, workshops,
seminars and direct technical assistance are
needed to explain the new requirements to all
the players in the land development business.
Lastly, very few local communities yet
recognize the critical importance of buffer
maintenance to the long-term success of their
program. A relatively small staff commitment
(often just one individual) to systematically
inspect the buffer network before and after
construction, and to work with their residents
to increase and maintain awareness about
buffers, can be an excellent investment in
local stream protection.
123
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
TABLE 32; CHECKLIST FOR ADOPTING A STREAM BUFFER ORDINANCE
Providing Authority for the Stream Buffer
D Is it structured to comprehensively address all stream protection elements?
D Does it contain clear and simple performance standards?
D Does it utilize practical operating definitions and mapping units?
D Does the it support and unify the existing development review process?
Setting an Appropriate Threshold for Development
D Does it clearly define the activities that constitute "development?"
D Does it set forth reasonable exemptions?
D Does it contain provisions for waivers (and waiver fees) if a stream buffers are
not feasible at the site?
Providing Funding Support for Program Administration
D Does it authorize the collection of plan review/inspection and other fees?
D Are initial operating funds committed to support review staff?
Reducing Potential for Future Conflict in Plan Review
D Does it require delineation of all resource protection areas before concept plans are
considered?
D Does it specify the nature of submittal requirements for plan review?
D Does it contain a defined time-stable for plan review action?
D Does it allow for buffer averaging and/or density compensation?
Ensuring Compliance
D Does it contain a rapid and unified enforcement process?
D Does it require the posting of performance bonds?
Avoiding Legal Landmines
D Does it contain a fair and timely appeals procedure?
D Does it address grandfathering of recorded plats?
D Does it make allowances for special or unusual developments?
D Does it contain a severability clause?
D Are variances included?
D Are technical criteria adequately supported and referenced?
Many communities focus on technical criteria when crafting a stream buffer ordinance. As this checklist indicates,
successful buffer programs also emphasize institutional, review and enforcement aspects (adapted from Schueler 1994)
124
-------
aoo
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
References
Adams, L., L. Dove, D. Leedy and T.
Franklin. 1983. Methods for Stormwater
Control and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement:
analysis and evaluation. Urban Wildlife
Research Center. Columbia, MD. 200 pp.
Adams, L. 1994. Urban Wildlife Habitats-A
Landscape Perspective. Univ. Minneapolis
Press. Minneapolis, MN. 175 pp.
Bums, D. 1992. Environmental Protection and
Resource Conservation Plan. City of Lacey,
Washington. 169pp.
Castelle, A, C. Connolly, M. Emers, E. Metz,
S. Meyer, and. M. Witter. 1992. Wetland
buffers: an annotated bibliography.
Washington State Department of Ecology.
Olympia,Washington. 71 pp.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1993. The role and
function of forest buffers in the Chesapeake
Bay basin for nonpoint source management.
US Environmental Protection Agency.
CBP/TRS 91/93. Annapolis, MD. 10 pp.
Cochran, P. 1989. Historical changes in a
suburban hepetofauna in Dupage County,
Illinois. Bull. Chicago Herpetol. Soc. 24:1- 7.
Cooke, S. 1991. Wetland buffers-a field
evaluation of buffer effectiveness in Puget
Sound. Washington State Dept. of Ecology.
Olympia, WA. 150pp.
Corish, K. 1995. Clearing and Grading:
Strategies for Urban Watersheds.
Environmental Land Planning Series.
MWCOG66pp.
Correl, M., J. Lillydahl, and L. Singell 1978.
The effect of greenbelts on residential
property values: some findings on the political
economy of open space. Land. Economics
54(2).
Dillaha, T, J. Sherrard and D. Lee 1989.
Long-term effectiveness of vegetative buffer
strips. Water Environ. Technol. 1:418-421.
Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N.
Wolff. 1994. Vegetated buffers in the coastal
zone: a summary review and bibliography.
Coastal Resources Center. Univ. Rhode
Island. 72 pp.
Dorman, M. J. Hartigan, J. Steg and T.
Quaserbarth. 1989. Retention, Detention and
Overland Flow of Pollutant Removal for
Highway Runoff. Vol 1. Research Report.
FWHA/RD-89/202 pp.
Ferguson, B and T. Debo. 1991. On-site
Stormwater management-applications for
landscape and engineering. 2nd edition. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 270 pp.
Galli, J. 1991. The thermal impacts of
urbanization and urban best management
practices. Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments. Washington, DC. 220 pp.
Greene, G.F. 1950. Land use and trout
streams. J. Soil Water Conserv.
125
-------
Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection
Harper, H. 1988. Effects of stormwater
management systems on groundwater qualty
Final Report. Environmental Research and
Design, Inc. Prepared for Florida Dept. of
Environmental Regulation. 460 pp.
Heraty, M. 1993. Riparian buffer programs: a
guide to developing and implementing a
riparian buffer program as an urban
stormwater best management practice.
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. U.S. EPA Office of Oceans,
Wetlands and Watersheds. 152 pp.
Hornbach, J. 1993. Private property and
community rights -^ what communities can
still do after Lucas. Developments 3(1):14.
Kan, J., and I. Schlosser, 1978. Water
resources and the land-water interface.
Science. 201-229-234.
Leopold, L., M. Wolman and J.Miller. 1964.
Fluvial processes in geomorpholgy.W.H
Freeman and Company. San Fransisco, CA.
509pp.
Magette, W. R. Brinsfield, R. Palmer, and J.
Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal
by vegetated filter strips. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
32(2):663-667
Maryland Office of Planning (MOP). 1993.
Preparing a Sensitive Areas Element for the
Comprehensive Plan. Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resources. Baltimore, MD 50 pp.
Mazour, L. 1988. Converted railroad trails;
the impact on adjacent property. Master's
thesis. Dept. Landscape Architecture, Kansas
State Univ.
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (MWCOG). 1995. Riparian
buffer strategies for urban watersheds. Metro.
Wash. Counc. Gov. Wash. DC 154 pp.
Minton, S. 1968. The fate of amphibians and
reptiles in a suburban area. J. Herpetol.
Nieswand, G, R. Hordon, T. Shelton, B.
Chavooshian and S. Blarr. 1989. Buffer strips
to protect water supply reservoirs: a model
and recommendations. Water Resour. Res.
26(6): 959-966.
Pluhowski, E. J. 1970. Urbanization and its
effects on the temperature of the streams in
Long Island, New York. USGS Professional
Paper 627-D. 110pp.
Schueler, T. 1994. The Stream Protection
Approach. Center for Watershed Protection.
66pp.
Schueler, T. 1994. The invisibility of stream
and wetland buffers-can their integrity be
maintained?. Wat. Prot. Techniques 1:(1):
19-21.
Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff-
a practical manual for planning and designing
urban best management practices.
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Government. Washington, DC. 202 pp.
126
-------
2.07-
Chapter 5: The Architecture of Stream Buffers
Seattle METRO. 1992. Biofiltration swale
performance, recommendations and design
considerations. Water Pollution Control
Department. Seattle, WA.
Seattle Office of Planning. 1987. Evaluation
of the Burke-Gilmans trail effect on property
values and crime. Seattle, WA 46 pp.
Steedman, R. 1988. Modification and
assessment of an index of biotic integrity to
quantify stream quality in Southern Ontario.
Can. J. Fisheries Aquatic Sci. 45:492-501.
Sweeney, B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside
vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities
of White Clay Creek in Eastern North
America. Proc. Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sci.,
No. 144, pp. 291-340.
Welsch, D. 1991. Riparian forest buffers.
USDA Forest Service. Forest Resources
Management. Radnor PA. 22 pp.
Yu, S., M. Kasnick and M. Byrne. 1992. A
level spreader/vegetative buffer strip system
for urban stormwater management. In:
Integrated Storm Water Management, pp.
93-104. R. Field, editor. Lewis Publishers.
Boca Raton. PL.
Yu, S., S. Barnes and V. Gedde, 1993. Testing
of best management practices for controlling
highway runoff. Virginia Transportation
Research Council. FWHA/VA 93-R16 60 pp.
127
-------
2.03
MAN
A BASIC REFERENCE MANUAL
New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water
Bureau of Water Quality
Albany, New York
January 1986
(second printing)
Henry G. Williams, Commissioner
-------
CHAPTER 4: STEPS FOR
SOLVING THE PROBLEM
(A PLANNING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING FRAMEWORK)
The purpose of this chapter is to present a planning and problem-solving framework
for addressing critical stream corridor management issues, problems, and needs.
Without such a planning framework, problems and issues may be addressed in
piecemeal fashion, decision-making will be disjointed, and actions taken will tend to
be fragmented and unrelated. Most important, actions taken without a planning over-
view or focus provide little or no assurance that critical natural and cultural resources
within the stream corridor are being protected or enhanced. The planning and
problem-solving framework in this chapter is presented in a step-by-step format as
follows:
STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE PLANNING AREA
The first step is to identify the planning area. This may be accomplished by obtain-
ing a base map of the principal drainages and subdrainage basins within the communi-
ty. Planning area boundary lines then should be superimposed on the base map (see
Figure 10). The planning area should include all that land area from which stream cor-
ridor management problems are perceived to arise. The planning area could include
an entire watershed; it is suggested that it not be less than several hundred feet land-
ward from both banks of a stream. Under no circumstances should it be less than the
100-year flood plain. At this stage, the planning area boundary should remain flexible.
There will be ample opportunity to fine tune the planning area boundary and to
establish stream corridor management boundaries as information is assembled and
analyzed in subsequent steps.
STEP 2: INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF LAND USE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
In Step 2, existing land use and natural and cultural resources in the planning area
should be mapped. The maps used for this work should be at the same scale as that
used in establishing planning area boundaries. This will facilitate comparison of data in
analyzing developmental trends and environmental constraints (See Figure 11).
Existing Land Use and Developmental Trends
Evaluate existing land use and county and local economic development trends in
the planning area or that impact the planning area. Include in the evaluation such
growth-inducing factors as current and anticipated major public and private capital in-
vestments; for example:
industrial expansion
major commercial development
suburban residential development
development of natural resources (e.g., forestry, mining, recreation, etc.)
other social and economic factors
The evaluation should include (a) development that has occurred over the past few
years, (b) developmental activities which are currently influencing the patterns and
magnitude of growth in the planning area, and (c) development now in the early
stages of programming which may impact the stream corridor ten or twenty years
hence. This evaluation should show patterns and intensity of land use in the planning
area, including urban and non-urban uses in undeveloped areas. The relative density
and classification of development, i.e., industrial, commercial, residential, etc., should
be mapped.
-------
Figure 10. Base Map
37
-------
201-
Figure 11. Land Use
DEVELOPED AREAS
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
UNDEVELOPED AREAS
FOREST LAND
AGRICULTURE
IDLE LAND
-------
2-Ofc
Natural andlCultural Resource Inventory and Assessment
An inventory of natural and cultural resources in the planning area should be
prepared. This inventory will involve acquiring, field checking (where appropriate)
and mapping data, on overlays on the base map, the following kinds of information:'
Surficial and bedrock geology.
Soils and related information on development constraints and potentials, in-
cluding soil depth, soil credibility, soil structure, soil wetness, soil percolation,
and slope.
Major vegetative types.
Surface and groundwater hydrology. (Include water quality classifications,
known aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, and lakes).
Historical and archeological sites and districts.
Wetlands.
Flood plains and areas of tidal inundation (including flood plains not identified
on HUD maps).
Agricultural lands.
Fish and wildlife habitats by species.
Rare or endangered plant and animal species in study area.
Areas of outstanding scenic quality, e.g., waterfalls, scenic vistas, etc.
The preceding items are illustrative of factors that should be considered in the
natural and cultural resources inventory. This list is not meant to be all-inclusive. Ad-
ditional relevant factors, as may relate to the local situation, also should be identified
in the inventory. Areas subject to special protective measures, such as park lands or
rivers that have been designated in the State's Wild and Scenic River Program, and
streams for which fishing easements have been acquired, should be identified and
mapped (see figure 12).
The resources inventory must be based on reliable and acceptable sources of infor-
mation such as that which is available from county soil and water conservation
districts, United States Geological Survey's research papers, and from federal and state
flood plain maps. The Department of Environmental Conservation publication
"Natural Resources Inventory: A Guide to the Process" may be helpful for identifying
potential sources of information. Information also might be obtained from regional
and local planning agencies, county environmental management councils, local conser-
vation advisory councils, and conservation advisory boards. Many of these agencies
have prepared natural resources inventories, open space indexes, and natural resource
plans.
An assessment of the existing benefits that the natural and cultural resources in the
planning area provide to the community should be made. The assessment should also
examine the potential for restoring or rehabilitating a resource, a fishery, for example.
This can be a descriptive statement which recognizes the importance of the resources
to the community, i.e., whether the resource serves (or could serve) active recrea-
tional interests such as fishing, or passive recreational interests such as sightseeing, or
water supply needs, etc. The assessment should be based on the natural and cultural
resource inventory.
Environmental Constraints Analysis
Information from the resources inventory should be used to evaluate constraints to
growth and development in the planning area such as flood plains, critical wildlife
habitats, high soil erosion potential, historical landmarks, scenic vista, high ground-
water table, wetlands, etc.
Map information may be obtained from the Map Information Unit, New York
State Department of Transportation, Building 4, Room 105, State Campus,
Albany, New York 12232, 518-457-4755. 39
-------
Figure 12. Natural Resources Data
40
-------
1.10
For some situations, a three-element scale for rating constraints to development as
"slight," "moderate," or "severe" might be useful. Transparent overlay maps of the
various resource features can be superimposed upon one another and from this a sum-
mary map can be produced that can be used for making informed land use decisions
in the planning area (see Figure 13).
In undertaking the constraints analysis, it will be useful to consult with other plan-
ning agencies, environmental management councils and conservation commissions and
also, professional resource managers, to assist in the classification and interpretation of
information in the natural resource inventory. The sources of data and methods used
in the analysis should be included as part of the narrative in the report.
STEP 3: PROBLEM AND NEED ASSESSMENT
Identifying the water problems, needs, and opportunities for use or'environmental
enhancement is one of the most important steps of the evaluation process. Problems
and needs should be separated into three categories: in-stream problems, stream cor-
ridor problems, and watershed problems as discussed below:
la-Stream Problems and Needs Under this category problems directly related
to the bed and banks of the stream, as well as to the stream proper, should be dis-
cussed. Problems, such as those described in Chapter 2 for example, destruction of
fisheries habitat through stream channelization, removal of streambank vegetation,
sedimentation, and problems related to littering of streambed with trash or rubbish,
including bottles, cans, or other debris should be briefly discussed. The location of
these problems and sources should be mapped on a base map overlay. As a corollary
to the problems, management needs such as fisheries management, water quality
management, flood plain management, recreational development, restoration or
rehabilitation of scenic resources, etc., should be discussed.
Stream Corridor Management Problems and Needs Aside from the direct
impacts of various activities to the bed and banks of a stream, the stream corridor is
the land unit that normally has the greatest influence on the quality and character of a
stream. A stream is most vulnerable to sediment stemming from erosion and runoff
which originates in the stream corridor, or to heat gain through removal of a stream
corridor's vegetative canopy. Also, portions of a stream corridor may be flood prone.
Thus, flood prone areas, and land use activities in the stream corridor which adversely
affect a stream, whether they are related to agriculture, forestry, construction/urban
encroachment, or mining activities, should be identified and mapped. A description
also should be made of these activities and how they are impacting the stream, i.e.,
whether it is a quantity or quality relationship, or alteration of the biological structure
of the stream. Professional resource managers from Regional Offices of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, County Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
and county and local planning agencies and environmental management councils
should be consulted during this assessment to the extent necessary.
Watershed Management Problems and Needs If local communities are to
protect and conserve the resources of streams and creeks, they may have to look
beyond the water course and stream corridor and consider the watershed in its en-
tirety. Because of the cause/effect relationships of various processes inherent in land
use to streams and creeks, water courses serve as an index of health of the entire
watershed. Accordingly, stream management problems related to various land use ac-
tivities that extend beyond the stream corridor, which are more of a watershed-wide
concern, should be described and mapped. Here again the assistance of professional
resource managers may be necessary.
41
-------
SLOPES OVER 15%
MODERATE TO SEVERE
SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL
WETLANDS
FLOODPLAINS
HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
Figure 13. Natural Resources Inventory and Environmental Constraints Assessment
-------
STEP 4: ESTABLISH THE STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY
While there is no precise scientific formula for determining the optimum boundary
location for any single stream corridor management unit, completion of the preceding
steps should facilitate this process. The stream corridor management unit should have
a "floating" boundary.
A floating stream conservation and management corridor varies in width according
to the location of important natural resource features and environmental constraints
which exert a strong influence on the character and quality of the stream and its sur-
roundings. Wooded areas, wetlands, floodplains, scenic vistas, and areas having land
use constraints, such as steep hillsides or soils having high erosion potential, should
be included in the floating corridor (see Figure 14). Guidelines for establishing a
stream corridor boundary are presented in Table 10.
StOKS OVER tf %
VJ WETLANDS
FLOOOnjUNS
A | WSTOWCAL LANDMARKS
!$!:3 wn-DUFE HABITAT
STREAM CORRIDOR
Figure 14. Floating Stream Corridor Boundary
43
-------
2.13
Table 10
GUIDELINES FOR ESTABLISHING A FLOATING STREAM CORRIDOR BOUNDARY
1. A floating stream corridor management boundary should be delineated so as to
include within the management area those natural, cultural, and historic features
whose protection and preservation are important with respect to community
stream conservation goals and objectives.
2. Such features may include, for example, scenic areas, natural, or historic land-
marks, floodplains and wetlands, significant wildlife habitat, watershed and
aquifer areas, ecologically important areas, and stream or waterway related out-
door recreational facilities. Such features should be identified on a list and briefly
described in a narrative and, in addition, each feature should be referenced on an
official map.
3. In establishing a floating stream corridor management boundary, consideration
should be given to protecting natural and cultural features, such as the above, by
establishing the boundary a reasonable distance landward, for example 100 feet
for a wetland, to provide an adequate protective buffer area.
4. In defining the stream corridor management boundary, consideration should be
given to the applicability of property boundaries, or regulatory boundaries, such as
those on a zoning map, and to features such as roads or railroads which may
parallel the stream and make the stream relatively easy to delineate and identify
on a map.
5. By law (Environmental Conservation Law, Article 15, Title 27), the boundary width
for a river (or stream) designated by the state as "Wild", "Scenic", or "Recrea-
tional" can be no farther landward than one-half mile from the mean high water
mark in the river.
STEP 5: ESTABLISH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals and objectives must be established for the planning area. A goal is a general
statement of policy focused on long-term accomplishments for the common good of
the community; for example, to protect and enhance fisheries habitat, to protect soil
resources, to protect drinking water supplies, to provide for increased recreational op-
portunity, or to protect the scenic and visual communities in the planning area. An
objective is a specific, task-oriented statement which needs to be carried out in order
to achieve a goal; for example, to establish a vegetative canopy in the stream corridor,
or to ensure that development of the planning area is consistent with environmental
constraints. Each goal is usually accompanied by two 6r' more objectives which iden-
tify a variety of tasks that must be achieved in order to achieve the goal. Table 11
identifies several goals and a number of objectives which can either be adopted
directly or modified to meet local stream corridor management needs.
STEP 6: ANALYZE PLANS, LAND USE CONTROLS, AND
THEIR CONSISTENCY WITH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Land use and land-related plans, if implemented, can have a significant influence on
the intensity and patterns of development in the stream corridor. Therefore, as factors
of growth, each plan which has been adopted, or is expected to be adopted, should
be evaluated to determine its potential for shaping growth patterns. Similarly, plan im-
plementation mechanisms, both existing and proposed, should be evaluated.
Plan Review. Examine relevant state, regional, county, and local land use and land
use-related plans and briefly describe their geographical area of coverage, and indicate
the purpose of the plans through a summarization of their goals and objectives.
-------
TABLE 11. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals and objectives reflect the vision and aspirations that a community has for
the future. The following goals and objectives represent not only a vision, but also
the state's aspirations for its streams and associated water resources. Com-
munities across the State are encouraged to reflect upon these goals and objec-
tives, tailor them to local problems and needs, and incorporate them into ongoing
local planning efforts. Above all, local agencies are encouraged to serve as the
driving force to ensure that programs to achieve adopted goals and objectives are
effectively implemented.
Goal
To restore, protect, and enhance water quality and associated aquatic resources
and water supplies.
Objectives
To minimize erosion and prevent sedimentation of waterways.
To prevent the accelerated enrichment of streams and contamination of water-
ways from runoff containing nutrients, pathogenic organisms, organic
substances, and heavy metals and toxic substances.
To maintain or restore a natural vegetative canopy along streams where required
to ensure that mid-summer stream temperatures do not exceed tolerance limits
of desirable aquatic organisms.
To maintain the stream or waterway free from litter, trash, and other debris.
« To minimize the disturbance of streambed and prevent streambank erosion and,
where practical, to restore eroding streambanks to a natural or stable condition.
To restore, rehabilitate, or enhance water quality and associated resources
through the implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices on the
land.
Goal
^ To minimize the threat to life and the destruction of property and natural
resources from flooding, and preserve (or reestablish) natural flood plain
hydrologic functions.
Objectives
To ensure that runoff from developing and urbanizing areas is controlled such
that it does not unnecessarily Increase the frequency and intensity of flooding
at the risk of threatening life and property.
To adopt appropriate land use controls and performance standards for control-
ling development of flood plains.
Goal
To restore, protect, develop, and enhance the historic, cultural, recreational, and
visual amenities of rural and urban stream corridors. .
Objectives
To ensure that environmental resource constraints are fully considered in
establishing land use patterns in stream corridors.
To retain and preserve open space and visual amenities in urban and rural areas
by establishing and maintaining greenbelts along stream corridors.
To ensure that development in the stream corridor is consistent with the
historical and cultural character of the surroundings and fully reflects the need
to protect visual amenities.
45
-------
2.15"
Table 11. (Continued)
To ensure that the recreational and fisheries potential of a stream corridor are
developed to the fullest extent practicable.
To maximize the use of creative and imaginative resources to rehabilitate and
transform urban stream corridors, which through neglect may represent a source
of urban decay and blight, into attractive community assets consistent with
historical or other cultural amenities.
Plan Implementation Effects on the magnitude, quality, direction, and timing of
growth. Analyze, evaluate, and describe, in narrative and graphic form, how the pro-
posals in the 'plans are expected to influence land use and growth in the stream cor-
ridor planning area, and describe how the proposed stream corridor management unit
relates to various plans. For example, show, on a map overlay scaled to the stream
corridor planning area base maps, how various land use planning activities and im-
plementation strategies, such as zoning and other land use controls and infrastructure
investment (e.g., water supply, transportation, sewers) will influence and direct
growth, including timing, density, and magnitude. Questions to be answered include:
Are emerging and potential growth and land use patterns in accord with stream
corridor management goals and objectives?
Do land use plans and implementation mechanisms, including zoning and other
controls, provide adequate protection of environmentally critical areas within a
stream corridor planning area such as: flood plains, wetlands, significant wildlife
habitats, scenic and historical features, riparian vegetation, and agricultural areas?
If not, explain the reasons therefore.
Are the plans responsive to the physical conditions of the planning area, such as
shallow or clay soils, topography, high water table, and poor drainage?
Plan Consistency. To avoid land use conflicts, it is important to ensure that
stream corridor management plans are consistent with state, regional, and local plans
and their implementation strategies. If they are not, adjustments or modifications to
various plans may have to be made. Some existing county and local plans may be out-
of-date or inadequate in other ways. Some may not be sensitive to physical or en-
vironmental resource conditions.
Land use and related plans that are inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the
established stream corridor management planning area, may be updated, revised, or
refined by the local agency or other agencies responsible for plan preparation, so as to
ensure consistency.
CONSISTENCY WITH DEC STREAM
AND RIVER CONSERVATION PLANS AND PROGRAMS
In order to ensure greater planning consistency, local agencies and
organizations are encouraged to contact DEC regional offices (listed on
inside of back cover) to discuss stream corridor management goals and
objectives, and implementation strategies. Such discussion should be
helpful not only for learning about technical assistance which DEC may
also be able to provide,, but also to avoid potential planning conflicts
and to ascertain whether or not permits may be required to implement
any segment of the stream corridor management plan (See Chapter 6).
46
-------
Plan Effectiveness. Indicate whether or not policies and plans and implementation
strategies, including state and local land use controls and infrastructure investment,
educational programs, incentive programs, etc., are likely to be effective in terms of
meeting stream corridor management goals and objectives. Indicate whether or not
the performance standards in zoning, subdivision, or site plan review regulations are
adequate.
STEP 7: EXAMINE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Once the goals and objectives have been formulated, management options for
achieving them should be arrayed and examined. The options will range from
remedial and preventative land management measures and practices, for addressing
existing problems and for preventing new ones from occurring, to opportunities
for developing stream corridor resources to'their fullest potential. The remaining
chapters in this manual are devoted largely to a discussion of stream corridor manage-
ment opportunities.
STEP 8: PREPARE STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
A stream corridor management plan should be prepared in consultation with
interested local, county, and regional agencies and affected property owners and
private interest groups. The plan, which should be based on the analysis of informa-
tion generated under the preceding steps, should:
Contain a clear description and delineation in narrative and graphic form (maps
and photographs) of the significant natural, cultural, and aesthetic resources and
features of the stream corridor; existing land and water uses; land ownership;
and existing land and water controls and management activities and programs.
Set forth a detailed plan to address existing or potential issues, problems, and
needs which impact, or may impact, resources and features in the stream cor-
ridor which are important to protect and preserve. The protection and enhance-
ment" of natural resources and cultural features may include the restoration of
resources negatively impacted by previous or existing land use and development.
Set forth land and water management goals and objectives, and specific policies,
standards, and management guidelines to implement a definitive, long-range pro-
gram of protection, enhancement, and compatible public uses.
Set forth specific regulations, including standards and restrictions, that will
govern the use of land and water resources. Standards and restrictions should in-
clude, as necessary and appropriate, provisions for forest management; provi-
sions for construction of roads, trails, and bridges; motorized access; and sub-
division, principal buildings, and other structures; water quality; refuse disposal;
stream improvement; and signs and utilities, etc.
Provide for the continuing involvement of the affected and interested public in
the development, implementation, and administration of the plan.
Contain a fiscal element which identifies funding sources and schedule for plan
implementation.
STEP 9: IMPLEMENTATION AND FEEDBACK
It is during this step that stream management plans are implemented. As a function
of this phase, implementation activities should be evaluated on an ongoing basis to
identify program success and shortfalls. As program deficiencies become apparent,
new strategies can be developed to achieve goals and objectives.
-------
CHAPTER 5: STREAM
CONSERVATION OPTIONS
AND CHOICES FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the opportunities available to local govern-
ment through policy development, education, land acquisition, land use controls,
floodplain regulations, tax incentives, governmental aid programs, and other options
for protecting, conserving, and enhancing their streams and stream corridor resources.
STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Policy Development
Information and Education
Land Acquisition
Land Use Controls
Tax Incentives
Governmental Aid Programs
Special Improvement Districts
Watershed Rules and Regulations
Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Program
48
POLICY DEVELOPMENT:
Counties, towns, cities, and villages can have a positive influence on streams and
stream corridors within their political jurisdiction through the adoption of policies to
guide the activities and actions of local program administrators. Stream conservation
policy directives adopted by a local legislative body can be of particular significance in
the following program areas:
Highway Construction and Maintenance
Local policies can be adopted which direct highway supervisors to adhere to and
implement various stream conservation practices during highway planning, construc-
tion, and maintenance operations. Contractual arrangements for highway construction
also can include requirements for taking proper safeguards and implementing proper
"best management practices" (BMPs) during and following construction activities.
Stream conservation practices and measures (BMPs) are contained in Chapter 6 of
this manual. These range from providing guidance to properly locating stream cross-
ings and proper culvert installation techniques to locating areas for properly disposing
of spoil material from a stream channel clearing operation.
Additional site-specific guidance on the selection and design of appropriate manage-
ment practices, for example seeding mixtures for road bank stabilization, may be ob-
tained from County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. County highway depart-
ment engineers also can provide substantial guidance on site-specific measures for pro-
tecting streams from highway construction and maintenance activities.
Building Inspection and Zoning Enforcement
Building inspectors and zoning enforcement officials have significant influence over
the manner in which development proceeds in a community, particularly in terms of
guiding the behavior of developers. Through development of policies, local legislators
can direct inspectors and zoning officials to assist community efforts to achieve stream
corridor conservation goals and objectives. Policy development in this regard can oc-
cur essentially in the following three areas:
-------
^\%
Designated Priority Area Building inspectors can be advised through a policy
memorandum that the legislative body considers streams and stream corridors to
be of special significance to the community and, as such, building inspectors and
zoning officers are to give priority attention to projects within a stream corridor.
They can direct inspectors to ensure that developers are in close compliance
with local zoning laws designed to protect stream corridors and they can insist
that such laws be rigorously enforced. Local boards also can direct inspectors
and zoning officers to work closely with developers to ensure that appropriate
BMPs (many of which are contained in Chapter 6) are implemented as needed.
Training A local legislative body may adopt a policy which seeks to ensure
that building inspectors and zoning officers receive the proper training to per-
form their tasks. A block of time in a training program could be devoted to
stream corridor management. Regional and county planning agencies have the
potential to structure such a training program for communities within their
jurisdiction.
Increased Staffing A local legislative board may find it necessary and desirable,
particularly in rapidly expanding communities, to expand the staff of building in-
spectors to assist in the administration of a variety of regulatory activities in-
cluding those related to stream corridor management.
Mobilize Service Organizations
Local officials can mobilize the resources of community service organizations by en-
couraging their participation in stream corridor conservation projects, such as litter
removal and tree planting along stream banks. For example, boy and girl scouts, youth
groups, and other organizations have been extremely effective in tree planting projects
and removing litter from streams. Inmates from many state and county correctional
facilities often are available for community projects such as streambank fencing and
tree planting.
Implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
On November 1, 1978, local governments became responsible for implementing
SEQR (Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law). Local of-
ficials can adopt policies and procedures to ensure full implementation of SEQR as
mandated.
SEQR applies to the following local (and state) actions:
projects affecting the environment that:
are directly undertaken by an agency
are funded by an agency, or
require one or more permits or approvals from an agency
planning activities that affect future choices
the making of rules, regulations, procedures, or policies
any combination of the above.
Under the Act, local agencies include: any local board, agency, authority, district,
commission, or governing body, including any city, county, or other political subdivi-
sion of the state.
SEQR is of particular significance to stream corridor management as it creates a
process by which decision-makers can identify, measure, and interpret the potential
impacts of a proposed action at the earliest possible time in the planning of a project,
communicate this information to others, and utilize this information in making their
decisions. The law emphasizes the importance of protecting the natural environment
and requires environmental factors to be considered along with social and economic
considerations when decisions are being made. Table 12 provides criteria for deter-
mining whether or not a proposed project within a stream corridor is of.environmen-
tal significance. Additional guidance on implementing SEQR may be obtained from
Regional Offices of the Department of Environmental Conservation listed inside the
back cover.
-------
TABLE 12
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
This list is designed to aid lead agencies in determining whether impacts which
may be expected to result from a proposed action will have a significant effect on
the environment. It should be consulted for Type I and Unlisted Actions. The list is
not exhaustive, but these criteria are definite indications of significant environmental
effects:
A substantial adverse change in existing air quality, water quality, or noise levels;
a substantial increase in solid waste production; a substantial increase in poten-
tial for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems.
The removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna; the substan-
tial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species; impacts on a significant habitat area; or substantial adverse effects on a
threatened or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of such a
species.
The encouraging or attracting of a large number of people to a place or places for
more than a few days compared to the number of people who would come to
such place absent the action.
The creation of a material conflict with a community's existing plans or goals as
officially approved or adopted.
The impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological,
or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character.
A major change in the use of either the quantity or type of energy. .
The creation of a hazard to human health or safety.
A substantial change in the use or intensity of use of land or other natural
resources or in their capacity to support existing uses.
The creation of a material demand for other actions which would result in one of
the above consequences.
Changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a
significant effect on the environment, but which when taken together result in a
substantial adverse impact on the environment.
Two or more related actions undertaken, funded, or approved by an agency, no
one of which has or would have a significant effect on the environment, but which
cumulatively meet one or more of the criteria in this section.
Source: Johnson, T.H., etaL. 1979
50
INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
Information and education is an essential element of a stream corridor management
program. If such a program is to be successfully implemented, the public will have to
be fully informed about such factors as the problems and issues, goals and objectives,
and implementation strategies. The information base which is developed in a series of
steps for solving the problem (see Chapter 4) will be invaluable for purposes of
educating the public about the stream corridor management program.
LAND ACQUISITION
Land acquisition is an important stream corridor management tool which is
available to communities for protecting critical environmental areas or for acquiring
recreational lands or public access thereto. A variety of land acquisition techniques,
including their advantages and limitations, are presented in Table 13. Potential sources
of funding for land acquisition, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund and
"Return a Gift to Wildlife Fund", are identified in Section F (Governmental Aid Pro-
grams) of this chapter .Additionally, Section 247 of the General Municipal Law allows a
municipality to acquire land for conservation of natural or scenic resources. The
municipality can acquire outright title to the land or some lesser interest, such as an
easement or a restrictive covenant.
-------
TABLE 13
LAND ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES
1
KTTHOD
Fc*
1
7
3.
j.
e.
Acquisition
Purchase and
leaeback
Purchue and
(ranting of lift/
other reservation
of vae
Donation/bargain
BaleS
Right of Mnt
refusal
EXPLANATION
ent(a))
Fit acquisition but public use
cified tar* or until death of
preaent owntr
Acquisition of full or partial
Inttrtit In property at less
then fair market value
Requirement of preaent owntr
tele to mother private owner;
right can either be purchased.
legislated* or condemned;
right MJ or may not be
relitd
ACEWCY OR CPOUP LHLT..T
ADVANTAGES LIMITATIONS TO BE INVOLVED
.
afforded
the best method of dellnctt- original landowner; public
retold
of th« property; Income; more ponlbly politically dltniptlvc
erty Chin If only in Interest
« retained
Ut« of public fundi uxl*U*d; Halted fcdtril tax b«ncflti to Local, State, ind Federal
ant tax bcncflta to donor donor (e.».. m«il*u» tax r«- govcmscnti; private
ductd fro* 70X to 501. Making truita
charitable contributions Ita*
attractive in 1982)
fully delineated
Partial Interest
1. Eaasatnt
Ownership of portion of the
rights Included in ftc-tlsple
ovntrshlp of proptrty such ai
development, acctss. and tU-
b«T rights
"Rental" of all or portion of
proptrty for contractual period
3. Combination of For example, purchaeo of Cull
Both Full Fee fee on one portion of a alte
Furchasa and and an easement purchase on
fartlal Interest the remainder
Frlv
title and ii responsible for
sunagevcnt of proptrty; leaa
costly in aost esses thin fte
acquisition; flexible
Continued private use and
ownership of property; often
involves shorter time period
to achieve desired uae; does
not cowit public entity to
aite IB perpetuity
Allows for creative land uses
and a treat deal of flexibil-
ity la negotiation with land-
owner
Cost may Dearly equal fair mar-
ket value of fce-aluplt la tome
cites; potentially vary limited
or no public uae of property;
possible management problem!;
limitations on charitable con-
tribution! of easements
Local, State, and Federal
governments; private
Lack of public ownerahIp can
limit public expenditures and
restricts long-term alte plan*
oiag; annual lease feet
Local, State, and Federal
Can Involve complex rights and
uses; can alao be tImeconsumlng
to package land protection
scheme
Same aa above
Source: U.S. Department of Interior, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the River Management Plan: Upper Delaware^ (National Scenic and Recreational
River/New York-Pennsylvania) National Park Service, Denver. October 1982.
LAND USE CONTROLS
SAMPLE LAND USE CONTROL PROVISIONS
AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
APPLICABLE TO STREAM
CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT
Sample land use control provisions and performance standards which
can be used in a stream corridor management context are available
from the Bureau of Water Resources, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233.
The Appendix provides a list of sample provisions available.
52
-------
22.1
Local government can draw upon a variety of regulatory techniques to control land
use activities for the purpose of protecting and enhancing streams and stream corridor
resources. The approaches which should find most widespread application are briefly
described as follows:
Zoning
Zoning is the most widely used tool for controlling land use and managing com-
munity growth which local governments have at their disposal. Basically, zoning en-
tails the division of a community into sections or districts and prescribes what uses
can be made of the land therein. Zoning also prescribes the density of development in
a community through provisions which establish minimum setback distances, percent-
age of lot that may be occupied, and minimum lot size which applies to entire
districts. Figure 15 is illustrative of a traditional zoning map.
Without the inclusion of provisions which specifically respond to stream conserva-
tion needs, zoning as described above may be inadequate to respond to the stream
corridor management task for the following reason. Regulatory standards for each
land class or zoning district are uniformly applied; therefore, landscape features within
a stream corridor are treated the same as land for the entire zoning district. As a result
of this, uniformity, zoning may not take into consideration such development con-
straints as steep hillsides, scenic vistas, erosive sites, natural drainage, and many other
environmental features. In recognition of this limitation, several variations of zoning
have evolved which have specific application to stream corridor planning and manage-
ment. These include zoning provisions for establishing stream conservation districts
and incentive zoning.
Figure 15.
TRADITIONAL ZONING MAP
R-1 RESIDENTIAL
R-2 RESIDENTIAL
C-1 COMMERCIAL
M INDUSTRIAL
RC-1 RESOURCE CONSERVATION
D
1 ROADS
ZONING DISTRICTS
VILLAGES
53
-------
Figure 16.
STREAM CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICTS
STREAM CONSERVATION DISTRICT
R-1 RESIDENTIAL
R-2 RESIDENTIAL
C-1 COMMERCIAL
M INDUSTRIAL
RC-1 RESOURCE CONSERVATION
ROADS
ZONING DISTRICTS
O VILLAGES
Stream Conservation Districts Communities can elect to establish stream
conservation districts to protect and enhance streams and stream corridors. This can
be accomplished through overlay zoning where zoning already exists or through the
creation of a special stream conservation district in communities which have not
enacted zoning ordinances. Performance standards excerpted from the state Wild,
Scenic, and Recreational River (draft) regulations are available from the Department of
Environmental Conservation upon request (see Appendix R). These standards may be
used directly or tailored for application to a stream conservation district.
Overlay Zoning Overlay zoning is the basic approach that a community can
take to control land use activities within the stream corridor. As applied to stream
corridors, overlay zoning delineates a stream conservation district through mapping
and superimposes a set of regulations or standards and requirements on existing
zoning (see Figure 16). Overlay zoning is particularly suited to stream corridor
management where there is a special public interest such as the need for floodplain
management, conserving erosive soils on steep hillsides, and protecting historic
sites, scenic vistas, or other natural resource features in a geographic area (i.e., the
stream corridor) that does not coincide with the underlying zoning boundary (see
Appendixes C and R).
No Community-wide Zoning A community which has not adopted a com-
munity-wide zoning ordinance may wish to protect its stream corridor through the
. adoption and enforcement, by local law, of a special stream conservation district
regulation. Such a district would be applicable only to those parts of the communi-
ty within established stream corridor district boundaries. This approach would re-
-------
225
quire'the local governing body to designate an enforcement officer, for example,
the town clerk. Stream conservation district regulations would be required, and an
appeals procedure would have to be established. The site plan review process
described below could serve as the project review mechanism.
Incentive Zoning Incentive zoning, or bonus zoning, as it is often referred to,
provides another approach to stream corridor management. Essentially, incentive zon-
ing provides for a trading arrangement between the community and the property
owner. In exchange for the developer providing something that the community feels
is in its interest, for example, the protection of a stream*corridor, more open space,
and the use of cluster development designs rather than conventional lot-by-lot de-
velopment, the developer is given a bonus. The bonus usually is permission to build at
greater density, for example more floor area or more dwelling units. A common use
of incentive zoning is found in Planned Unit Development Regulations described in a
later section of this chapter (see Appendix F).
Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision regulations are a tool to fashion development in defined ways and by
prescribed methods so as to regulate the use of private land in the public interest.
Within recent years, the exercise of subdivision regulation has become increasingly
broadened by incursions into the area of timing of development, wetlands and flood-
plain protection, reservation of land for recreational use and other purposes and man-
datory dedications of open space, and for protection against environmental degrada-
tion.
Viewed in this context, the relationship between stream corridor management and
subdivision regulation should be obvious. A prime example is the ability and necessity
to control development in areas where the replacement of the natural vegetation and
undisturbed soil which would normally absorb stormwater runoff by artificial
concrete, asphalt, and steel construction would lead to increased problems of flooding
(see Figure 17).
The state's planning laws permit cities, villages, and towns (and in certain cases,
counties and regional planning boards, if authorized by the counties) to review sub-
' divisions to ensure that good subdivision design is obtained through compliance with
established standards of performance. Communities with or without zoning may enact
subdivision regulations.
Figure 17. Subdivision Configuration. A well maintained stream can serve as a focal point
to a subdivision. (Adopted from "Control of Land Subdivision", 1974)
55
-------
Other Regulatory Techniques
Several other regulatory techniques, which have evolved out of zoning and the
regulation of subdivisions, are applicable to stream corridor management. These in-
clude: cluster zoning, planned unit development (PUD), transfer of development rights
(TDK), and site plan review.
Cluster Zoning Cluster zoning is a means to permit the transfer of density, in
conjunction with the approval of a subdivision plat, from a preset standard by group-
ing or concentrating the building units on a reduced area of land. For example, if a
given tract of land of 100 acres is zoned in such a way that 100 dwellings could be
built on individual lots of one acre apiece, cluster development would permit these
100 dwellings to be grouped on, say, twenty acres, while the 80 acres remaining
could be devoted to open space preservation.
The clustering concept provides community officials with an opportunity for
negotiating with the developer over the location and density of clustering on
developable portions of the tract so as to leave natural areas, the stream corridor, for
example, and areas more difficult to develop virtually unobstructed.
It is important to note, however, that unless provisions are contained in the zoning
ordinance for incentive zoning or planned unit development (PUD), state enabling
legislation for cluster development does not permit a violation of the overall density
ceiling otherwise applicable for the particular tract under the zoning ordinance.* Thus
if the land could be used for 100 homes on one-acre plots, the clustered development
on the same tract could not exceed 100 homes (see cluster zoning example in Figure
18).
Planned Unit Development (PUD) A PUD is a diversified development project
which does not fit the standard zoning regulations of a municipality and which is built
as a "planned unit". This feature permits variation in many of the traditional controls
related to density, land use, setbacks, open space, and other design elements. It differs
from the cluster development concept in that it is easily amenable to any mixture of
uses and is not subject to any of the underlying zoning for the land involved. For ex-
ample, a single PUD permits: flexibility in site design that allows buildings to be
clustered; mixtures of housing types such as detached houses, townhouses, or garden
apartments; combining housing with such other ancillary uses as neighborhood shop-
ping centers; better design and arrangement of open space including the protection
and preservation of streams and the stream corridor; and retention of such natural
features as flood plains, steep slopes, or wetlands (Meshenberg, J., 1976).
PUD regulations typically are included within the district regulations of the zoning
ordinance, i.e., the use requirements, development standards, and procedures are
spelled out in the ordinance text (see Appendix E).
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) The "transfer of development rights"
permits all or part of the density potential (established in the zoning ordinance) of one
tract of land to be transferred to a noncontiguous parcel or even to land owned by
someone else. The development rights become a separate article of property, which
can be sold to a landowner whose property is better suited to greater densities of
development. After selling the development rights, a landowner still retains title and
all other rights to the land. These other rights permit farming, forestry, some recrea-
tional uses, and other nonintensive uses such as stream corridor conservation, open
space preservation, and preservation of buildings or neighborhoods of historical or ar-
chitectural significance (see Appendix H).
The enabling statutes permitting clustering are in General City Law §37, Village Law
§7-738, and Town Law §251.
56
-------
225*
SLOPES OVER 15%
MODERATE TO SEVERE
SOIL EROSION POTENTIAL
WETLANDS
FLOODPLAINS
HISTORICAL LANDMARKS
WILDLIFE HABITAT
DEVELOPERS TRACT OF LAND
STREAM CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AREA OF CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
EXAMPLE: Cluster zoning concept on a 100 acre tract of land
Assumetract contains 24 acres In stream conservation district zoned at 1 unit per 4 acres (or
a total of 6 allowable units
the remainder of the tract-76 acres-consists of open space, forest and agricultural
land having a zoning density of 1 unit per acre (76 acre parcel-76 units)
Cluster Developmentcluster zoning provisions seek to encourage efficient development in
areas having few environmental constraints to development. In this
example, the total number of units permitted through clustering is
6 + 76 = 82.
Figure 18. Cluster Zoning
57
-------
There are several significant benefits of TDK: it permits preservation of lands where
further development is undesirable for a variety of reasons; it compensates the owner
of preserved land financially by allowing him to sell his unused development rights: it
reduces the impact that the exercise of the community's police power can have on
property owners; it provides a-reasonable economic return to landowners selling
development rights; it-involves minimal loss of revenue to the community in that the
total economic base does not change and tax revenues remain at the same level on
the one hand the owner who sells his unused development rights also reduces the
assessed value of his land and so lowers his taxes; on the other hand, the landowner
who purchases the development rights increases the assessed use value of the land and
so pays higher taxes. Finally, there is no loss of new development to the community.
Figure 19 illustrates how TDK works (NYS Zoning Technical Series. 1981).
Figure 19. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (RESIDENTIAL)
STREAM CONSERVATION DISTRICT
^^ ROADS
ZONING DISTRICTS
O VILLAGES
R-1 RESIDENTIAL
R-2 RESIDENTIAL
C-1 COMMERCIAL
1-1 INDUSTRIAL
RC-1 RESOURCE CONSERVATION
EXAMPLE: Transfer development rights from 100 acres of land In stream conservation district
Assumezoning density of stream conservation district Is 1 unit per 4 acres (100 acre parcel-
25 units)
zoning density of development district Is 1 unit per acre (100 acre parcel-100 units)
Transfer of rightsstream conservation district after transfer of development rights at fair
market value Is 0 units
the right to develop an additional 25 units transferred to development
district for a total of 125 units
58
-------
Site Plan Review Site plan review is a process that can be used by decision-
makers in communities with or without zoning to evaluate the potential impact that a
land development proposal has on a community. Such a review focuses attention on a
site development plan. Site development plans have two functions:
(1) they illustrate the intended design, arrangement, and uses of the land to be
developed
(2) they describe the proposal's physical, social, and economic effects on the com-
munity .
Site plan reviews can include both small and large scale proposals ranging from gas
stations, drive-in facilities, and offices to complex ones such as multifamily housing,
shopping centers, and planned unit developments. Within the sites, the prime con-
cerns might include, among other factors, minimizing ecological disturbances, manage-
ment of stormwater runoff, and preservation of open space and historic and cultural
features in the stream corridor.
The site plan review process may be conducted over the following three phases:
(1) Presubmission Phase which provides an opportunity for the community
to learn of the developer's intent and for the developer to learn of the com-
munity's requirements and standards for development
(2) Preliminary Site Development Plan Phase which includes the submission of
an application for preliminary site development plan approval for a developer.
The application should be accompanied by information about the proposal in-
cluding legal data, impact on the environment, natural features, existing
development and infrastructure, and site development proposal. Because it is a
preliminary action and not final, board action on the proposal should be given
as tentative approval with modifications or disapproval.
(3) Final Site Development Plan Phase If approval or approval with modification
is tentatively given in the preliminary site development phase, the next step
will be submission of a final application, including the necessary documentation
for final approval. In this case, the requested modification should be satisfied in
the final application (NYS Zoning Technical Series, 1979).
Floodplain Regulations
Floodplain regulation is a form of overlay zoning which designates flood-prone
areas and limits their uses to those compatible with the degree of risk. It serves
several purposes including:
preventing new development in flood-prone areas that could result in loss of life
and excessive damage to property, or reducing the potential for such losses and
damages
protecting unwary buyers from purchasing land or homes in flood-prone areas
preventing encroachments that decrease the flood-carrying capacity of flood
plains, increase flood heights, or otherwise aggravate flood problems
. reducing need for future expenditures for construction, operation, and
maintenance of reservoirs, levees, and other flood control measures
preserving natural floodplain values, including water quality (U.S. Water
Resources Council, 1981).
Figure 20 contains a cross-sectional diagram of a floodplain and shows how
floodplain regulations can be employed to limit uses in an area to those which are
consistent with the flood hazard.
Local governmental jurisdictions, including towns, cities, and villages, must adopt
. floodplain regulations to enable landowners to obtain flood insurance. Model
floodplain regulations which satisfy the eligibility requirements of the federally spon-
sored flood insurance program are available upon request from the Bureau of Flood
Protection, Room 422, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233- Over 95 percent of all communities in New
York State have adopted floodplain regulations. Flood plain development permits are
59
-------
Floodway Land Uses
Prohibited or Discouraged:
Most structures and (ills.
Permitted:
Farming, pasture, forestry
open space, recreation,
wildlife preserves.
Flood Fringe Uses
Prohibited or Discouraged:
Storage of toxic materials.
Hospitals and other vital facilities.
Permitted:
Allother uses with developments
elevated on fill or otherwise
protected against damage.
60
Source: U. S. Watei Rnourns Council, 1981
Figure 20. Land Use Considerations in Floodway and Flood Fringe Areas
managed by the Department of Environmental Conservation in those areas where
local government is not administering the program. Permit applicants should contact
the appropriate regional office listed on the inside back cover of this manual for DEC
administered flood plains.
Single Purpose Ordinances
Towns, cities, and villages having no zoning may adopt single purpose ordinances
to control off-site damages to streams from construction and related development ac-
tivities. For example, communities may adopt an erosion and sediment control or-
dinance or a stormwater management ordinance (or a combination thereof) to protect
streams and lakes from sedimentation, nutrient loading, and other nonpoint source
contaminants, and from stormwater runoff in urbanizing areas. Model local erosion
and sediment control ordinances and sample laws for controlling stormwater runoff
may be obtained from the Bureau of Water Resources, Room 328, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
(see Appendix). Communities in which zoning already exists need only extract the
relevant provisions, from the model local laws referred to above, and incorporate
them into the appropriate sections of their zoning ordinance.
TAX INCENTIVES
Tax incentives may be offered by local government to riparian landowners to pro-
tect and enhance stream corridors. A locally administered tax incentive program may
appear in the form of:
1. Tax Exemptions. Tax exemptions can be offered to landowners who retain land
for public benefit such as a scenic vista in a stream corridor, historic places,
public access areas, or other similar public uses in a stream corridor.
2. Preferential Assessment. Under this approach, land may be assessed at current
open space values so as to remove tax pressure on owners to sell at a speculative
price for profit.
3. New York's Agricultural Districts Law and Forest Tax Law can provide tax in-
centives to motivate landowners to retain farmland and forest land in an
undeveloped condition.
The above approaches to providing tax incentives normally have the following
feature in common; often a lower artificial assessment is levied on the property to
achieve a jurisdictions long-term land use goal for a given area until the land is sub-
jected to an undesired use, at which time a tax pay-back penalty clause is invoked.
The major advantage of a tax incentive approach is that it assists those landowners
who 'desire to retain the present land use but cannot because of increasing tax
burdens. On the other hand, long-term protection 'goals may not be met unless the
land is retained in the desired use in perpetuity.
-------
GOVERNMENTAL AID PROGRAM
Planning, technical, and funding assistance to implement an effective stream conser-
vation program is potentially available to local government from various federal, state,
and county agencies. For example, many projects which have benefitted streams have
been partially funded through Land and Water Conservation Grants, and various Soil
Conservation Service Programs. The Agricultural Conservation Program of the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service provides funding assistance to
private landowners to implement various agricultural practices.
Some key agencies and the type of assistance they provide are identified in Table
14. There are numerous federal, state, and local laws, programs, and activities which
are directly applicable to the protection and management of resources and land use
TABLE 14
AGENCIES AND ASSISTANCE OFFERED
Agency
Program
Type of
Assistance
Address of
Assisting Agency
Federal
1. Department of
Housing and
Urban Develop-
ment
2.
Department of
Interior
3. Soil Conservation
Service
4. Agricultural
Stabilization and
Conservation
Service (ASCS)
State
5. Office of Parks,
Recreation, and
Historic Preserva-
tion
6.
Department of
State
Community Planning and
Development (cities having a
population over 50,000)
Urban Development Action
Grant
- State and Local River
Conservation Program
Land and Water Conservation
Grant
Historic Preservation
Grants-ln-Aid ,
Soil and Water Conservation
Program
Resource Conservation and
Development
- PL 566 (Flood and Erosion
Control)
Agricultural Conservation
Program
Environmental Quality Bond
Act of 1972
Small Cities Program
Funding (Construction
Grants)
Funding (Construction
Grants
Technical Assistance
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development,
Community Planning and
Development Division,
107 Delaware Avenue,
Buffalo, New York 14202
National Park Service
Office of Recreational
Programs
Funding (Land Acquisition) National Park Service
' Office of Recreational
Programs
Funding (Property Acquisi-
tion and Building
Rehabilitation)
Conservation Planning and
Technical Assistance
Funding and Technical
Assistance (Construction
Cost Sharing)
- Funding (Construction
Cost Sharing)
- Funding assistance to
private landowners for ero-
sion control and other land
treatment measures
- Office of Cultural Programs
Mid-Atlantic Region,
143 S. 3rd St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Contact County Soil and
Water Conservation Districts
Consult County Soil and
Water Conservation District
or Local Telephone Directory
Funding (Land Acquisition) New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation, and
Historic Preservation; Nelson
A. Rockefeller Empire State
Plaza; Agency Bldg. #1;
Albany, NY 12238
Funding (Construction
Grants)
- New York State Department
of State, 162 Washington
Avenue, Albany, NY 12231
61
-------
TABLE 14
AGENCIES AND ASSISTANCE OFFERED
Agency
Program
Type ol
Assistance
Address of
Assisting Agency
7. Department of
Environmental
Conservation
Regional/County
8. Regional Planning
Board
9.
County Planning
Department
10. County Soil and
Water Conserva-
tion Districts
Stream Conservation/Non-
point Source Planning
Local Community Assistance
Program
Local Planning Assistance
and Regional Coordination
Local Planning Assistance
and County-wide Coordina-
tion
Technical Assistance Pro-
gram
Funding (Planning Grants) Office of Community
Affairs/Division of Water,
New York State Department
of Environmental Conserva-
tion, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,
NY 12233
Planning and Technical Refer to NYS Environmental
Conservation Directory
Planning and Technical Refer to NYS Environmental
Conservation Directory or
Local Telephone Directory
Planning and Technical
Refer to NYS Environmental
Conservation Directory or
Local Telephone Directory
within the stream corridor. It is important for those who have initiated a stream cor-
ridor management planning process to become well-informed about all such laws and
programs so as to take full advantage of the legal authority and financial OF technical
assistance that is available for the task at hand. A full partnership should be developed
with those agencies and organizations, at all levels of government and in the private
sector, that have an ongoing or potential role to play.
Funding assistance usually is the most difficult type of assistance to obtain. Often
there is considerable competition among communities for such assistance. Because of
competition, funding agencies generally establish priorities as a basis for funding.
Therefore, as a general rule, communities seeking funding assistance for a stream con-
servation program should design projects to produce a multiplicity of benefits as a
way of promoting the proposal. Two sources _of information, the Funding Resources
Center and a "Guide to Resources", are available for identifying sources of funding
which might potentially be used for stream corridor management purposes.
62
FUNDING RESOURCE CENTER
The Economic Development Unit within the Division of Community
Affairs, NYS Department of State, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York
12231 has computer capability to assist local agencies in identifying potential
sources of funding that can be used for stream conservation and management
purposes. This is a very important service which local government should
take every opportunity to utilize, not only for stream conservation projects,
but for other community development
projects as well.
also:
A STEP-BY-STEP
GUIDE TO RESOURCES
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
2ND EDITION
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
162 WASHINGTON AVENUE
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12231
-------
231
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
A special improvement district, for example a park district which has a stream cor-
ridor as its focal point, may be established. Under a special improvement district,.
taxes can be levied to finance park operation and maintenance requirements. Cur-
rently, there are over 100 park districts in the state.
WATERSHED RULES AND REGULATIONS
Many communities protect their water supplies with watershed rules and regula-
tions. These regulations, which are enacted through the New York State Department
of Health, usually contain setbacks and other standards for salt storage, pesticide use,
sewage discharges, solid waste disposal, and the storage and handling of toxic
chemicals. Watershed regulations carry the weight of State regulations, and they may
extend across municipal boundaries if necessary.
Any community with a municipal water supply may prepare these regulations.
Model regulations are available from the Health Department and technical assistance is
usually available from state health engineers or from county officials where county
health departments exist. Once a municipality completes a draft of the regulations, it
is submitted to the Health Department for approval and promulgation. Legal notices
are subsequently published in local newspapers and public hearings are held when
necessary. When approved by the Health Department, the regulations are filed with
the Secretary of State and become enforceable standards for protecting the com-
munity's water supply.
The municipality, must then appoint an official who is responsible for watershed in-
spections, serving notice to violators and reporting noncompliance to the Health
Department. The Health Department in turn, investigates reports and may direct the
local board of health to enforce compliance or take direct enforcement action.
Today most surface water supplies serving over 5,000 people and all
supplies serving over 10,000 people are protected by Watershed Rules
and Regulations.
Watershed rules and regulations can be used effectively to protect water supplies
from chemicals which may be spilled, or leaked from bulk storage facilities. Unfor-
tunately, most existing rules and regulations were passed prior to our knowledge of
trace concentrations of chemicals in water supplies and do not adequately protect
waters from contamination caused by poor bulk storage practices. A recent review of
such regulations found that most of the rules and regulations now in use are archaic.
They are concerned solely with human and animal waste disposal practices and use
language of decades past. Only the rules and regulations enacted or revised since 1970
address current environmental concerns. The greatest threats to water supply today
besides sewage disposal are synthetic or organic chemicals, radioactive materials,
heavy metals, chlorides, nutrients, sediment and petroleum products.
Watershed regulations provide municipalities in New York State with an excellent .
means of protecting water supplies. However, the regulations must contain provisions
which address the storage of petroleum and other hazardous chemicals. Those com-
munities with watershed rules and regulations should be sure that they include con-
trols over bulk storage facilities. Communities without rules and regulations should
consider the benefits of using them. Guidance for establishing watershed rules and
regulations may be obtained from State or County Health Department offices.
NEW YORK STATE'S WILD, SCENIC, AND RECREATIONAL RIVERS PROGRAM
One of the most important State programs to protect and enhance rivers and
streams and their corridors, was established in 1972 through the enactment of the'
State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Systems Act (Environmental Conservation
63
-------
Law S15-2701). This law encourages maximum local initiative in the development, im-
plementation, and administration of river conservation studies and plans. It aJso pro-
vides fundamental regulatory protection for rivers that are designated in the system.
Communities may find the state's Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Program to
be an attractive option for protecting and enhancing a stream or river corridor. The
Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River Systems Act is designed to protect, preserve, and
enhance significant rivers (and streams) throughout the state, including the important
natural and cultural resources that are associated with shoreland environs of such
rivers. Rivers are designated into the Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River System by
act of the legislature, after an eligibility study has been completed.
In order to give detailed attention to the natural and cultural resources and land use
conditions that are unique to the corridor of each designated river (or stream), a
management plan should be prepared after designation. This plan may be prepared
locally, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Conservation (or the
Adirondack Park Agency for rivers and streams on private land within the Park). The
resources and land use management recommendations that are set forth in the plan
then provide the basis for future local and state decisions and actions. The plan,
therefore, must be adopted by DEC (or APA) as well as by affected local governments.
At the local level, the river corridor plan usually will be incorporated as a detailed
element in the local comprehensive plan, to be implemented, in pan, through local
subdivision and zoning ordinances. When this is done, state protective responsibilities
for designated rivers may be delegated to local government, specifically in the area of
land use regulation.
The cooperative intergovernmental approach that is embodied in the state Wild,
Scenic, and Recreational River System Act ensures that a reasonable negotiation proc-
ess is set in motion whereby firm and lasting agreements can be reached by all in-
terested parties on the means for achieving conservation and development objectives.
If a river is designated in the system, the law requires that actions of all State agen-
cies must be consistent with its river conservation objectives. This is a major benefit
of designation. For example, State-sponsored projects may be precluded from being
located within a designated river corridor. Designation also means that the river will
be maintained in its present natural free-flowing condition. No new dams may be con-
structed and no new diversions of water will be allowed. Water quality must be main-
tained or improved. The present natural, scenic, historic qualities of the landscape will
be protected and land uses that are compatible with the purpose of the Act will be
continued and encouraged.
Framework provisions of the act together with the regulations and standards of per-
formance for rivers (or streams) designated either "wild", "scenic", or "recreational"
are available upon request (see Appendix P).
64
-------
SECTION 6:
PANEL PROCESS
-------
233
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER PANEL
As requested by the signatories to the Directive, a Panel was convened to develop a comprehensive
riparian forest buffer policy. The charge of the Riparian Buffer Panel was to consider and make
recommendations, where appropriate, on a number of policy actions related to riparian forests. One of
the Panel's challenges was to propose definitions of forest buffers which balance ecological criteria
needed to protect water quality and habitat in streams with the accommodation of appropriate land uses
within the riparian zone. The Panel was also charged with establishing time-sensitive, quantifiable goals
which can serve as a long-term target for maintenance and restoration. Finally, the involvement of all
stakeholders was considered essential to the final policy implementation. To ensure broad public input,
the Panel included a diverse membership and conducted a series of meetings to reach out to a broader
constituency. This helped strengthen communication and partnerships necessary for success.
4
4
Shared Assumptions
Natural riparian areas are critical
to healthy streams and rivers
Focus should be on voluntary
incentive-based approaches
Education and training are
important to success
Both Public and private roles are
important in implementation
Flexibility in approach is essential
Shared goals among agencies
and interests are needed
Panel Focus
Riparian Stewardship. First, healthy streams are critical to
restoring the Bay. Riparian buffers and other stream protection
and restoration measures, provide tools for enhancing water
quality and fish/wildlife habitat. Therefore, the Panel sought
to make recommendations which enhance the overall
commitment-to the stewardship of streams, rivers, shorelines
and riparian areas.
Emphasis on Riparian Forest Buffers. Forested riparian
buffers deliver the greatest range of environmental benefits of
any type of stream buffer. Current program efforts are limited.
Therefore, additional actions are needed to increase the
retention and establishment of riparian forests.
Panel Mission
"To recommend to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council a comprehensive policy and strategy for
implementation that will enhance overall riparian stewardship and emphasize the retention of riparian
forests where they exist and restoration where they are needed."
Principles
Each of the following principles shaped the Panel's policy recommendations:
4 Develop measurable goals based on sound science.
f Recommend flexible implementation strategies that consider the differences in landscape,
existing policy, environmental conditions, and landowner objectives.
f Focus first on existing regulatory and incentive programs, enhancing their ability to accomplish the
intent of the Directive and incorporate additional voluntary efforts as needed.
+ Build a policy that increases private and non-profit participation.
4 Recognize the important roles of education, technical assistance, training and continued research.
4 Be responsive to landowner needs and ensure stakeholder involvement.
-------
PANEL MEMBERS
To ensure broad public input, the panel, included scientists, land managers, citizen, farming, forest
industry, development, and environmental interests and federal, state and local government. Mr. James
Garner served as Chair, and Dr. Louis Sage served as Vice-Chair.
JAMES GARNER 4- Virginia Department of Forestry
LOUIS E. SAGE 4 Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
BILL ADAMS 4- Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
JERI BERC 4 USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
BILL BOSTIAN 4- The Nature Conservancy
DAVID BRUBAKER 4- Citizen's Advisory Committee/PennAg Industries
SEAN DAVIS 4- LDR International
MIKE ECKERT 4 Maryland Farm Bureau
CARSON LEE FIFER, JR. 4- McGuire, Woods, Battle & Booth
KENT FOX 4- Pennsylvania Hardwood Lumber Manufacturing Association
VICTOR FUNK 4- Pennsylvania Bureau of Land & Water Conservation
JAMES GRACE 4-. Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry
MARCIA HANSON 4- Local Government Advisory Committee/Fairfax County Supervisors
IAN HARDIE 4- Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee/University of MD
RON HEDLUND , 4- Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE 4- VA Chesapeake Bay Local Government Assistance Department
PAUL SCHWARTZ 4- Susquehanna River Basin Commission
PETER MILLER 4- Westvaco
ROBERT PENNINGTON 4- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
ROYDEN POWELL 4- Maryland Department of Agriculture
MICHAEL RAINS 4- USDA Forest Service
ERIC SCHWAAB 4- Maryland DNR Forest Service
TOM SIMPSON 4- MD Dept. of Agriculture/University of MD Extension
WILMER STONEMAN 4- Virginia Farm Bureau
ANN SWANSON 4- Chesapeake Bay Commission
DENICE TAPPERO 4- Stone Forest Products
MIKE THOMAS 4- V irginia Office of the Governor
CAROLYN WATSON 4- Maryland Department of Natural Resources
JAMES WHEELER 4- PA Association of Township Supervisors
SYLVIA WHITWORTH 4- DC Environmental Regulation Administration
-------
TECHNICAL TEAM
The process for implementation of the Riparian Forest Buffer Directive approved by the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Implementation Committee also provided for the establishment of a
technical team. The primary role of this group was to provide the technical information and
analysis needed to carry out the mission of the panel and to assist the Alliance for the Chesapeake
Bay in facilitating the Panel's meetings and issue deliberations. Albert Todd, US Forest Service,
State and Private Forestry, Northeastern Area served as Team Leader.
RICHARD COOKSEY > USDA Forest Service
SCOTT CRAFTON 4- VA Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
PATTY ENGLER -f USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
J. MICHAEL FOREMAN + Virginia Department of Forestry
ALEXANDRA GAGNON * Chesapeake Research Consortium
CAREN GLOTFELTY 4- PA State University/School of Forest Resources
STEVEN KOEHN * Maryland DNR Forest Service
LOUISE LAWRENCE -f Maryland Department of Agriculture
JOHN LIPMAN > Chesapeake Bay Commission
BOB MERRILL + Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry
BOB TJADEN -f University of Maryland Extension
ALBERT TODD f USDA Forest Service
LAUREN WENZEL 4- Maryland Department of Natural Resources
-------
23*
EXISTING PROGRAM ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
Analysis
Recommendations to modify existing programs must be based on an assessment of how well a
program or type of program contributes to the intent of the Directive. By looking at program
accomplishment data where available, analyzing case studies, and talking to program managers,
additional policy steps can be identified. The analysis posed a number of broad qualitative
questions:
+ Do the programs have a riparian forest emphasis?
f Are regulatory programs being adequately enforced?
f Are incentives in non-regulatory programs adequate to encourage landowner participation ?
4- What are the barriers to riparian forest stewardship?
f Are programs adequately funded?
f How permanent are actions taken by incentive programs?
Findings
Because of differences between jurisdictions and individual programs, approaches, and data
collection methodology, a full spectrum of comparative data useful in making comparisons was
not available. The following is a synopsis of the interim findings from this analysis:
1) Very few programs provide a specific riparian forest buffer focus; it is more common that
protecting, establishing, or maintaining RFB's is an ancillary benefit to some other
programmatic goal.
2) Federal and state incentive funds for RFB's are unstable or on the decline adversely
affecting such programs as SIP, FIP, 319 grants, and CZMA § 6217.
3) New partnerships or new sources of funds must be sought to expand potential funding and
enlist other forms of in-kind support.
4) Many programs are unnecessarily bureaucratic, complicated to understand and participate
in, and cumbersome to administer due to burdensome paperwork.
5) A general lack of awareness of the various existing RFB programs that exist is a serious
impediment increasing the level of participation.
6) State regulatory programs are implemented locally with varying degrees of consistency.
7) There are many agencies and conservation organizations involved with riparian forest
-------
buffer retention and/or restoration, but with varying degrees of support. A consensus or
shared goal for riparian forests would help reduce competition and stimulate joint actions
among these organizations.
8) Cost-share rates and caps, .grants and/or tax breaks are not sufficient to encourage riparian
landowners to initiate RFB activities. Any restructuring of economic incentives must
ensure that local governments, likely to implement RFB programs, will not suffer an
unreasonable loss to local tax base.
9) Various incentives programs have requirements such as entry fees, minimum acreage or
time commitments which can discourage participation in RFB programs.
10) RFB programs provide varying levels of protection ranging from the duration of the
regulated activity to 25 plus years for easements.
11) Existing efforts do not effectively utilize the capabilities of non-profit and private groups.
12) RFB programs on the federal and state level consist of delivery of technical and financial
assistance (including easement programs) and various types of income and property tax 'breaks.
13) Most RFB programs on the local (county and municipal) level consist of comprehensive
planning and zoning and the institution of development and conservation ordinances.
14) Accomplishment report data are unavailable or inconsistent between and within the states.
15) Not all programs have a specific buffer component or otherwise have the ability to
differentiate between administrative overhead and implementation relative to RFB's
establishment, protection and maintenance.
16) Programs which mandate mitigation for the loss of forest land or the designation of set
aside acreage often have requirements which do not recognize the establishment of RFB's
as a legitimate way of complying with the mandate.
17) Some RFB programs need to be more flexible allowing landowners to perform needed
maintenance, conduct pest control measures and judiciously harvest timber to recover some
economic return from the land on a periodic basis.
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER PANEL
PROGRAM AND GAPS ANALYSIS REPORT
HALL OF THE STATES, WASHINGTON DC
October 2, 1995
This "gaps analysis" focuses on two kinds of programs: Those that promote
forests in the riparian zone and those programs promote general forest management
or non-forest stream protection measures but where opportunities exist to increase
the emphasis on riparian forest maintenance and restoration. This approach will
help decision makers better identify where the riparian forest "gaps" are and how
to best fill those gaps.
Modifying the existing programmatic structure requires that decision makers first
assess how well each program or type of program is working to achieve riparian
forest objectives. How many acres or stream miles has a program maintained or
restored? How well are programs being implemented or enforced? How cost-
effective are these programs? How do we define and measure "riparian forests"?
While we cannot answer all of these questions, we can use a "case study"
approach for examining the most significant of these programs. By looking at what
programmatic data we have available, we can get an idea of which programs are
effectively maintaining and restoring riparian forest buffers, and which programs
can be modified to do so.
There are a number of key factors and issues that can influence the success of
riparian forest maintenance and restoration programs. A number of issues must be
considered for guiding discussions on how to coordinate and modify existing
riparian programs. These issues, detailed in the discussion section below, are
central to an analysis of programmatic gaps.
DISCUSSION
Do the programs have a riparian forest emphasis?
A number of programs designed to protect streams and riparian areas may lack the
essential forest emphasis that the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel is trying to promote.
Riparian forests deliver a host of ecological benefits to the stream system that other
non-forest riparian protection measures may not provide. Even programs that
promote trees in the riparian zone may not deliver these benefits if the program is
not managed for forest benefits. For example, the types of trees planted may not
provide the appropriate mix of leaf litter necessary to provide food for aquatic
insects, or the density, age, and location of trees may be insufficient to provide
adequate shading or large woody debris. Thus, ensuring the presence of trees in
riparian areas does not by itself ensure the ecological integrity of the stream.
-------
Pennsylvania's Streambank Fencing Program is a case in point. Although the
program is laudable in that it affords a very substantial measure of stream
protection.from the impacts of livestock, it places no specific emphasis on the
restoration of trees. Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, which requires
landowners near streams and rivers to protect forested areas, also allows the
clearing of trees to improve vistas and the removal of large woody debris from the
riparian forest and stream shallows, where it serves a useful ecological purpose. If
the maintenance of riparian forest buffers is to be accomplished in these and other
programs, then riparian forest objectives -- and the package of benefits riparian
forests provide -- must be a central emphasis of these programs.
Are regulatory programs being adequately enforced?
Regulatory programs are an essential tool in maintaining and restoring riparian
forest buffers and protecting water quality throughout the Bay region. As with all
regulatory programs, enforcement is critical to ensuring that the law provides its
fullest measure of protection and that the regulated community is treated equitably.
It is especially important to consider whether enforcement of existing regulations is
adequate prior to promulgating any additional regulations. Policy makers may find
that there are ample regulatory "tools" available, and that strengthening the
enforcement of existing laws may be the most economical and politically practical
means of accomplishing riparian forest maintenance and restoration.
Are the incentives adequate in non-regulatory programs?
Because so much protection of riparian land relies on voluntary and contractual
programs, a central element of riparian forest policy involves incentives - cost-
share programs, fee payments for land taken out of production, subsidized
seedlings, and so on. These incentives are delivered through a host of agencies
such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, the Forest Service, state and local natural resource
agencies, private industry, and citizen groups. Pennsylvania's Streambank Fencing
Program is exemplary in that it provides fencing to restrict livestock access to
streams free of charge to farmers. This has resulted in the installation .of over 100
miles of fencing. Timber corporations such as Westvaco, Chesapeake, and
Glatfelter provide subsidized seedlings to landowners for reforestation, and
countless private businesses are involved in community forest buffer replanting
programs. But the question remains as to how effective various incentive programs
are in meeting the economic needs of landowners while maintaining and restoring
riparian forests rather than other non-forest stream protection efforts.
The financial benefit a landowner receives can have a significant impact on his or
her willingness to participate in riparian forest programs. For example, Maryland's
-------
Buffer incentive Program used to have a backlog of applicants when the program
offered landowners a one-time $500-per-acre payment to maintain minimum 50-
foot forested buffers. A legislative modification to the program in 1994 lowered
the payment to $300 per acre; the result was a steep decline in the number of
applicants. More research needs to be done to determine what levels of cost-share
are economical to landowners in differing land-use scenarios. Some relatively minor
adjustments to funding levels or structures could result in significant changes in the
willingness of landowners to participate in incentive programs.
Similarly, there may be opportunities in other resource-land incentive programs to
increase the focus on riparian protection where little or none currently exists. For
example, all three states have some type of preferential tax assessment program
for land kept in various resource uses or open space, such as prime agricultural land
or private wopdlots. These programs reduce the assessed value of the land, so
that the landowner pays lower property taxes. Yet these programs often lack any
special provisions for protection of the riparian zone, and none have specific
conditions for maintaining riparian forests. Thus where incentives exist to protect
resource land in general, opportunities to promote riparian forest stewardship could
be considered.
What are the barriers to riparian forest stewardship?
It is important to examine aspects of other regulatory programs that might hinder
participation in riparian forest stewardship. In Maryland, one landowner reported
frustration with state permitting requirements for constructing stream crossings for
livestock, when the alternative (allowing unrestricted livestock access to the
stream) is entirely unregulated. Thus there may be instances where a regulatory
process, justified in certain land-use situations, may act as a disincentive to better
riparian stewardship on the part of a landowner in a different situation.
Buffer restoration may present perceptual disincentives to landowners as well.
When some of the trees closest to the stream in a recently restored forest buffer
are washed away during a flood event, questions about the benefits of these
efforts are inevitably raised. In many cases, this kind natural widening of the
stream bed is an expected outcome in a recovering riparian forest. Viewed as
desirable to the stream ecologist, this change in the stream bank can be perceived
by the landowner as a failure of the practice to protect the stream and stabilize
land. Thus addressing disincentives may also involve developing strategies to
better communicate with landowners, so that landowners understand the ecology
of stream systems and scientists and agency personnel understand landowner
needs and expectations.
-------
The complexity of state and federal cost-share practices and other payment
programs can also act as a barrier. There is-a bewildering array of cost-share
programs and practices available for both agriculture and forestry uses. Many of
these financial incentives affect the riparian zone. Although this "menu" of
practices can provide flexibility in meeting the landowner's needs, it can also be
confusing and result in a piecemeal approach to riparian stewardship. In addition, a
landowner may be referred to two or three different agencies in order to implement
a combination of riparian protection measures. This involves a great deal of time
and paperwork, and may be perceived as a barrier to riparian forest stewardship.
There may also be conflicts among landowner assistance programs which act as a
barrier to riparian stewardship as well. For example, the Commodity Set-Aside
program makes price-support payments to farmers based on the number of acres in
or available to production. If a farmer removes part of his land from production for
long-term uses such as riparian forest buffers, he risks losing some of that subsidy.
Decision makers in resource agencies should consider ways to strengthen the
emphasis on riparian forest buffers while streamlining cost-share programs, where
appropriate, so that individual practices for riparian forest stewardship are more
comprehensive and consistent with one another. This will help landowners seeking
to implement riparian forests to do "one-stop shopping." The Bay Program's efforts
to implement a Total Resource Management (TRM) approach to conservation
planning may be highly instructive in making landowner stewardship more user
friendly.
Inadequate.funding for-programs is-an ever-present concern. This can be a problem
not only for enforcement manpower in regulatory programs but also for providing
technical assistance needed to implement cost-share programs. Most agricultural
agencies on both the state and federal levels report being unable to accommodate a
long waiting list of clients who would like to implement riparian forest buffer
practices. Thus, even when cost-share funding is available, there is a dearth of
technical assistance personnel needed to wrote conservation plans for landowners.
Clearly, more funding will be needed.to;enhance riparian forest buffer .efforts
throughout the Bay region. In an era of fiscal austerity, however, public funds
alone cannot supply the'resources needed. Decisions makers must consider
exploring alternative financing mechanisms, as well as seeking the involvement of
private industry, businesses, local governments, citizen groups, and volunteers.
Both the Maryland Blue Ribbon Panel, which recently issued its report on financing
alternatives for Maryland's tributary strategies, and Pennsylvania's Stream Corridor
Protection Workgroup may provide some ideas for financing riparian forest buffers.
-------
How permanent are riparian protections in incentive programs?
Most cost-share practices are contracted for 10 years. Now is the time to begin
thinking of additional incentives to maintain buffers permanently, in a way which
provides for resource uses but also maintains the long-term ecology of the stream.
Otherwise, riparian forest buffers, to which years of money and effort have been
devoted, may be converted to other land uses.
EVALUATING RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER PROGRAMS
In order to begin this analysis, we need to establish criteria which will be used to
evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of each program. The greatest hurdle is
that many of these programs may be missing some of the data that we want to
evaluate. Therefore, the analysis will be, to some extent, data limited. Although
this limitation will prevent us from coming up with any sort of "ranking" of the
effectiveness of riparian forest programs, it will allow us to draw some general
conclusions about which programs are working most effectively and how to modify
other programs to increase the emphasis on riparian forest buffers.
There are a number of criteria with which we can evaluate the efficacy of our
programs. The following list will help guide the analysis of programmatic gaps.
The actual criteria used will vary between programs, as certain data may not be
available for any given program. Ideally, the kind of criteria that could be used are:
Number of Acres/Stream Miles Planted with Trees
Number of Acres/Stream Miles of Forest Protected
Cost .per Acre of Riparian Forest
Cost per Stream Mile of Riparian Forest
Number of Program Participants Served
Number of Program Participants Awaiting Service
Density/Type of Trees
PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS
The following describes some of the key programs - federal, state, local, and
private - with riparian forest protection components. Some of these programs very
actively promote riparian forests; others are more marginal in this respect. This
section will conclude with a discussion of those programs which have no specific
riparian protection provisions, but where the potential to introduce a riparian forest
emphasis exists. These programs are a subset of the larger universe of stream
protection efforts underway in the Bay region. This comparative approach will be
instructive in providing us some insight into what riparian stewardship programs are
available and how well they are working to maintain and restore riparian forests.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel (Bay Area Regulatory Programs)
page 1
I
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot. Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
$ Level/Source
Benefits
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act
Regulatory, State (MD)
Controls development within 1,000 feet of tidal waters.
100-foot mandatory buffer required for all tidal waters,
tidal wetlands, and tributary streams in Critical Area.
Exemptions for agricultural/silvicultural land.
Yes
Indefinite
Critical Area Commission, MD DNR
Mandatory
Adequate
Inconsistent implementation and interpretation by local
jurisdictions.
Does not enjoy universal acceptance at the local level
Varies by local county
Protects the riparian forests on the 60 Timber Harvest
Plans submitted to local Forest Conservancy District
Boards annually.
Protects riparian forests by restricting development in the
1000' Critical Area.
Creates zoning with limits on lot size, etc.
Requires an approved Timber Harvest plan for all
harvests within the Critical Area.
The first 50' from mean high tide is a no cut buffer, the
next 50' may be thinned selectively or clear-cut in the
cases of Loblolly pine and yellow-poplar if a Buffer
Management Plan is prepared by a licensed forester as
part of the Timber Harvest Plan.
Forest Conservation Act
Regulatory, State (MD)
Protects forest cover from development by limiting
forest clearing. Requiring replanting where
needed. "Priority areas" for retainment/replanting
include 50-foot buffer areas streams.
No
Indefinite
Local counties and municipalities with planning
and zoning authority and MD DNR - Forest
Service.
Mandatory
Adequate
Requires more preconstruction planning.
Inconsistent implementation at the local level.
Needs to be streamlined to better recognize local
development regulations and standard forest
management practices.
Varies by local county. DNR-Forest Service
General Fund @ $80,000/yr
Conserves the forest land base.
Prioritizes forest mitigation by encouraging
riparian buffer planting.
Riparian forests are considered high priority areas
for forest retention.
Provides long-term protection and management of
riparian forest buffers at part of the tract.
Nontidal Wetlands Act
Regulatory, State (MD)
Mandatory 25-foot naturally vegetated buffer
required around all nontidal wetlands greater than
5,000 square feet. Provides forested/naturally
vegetated buffer in cases where wetland exists
within/adjacent to stream.
No
Duration of the regulated activity
MD Department of the Environment - Water
Resources Administration
Mandatory
Adequate to Poor
Spotty enforcement due to insufficient personnel.
Water Resources Administration General Fund
Allows for management of forested wetlands
through the use of BMPs.
Conserves riparian as well as other non-tidal
wetland values.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Pane' 'Bay Area Regulatory Programs)
page 2
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
-Economic Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act
Regulatory, State (MD)
Encourages riparian protection as part of each county's
requirement to develop "sensitive areas element" in
comprehensive plans.
No
Indefinite
Local counties and municipalities that have planning and
zoning authority with approval of Maryland Office of
Planning.
Mandatory
Adequate
inconsistent implementation at the local level.
Needs to be streamlined to better recognize local
development regulations and standard forest management
practices.
Insufficient support resources at the local level (S &
people).
Varies by local county
Conserves the forest land base by allowing for a
comprehensive review of the forest resource.
Prioritizes forest mitigation by encouraging riparian buffer
planting.
Riparian forests are considered high priority areas for forest
retention.
Provides long-term protection and management of riparian
forest buffers at part of the tract
Reforestation^'...
Regulatory, State (MD)
Minimizes forest loss, replaces unavoidable losses from
highway construction projects. Highest priority on
forests near/adjacent to 'streams
No
Indefinite
MD DNR-Forest Service
Mandatory
Adequate
Requires more preconstruction planning
Differences between forest values and riparian buffer
values is not distinguished.
MD DNR-Forest Service General Funds @ $30,000/yr
Mitigated the loss of forest land including riparian areas.
Encourages mitigation to occur in riparian areas as a
priority.
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
Regulatory, State (VA
Establishes "preservation areas" that comprise between
50% - 60% of Virginia's coastal plain. Stream areas,
wetlands, tributaries require a 100-foot buffer around
tributary streams. Exemptions for agricultural land.
Prevents indiscriminate tree cutting.
Yes, where there are trees
Indefinite
Chesapeake Bay Land Assistance Department working
with local jurisdictions through local ordinances.
Mandatory
Inadequate local enforcement
Public perception of ordinances being inflexible and a
form of a "taking".
State General Funds @ $2.3 million/yr. $1.1 million made
available to local jurisdiction through 50/50 matching
grants.
Local jurisdictions generate Special Fund revenue for plan
review.
Improved land use planning.
Improvement in oversight of development and
conservation planning on forest lands.
Reduces NFS pollution by protecting and conserving
riparian forest buffers.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel (Bay Area Regulatory Programs)
page 3
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot. Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
Dams Safety and Encroachments Act
Regulatory, State (PA)
Regulates development in wetlands,
stream areas by requiring permit from
the Department of Environmental
Protection. Applicants must avoid,
minimize, or mitigate impacts. No
specific buffer requirements.
No
Indefinite
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Land and Water
Conservation, and local soil and water
conservation districts.
Mandatory
Adequate
Burdensome paperwork
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Land and Water
Conservation, and local soil and water
conservation districts.
Reduced NFS pollution
Local Zoning Ordinances
Regulatory, State (MD, VA, PA)
Forty-two percent of counties in
Maryland have regulations requiring
stream buffers of 50 to 100 feet on
developed land (exclusive of Critical
Areas).
All tidewater counties in Virginia have
adopted Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Act regulations into local zoning
ordinances, which extends the
designation of protection areas to all
other areas of the county.
Some municipalities in Pennsylvania
have ordinances which restrict timber
harvesting altogether.
Yes(MD,VA),No(PA)
Indefinite
Local counties
Mandatory
Adequate
N/A
Varies by local county
Protect and Maintain riparian forest
buffers
Conserves forest land base.
Forest Harvest Guidelines
Regulatory, State (MD)
Minimum 50-foot forested, selective-
cut buffer required around all perennial
streams. 60% crown cover or 60 square
feet of basal area per acre must be
evenly retained.
No
Duration of regulated activity
Local Soil Conservation Districts, local
counties, and the Maryland Department
of the Environment.
Mandatory
Adequate
Varying requirements by county.
Inconsistent implementation by county.
Burdensome paperwork.
Local Soil Conservation Districts, local
counties, and the Maryland Department
of the Environment Information not
available for forest harvesting.
Reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Protect and maintain stream integrity
and bank stability.
Water Quality Law ("Bad Actor" Law)
Regulatory, State (V A)
State guidelines recommend minimum
50-foot forested, selective-cut buffer
required around all perennial streams
and retention of 50% crown cover or 50
square feet of basal area per acre.
Alternative practices that provide
equivalent water quality protection may
be permitted.
No
Duration of regulated activity
VA Department of Forestry
Mandatory
Adequate
Lack of public awareness
Va Department of Forestry
Reduce nonpoint source pollution
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer PaJ
y Area Regulatory Programs)
page 4
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot. Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
Special Protection Streams
Regulatory, State (PA)
Mandatory forested buffers required for
commercial logging operations on state forest
lands around streams designated for "special
protection" by the Bureau of Water Quality
Management (100-foot selective-cut buffer) or as
Wilderness Trout Streams by the Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission (200-foot no-cut
buffer).
Yes
Indefinite
Bureau of Water Quality Management or Fish
and Boat Commission
i
Mandatory ^
Adequate
N/A
Bureau of Water Quality Management or Fish
and Boat Commission
Reduced NPS pollution.
Maintain water quality for fish habitat
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel (Bay Area Incentive Programs)
Pagel
Program
Practice
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
$ Level/Source
Benefits
Buffer Incentive Program
N/A
Incentive, State (MD) technical and
financial assistance.
One-time payments of $300 per acre for
planting and maintenance of minimum 50-
foot forested buffers along
streams/shorelines.
Yes
10 year practice lifespan
MD DNR-Forest Service
Voluntary, 30 sites/yr, averaging 175
acres.
Adequate
Burdensome paperwork; payment
insufficient for commercial farm
owner/operators.
MD DNR-Forest Service @ 111,000/yr
Creation and maintenance of RFBs for 10
years.
Reduction of NFS pollution.
Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share
Program
Woodland Buffer Filter Area
Incentive, State (VA) technical and
financial assistance
One-time payments of $100 per acre to
establish minimum 50-foot forested
buffers along streams. Permitted only on
crop and pasture land that has recently
been in production.
Yes
10 year practice lifespan
VA Department of Conservation and
Recreation through the soil and water
conservation districts.
Voluntary, 3/yr for 15 acres
Adequate
Lack of information and education to
improve public awareness.
Perceived risk of practice loss due to flood
risk.
VA Department of Conservation and
Recreation via Federal Funds through a
CBI Grant, average $1.1 million/yr
Creation of riparian forest buffers.
Reduction of NFS pollution.
Payment can be "piggybacked" onto other
cost-share practices.
Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share
Program
Loafing Lot Management System
Incentive, State (VA) technical and
financial assistance.
Cost-share for rotational grazing system.
Requires a minimum 25-foot fenced buffer
around streams.
No
1 0 year practice lifespan
VA Department of Conservation and
Recreation through' the soil and water
conservation districts.
Voluntary, 10/yr @ 75% c/s up to $7,500
per applicant.
Adequate
Expensive to install.
With the cap, the cost-share is often not
even 50% of the total actual cost
VA Department of Conservation and
Recreation via Federal Funds through a
CBIGrant, average $1 . 1 million/yr
Stream bank stabilization from livestock.
Improved heard health.
Creation of riparian forest buffers.
Reduction of NFS pollution.
Streambank Fencing Program
N/A
Incentive, State (PA) technical and
financial assistance.
Fencing with minimum 12-foot buffer free
to rural landowners by PA Game
Commission in exchange for allowing
public hunting. Department of
Environmental Resources implementing '
parallel program that omits hunting
requirement.
No
10 year practice lifespan, PA Game
Commission Maintains
Department of Environmental Protection
Game Commission through the local soil
and water conservation districts.
Voluntary (highly supported)
Adequate
Perception of giving up use of fenced land
for 10 years.
Insufficient funds, a limiting factor for
participation.
Department of Environmental Protection -
Game Commission through an CBI Grant.
Stream bank stabilization from livestock.
Reduced NFS pollution.
-------
Ripiriin Forest Buffer Pan-' 'Bay Area Incentive Programs)
Page 2
Program
Practice
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
.ProL Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
' Agricultural Conservation Program
Permanent Vegetative Cover (SL1)
Incentive, Federal (MD, VA, PA)
technical and financial assistance.
Cost-share for establishing trees, grasses,
shrubs in eroding areas, including
riparian zone.
No
10 year practice lifespan.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
Voluntary,
MD 35 farms for 613 acres.
PA 265 farms for 3,165 acres
Adequate
Insufficient funds.
Burdensome paperwork
Consolidated Farm Services Agency,
funds vary from year to year;
Reduce nonpoirit source pollution.
Agricultural Conservation ProgT-..
Stream Protection (WP2)
Incentive, Federal (MD, VA, PA) technical
and financial assistance.
Cost-share for establishing permanent
vegetative cover, which can include trees,
along the banks of streams, as well as
related items such as remote watering
systems, streanf crossings for livestock,
and stream fencing.
No
10 year practice lifespan.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
Voluntary, MD 8 farms for 191 acres/yr .
PA 30 farms for 360 acres/yr
VA 4 farms for 8 1 .2 acres/yr .
Adequate
Insufficient funds.
Burdensome paperwork.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency, funds
vary from year to year.
Reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Establish and protect riparian forest
buffers.
Agricultural Conservation Program
Riparian Forest Buffer Establishment (WP7)
Incentive, Federal (CFSA) technical and
financial assistance.
Provides a number of cost-share practices
designed to solve soil, water, and related
environmental problems in agricultural areas,
including small woodlands. Most notably:
Minimum 95-foot forested Riparian Buffer
Strips.
Yes
10 year practice lifespan.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
Voluntary
Adequate
Buffer requirements perceived as too wide.
Insufficient funding.
Burdensome paperwork.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency! funds
vary from year to year.
Reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Establish and protect riparian forest buffers.
Conservation Reserve rOgram
N/A
Incentive, Federal (CFSA) technical and
financial assistance.
Takes highly erodible land out of
production for at least ten years. Cost-
share for tree establishment, other
vegetative cover. Annual rental
payments on land taken out of
production.
No
10 year practice lifespan.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency
Voluntary
Adequate
Insufficient funding.
Burdensome paperwork.
Consolidated Farm Services Agency,
funds vary from year to year.
Reduced NFS pollution.
Riparian forest buffers may be
established if HEL was recently cropped.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel (Bay Area Incentive Programs)
PageS
Program
Practice
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot. Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
Wetlands Reserve Program
N/A
Incentive, Federal (CFSA) technical and
financial assistance.
Allows farmers to sell permanent or 30
year easements to U.S.D.A. Cost-share to
restore altered wetlands to natural
condition. Eligible land includes prior
converted cropland, farmed wetlands,
riparian areas along streams or water
courses that link protected wetlands
No
Indefinite
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Voluntary
Adequate
Long term nature of agreement
Insufficient funds, not available in all
states
Burdensome paperwork
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
varies year to year
Protects wetlands and riparian forests
Woodland Incentive Program
N/A
Incentive, State (MD) technical and
financial assistance
Cost-share provided to non-industrial
private woodland owners for tree planting,
including riparian forest buffer estab-
. lishment.
No
15 year practice lifespan
MD DNR-Forest Service
Voluntary (Tree planting not distinguished
from buffer planting)
Adequate
Cost-share payment 15% less than other
available programs.
MD DNR-Forest Service @ $60,000/yr
General Funds
Establishment and maintenance of riparian
forest buffers
Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-Share
Program
Woodland Erosion Stabilization
Incentive, State (VA) technical and
financial assistance
Cost-share to establish permanent
vegetation on eroding areas, on forest
harvesting sites.
No
5 year practice lifespan
Department of Conservation & Recreation,
through the local soil and water
conservation districts
Voluntary, 20-30/yr for 65-80 acres.
Adequate
Some sites no longer eligible because they
are now captured by the "Bad Actor" Law.
Public Awareness
VA Department of Conservation and
Recreation via Federal Funds through a
CBI Grant, average $1.1 million/yr.
Reduce nonpoint source pollution
Improved wildlife habitat.
Forest Stewardship Program
N/A
Incentive, Federal (USFS) technical
assistance
Provides technical assistance to private
landowners for implementing conservation
practices while meeting harvesting needs.
Forest Stewardship Plans required for
participation in other federal cost-share
programs for forestry.
No
N/A
US Forest Service through State forestry
agencies
Voluntary, MD 570 yr for 40,00'0 acres
Adequate
Availability of service personnel or others
qualified to provide technical advise.
USFS through state forestry agencies, MD
$136,000/yr.
Sustainable multiple use management.
BMPs used during forest harvesting.
Establishment and maintenance of riparian
forest buffers recommended.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Par,' "'ay Area Incentive Programs)
Page.4
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
Prot. Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
$ Level/Source
Benefits
Forestry Incentive Program
Incentive, Federal (CFSA) technical and
financial assistance
Cost-share for tree planting, including in
forested wetlands and riparian areas on
private, non-industrial forest land.
No
10 year practice lifespan
Consolidated Farm Services Agency and
the State Forestry Agencies.
Voluntary, MD 60/yr for 2,300 acres
Adequate
Insufficient funding.
Lack of stable fund source.
10 acre minimum requirement
Consolidated Farm Services Agency,
MDFY94S 126,000
FY95 $ 63,000.
Establishment and maintenance of
riparian forest buffers.
Vigorous growth promoting increased
nutrient uptake and an increase of buffer
effectiveness.
Stewardship Incentive Program
Incentive, Federal (USFS/CFSA) technical
and financial assistance
Cost-sharing for tree planting, stream
fencing, riparian and wetland
improvement, tree shelters, and fisheries
habitat improvement on non-industrial
private forest land.
Yes, for SIP 6
10 year practice lifespan
US Forest Service and the Consolidated
Farm Services Agency through the State
forestry agencies.
Voluntary SIP 6:
MD 3.5 applications for 25 acres/yr
VA 4.0 applications for 20 acres/yr
PA 3.0 applications for 16.6 acres/yr
Adequate
Insufficient funding.
Lack of stable fund source.
Burdensome paperwork
SIP 6 MD average $6,000/yr
Riparian forest buffer and wetland
establishment.
Reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Protect and maintain stream integrity and
bank stability.
Special Rivers.Project
Incentive, Federal (EPA, Bay Program)
technical assistance
Fosters forest stewardship and best
management practices in both ruraland
urban watersheds to improve water quality.
Limited to the Susquehanna, Monocacy,
and Anacostia river bas.ins.
No
N/A
Environmental Protection Agency through
the Maryland Department of the
Environment and the DNR- Forest Service.
Voluntary
N/A
Insufficient funding via a CBI Grant
Limited personnel due to high turnover.
Environmental Protection Agency through
the Maryland Department of the
Environment and the DNR- Forest Service
@$I90,000/yr
Sustainable multiple use management.
BMPs used during forest harvesting.
Riparian forest buffer and wetland
establishment.
Reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Protect and maintain stream integrity and
bank stability.
Tree-Mendous Maryland
Incentive, State (MD)
Local businesses, regional corporations,
citizen groups, and local governments
conduct community plantings on public
land. Also trains people to lead tree-
planting efforts in their communities.
No
N/A
DNR-Forest Service
Voluntary, 42,000 volunteers/yr, plant
800,000 trees/yr on 1,200 acres.
N/A
Securing protection and maintenance for
Jong-term (vandalism)
Insufficient resources (e.g. funding and
personnel)
DNR-Forest Service @ $1 50,000/yr
Special Funds
Increases fores land base in urban areas.
Prevents and reduces NPS pollution.
Decreases Impervious surface area.
Educates people to.the value of trees and
forests and their relationship to water
quality.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel (Bay Area Incentive Programs)
PageS
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis.
Prot. Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
Forest Conservation and Management
Program
Incentive, State (MD)
Special tax assessments on forest land, if
the landowner agrees to adhere to a
forest stewardship plan.
No
15 year agreement
DNR-Forest Service and Department of
Assessment and Taxation
Voluntary, 60/yr for 1,500 acres
Adequate
Fees and penalties.
Short-term ownership trend.
Burdensome paperwork-.
Program funded by participants.
Protects forest land base.
Reduced carrying costs for participants.
Sustainable multiple use management.
BMPs used during forest harvesting.
Establishment and maintenance of
riparian forest buffers recommended.
Reforestation/Timber Stand Improvement
Tax Deduction (TAXMOD) Program
Incentive, State (MD)
Allows landowners of small forestry
operations to deduct double the costs
associated with reforestation activities,
including those in the riparian zone.
No
1 5 year maintenance requirement
DNR-Forest Service and Office of
Treasurer
Voluntary
Adequate
Lack of public awareness.
Burdensome paperwork.
N/A
More tree planting and riparian forest
buffer establishment.
Reduced carrying costs.
Agricultural Use Assessment
Incentive, State (MD)
Preferential assessment on value of land
used for agriculture. Woodlots can also
receive an agricultural assessment. No
specific requirements for riparian areas.
No
3 years with compliance checks and
verification
Department of Assessment and Taxation
Voluntary
Adequate
Lack of public awareness.
Little or no demand in rural areas where
agricultural use assessment is common.
N/A
Protects forest land base.
Reduced carrying costs for participants.
Sustainable multiple use management.
BMPs used during forest harvesting.
Establishment and maintenance of riparian
forest buffers recommended.
Use- Value Taxation
Incentive, State (VA)
Counties provide preferential assessments
on use value of agricultural and forest
land. No specific requirements for riparian
areas.
No
Duration of participation
Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services through the local tax
assessors.
Voluntary
Local Departments of Taxation
No clearly defined conservation
requirements.
Local jurisdictions experience loss of tax
base.
Not available in all counties (65 of 95)
N/A
Reduced carrying costs.
Encourages preservation of-open space.
-------
Riparian Forest Buffer Pa/j " "'ay Area Incentive Programs)
Page 6
Program
Type
Purpose
RFB Emphasis
ProL Level
Admin. Agency
Participation
Enforcement
Barriers
S Level/Source
Benefits
Farmland and Forest Land Assessment
Act ("Clean and Green Act")
Incentive, State (PA)
County can grant a preferential .
assessment for ten or more contiguous
acres of land devoted to agricultural,
forest reserve, or open space purposes.
Can apply to land in the riparian zone,
although no specific requirements in
riparian areas.
No.
10 year agreement
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
through local jurisdictions.
Voluntary
Adequate
Perception of loss of property rights
Penalties for non-compliance
N/A
Conservation of Open Space
Protects forest and agriculture land base.
Reduces carrying costs.
Public Law 96-451
Incentive, Federal (IRS)
Federal tax incentives to reduce
reforestation costs. Can include
reforestation efforts in riparian areas.
No
N/A
Internal Revenue Service
Voluntary
Adequate
Lack of public awareness.
Burdensome paperwork.
N/A
More tree planting and riparian forest
buffer establishment.
Reduced carrying costs.
-------
19V
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS and SUGGESTIONS
Programs often lack specific RFB focus, rather protecting, establishing
or maintaining RFBs is an ancillary benefit to some other programmatic
goal.
Federal and state support funds for RFBs are unstable or on the decline
adversely affecting such programs as SIP, FIP, CBI grants, and CZMA
§ 6217.
Given the current political and fiscal climate, new partnerships must be
sought to expand potential sources of additional funding and other
forms of in-kind support.
Many programs are unnecessarily bureaucratic, complicated to
understand and participate in, and cumbersome to administer due to
burdensome paperwork. Streamlining would improve the participation
in many existing programs and be essential for any new programs.
A general lack of awareness of the various existing RFB programs is a
serious impediment to more satisfactory levels of participation. Other
programs suffer from unfounded misconception by the land owning
public. More needs to be done to increase the awareness of program
availability, dispel myths, and tout the benefits of RFBs and program
participation.
Many state regulatory programs are implemented by local jurisdictions
with varying degrees of consistency. Many counties or municipalities
add additional restrictions, require different levels of compliance, or
have varying abilities to adequately provide program enforcement. A
greater effort must be made to ensure overall consistency for program
implementation at the local level.
There are many agencies and conservation organizations involved with
riparian forest buffer retention and/or restoration, but with varying
degrees of support. A consensus for making RFBs a priority concern
must be forged and pursued by all stakeholders. The commitment for
RFBs must be effectively communicated to all personnel and supported
by dedicating the time necessary to ensure success.
Cost-share rates and caps, grants and/or tax breaks may not be
sufficient to encourage forest landowners to initiate RFB supporting
activities. In other cases incentives may be very popular, with the
-------
limiting factor being the availability of funds to meet the demand for
participation. Adjustments to cost-share rates, raising of program
caps, and enhancing tax abatements can dramatically improve program
participation and the ability to service program applicants. Any
restructuring of economic incentives must ensure that local
governments, likely to implement RFB programs, will not suffer a net
loss to the local tax base.
Various incentives programs have requirements such as entry fees,
minimum acreage or time commitments which can discourage
participation in RFB programs. Reducing minimum acreage, providing
flexible or amendable time commitments, and waving fees for certain
program delivery can improve program acceptability and participation.
RFB programs provide varying levels of protection ranging from the
duration of the regulated activity to 25 plus years for easement type
programs. The majority of cost-share programs provides for 10-15
years of protection through practice maintenance requirements.
Most RFB programs on the federal level consist of funds for technical
and financial assistance and various types of income tax breaks.
Most RFB programs on the state level consist of service delivery for
technical and financial assistance (including easement programs) and
various types of income and property tax breaks.
Most RFB programs on the local (county and municipal) level consist of
comprehensive planning and zoning and the institution of development
and conservation ordinances.
RFB accomplishment reporting is not consistent between and within
the states. Common units of measure by county or watershed will
allow for the tracking of progress and the analysis of trends. Each
state should work toward establishing baseline data for the presence
and adequacy of RFBs by which future progress can be judged.
RFB funding comes from a myriad of sources at the federal, state and
local levels. Not all programs have a specific buffer component or
otherwise have the ability to differentiate between administrative
overhead and implementation relative to RFBs establishment,
protection and maintenance. Accounting procedures must be put in
place to allow for tracking expenditures relative to RFB activities
specifically and to facilitate cost-benefit analysis for program
effectiveness and accountability.
-------
Programs which mandate mitigation for the loss of forest land or the
designation of set aside acreage often have requirements which do not
recognize the establishment of RFBs as a legitimate way of complying
with the mandate. These kinds of conflicts need to be corrected so
that such programs can be supportive of RFB establishment.
Some RFB programs need to be more flexible allowing landowners to
perform needed maintenance, conduct pest control measures and
judiciously harvest timber to recover some economic return from the
land on a periodic basis. Natural forests must be thinned by man or
nature periodically to encourage new growth and the vigor and health
of the existing resource.
CASE STUDIES
Baltimore county Riparian Buffer Initiatives (MD)
-------
BALTIMORE COUNTY RIPARIAN BUFFER INITIATIVES
Baltimore County, Maryland, exemplifies a proactive local
approach to the protection of its water resources and management of
its riparian forest buffers. With a population of 712,000 and 2,000
miles of streams that drain to the Baltimore region's three drinking
water reservoirs/ tidal creeks, and the Chesapeake Bay, the County
has employed multiple mechanisms for the management of riparian
ecosystems. These mechanisms Include regulation, restoration, and
citizen education and participation.
The County first established protection of stream systems
through its Resource Conservation zoning in the 1970's, which
Included the RC4 Watershed Protection zone on more than 70,000 acres
or 18% of the County land that drains to the three public
reservoirs. RC4 zoning has density of .2 dwelling units per acre
and 3 acre minimum lot sizes. It was applied to extensive areas
adjacent to the reservoirs and along major tributary stream systems,
with widths of 300 feet and greater where steep slopes exist.
Performance controls Include a prohibition on clearing more than 25%
of the forest cover of a site and the establishment of more than 10%
impervious surfaces.
With the Increasing recognition of the importance of protecting
streams which drain directly to non-reservoir receiving waters,
including the Chesapeake Bay, and of the beneficial functions
provided by riparian ecosystems, Baltimore County initiated broader
riparian buffer measures in the mid 1980's. The Department of
Environmental Protection and Resource Management (DEPRM) implemented
County-wide buffer regulations by Executive Order starting in June
1989. In January 1991, they were codified.as regulations for the
Protection of Water Quality, Streams, Wetlands/ and Floodplains. As
implied in the title, the regulations provide for the delineation
and reservation of areas along streams and their associated
floodplains/ wetlands, and steep or erodible slopes. The
legislation Intends that the riparian areas be left undisturbed to
the extent possible in order to encourage regeneration or continued
growth of existing vegetation. Termed "forest buffers," the
sensitive riparian areas are protected through post-construction of
developments through delineation of buffer areas on record plats and
recordatlon of standard no-disturbance restrictive covenants.
There are four aspects of Baltimore County's buffer regulations
that are distinctive or innovative. First/ the concepts contained
in the legislation were developed over several years by the
Baltimore County Water Quality Steering Committee through a process
of negotiation and consensus building. The Steering Committee
consisted of representatives from the engineering, home building,
and environmental communities, as well as representatives from
County agencies. Second, the standards for forest buffers apply to
all streams, including Intermittent and perennial, and mapped and
unmapped streams. Because the smallest 1st and 2nd order headwater
streams represent approximately 50% and 25% of the County's stream
network, respectively, the regulations protect the reaches most
essential to the ecological health of river systems.
-------
A third feature of the regulations is that the degree to which
forest buffers are applied to a site is dependent on the environmen-
tal sensitivity of that site. Buffers are field delineated to
include the greater of existing flood plain and non-tidal wetlands
associated with streams and extensions in areas of steep or credible
slopes, or minimum buffer widths of 75 feet or 100 feet on each side
of streams based on State-designated beneficial uses. Finally, the
legislation is an integral part of Baltimore County's overall
strategy for water resource management which includes watershed
management planning; water quality monitoring; citizen education and
volunteer activities; and a 24 million dollar, six year capital
program for stream restoration, stormwater retrofits, wetland
creation, forest establishment, waterway clean-ups, dredging, and
shore erosion control.
The resource management planning underway by Baltimore County
is providing invaluable information on resource conditions as well
as effectiveness of regulatory and restoration components.
Digitization of stream systems from 200-scale photogrammetric maps
into a Geographic Information System revealed that the County has
approximately 2100 miles of streams, or twice the mileage determined
previously through State management programs based on USGS 2000-
scale topographic maps. Further CIS analysis was conducted of land
cover and 100 foot minimum buffers, which would apply to any
development in the northern two-^thirds of the County where natural
or recreational trout waters are designated. Of the 70,000 acres
potentially covered by these buffers, slightly less than one-half of
the acreage is presently forested. For the County's 14 major
watersheds, the percentage of stream buffers in forest cover ranges,
however, from a low of 10% to a high of 63%. These coverages compare
to a total county-wide forest cover of approximately one-third, with
sub-watershed forest cover ranging from 10% to 50%. For the
watersheds of the three drinking water reservoirs, which total 46%
of Baltimore County, overall forest cover is 43% with 48% of
hypothetical 100 foot buffers in forest cover. Further analysis
will evaluate riparian buffers by stream order and will attempt to
correlate subwatershed resource conditions with the six yearsfof
macroinvertebrate monitoring conducted as part of the Baltimore
County Citizens for Stream Restoration Campaign.
Additional evaluation of the effectiveness of the County's
stream buffer regulations is on-going based on a resource tracking
database developed for land development projects reviewed by DEPRM.
Although there are hundreds of projects of varying sizes and
resource characteristics, for one sample of 10 projects varying from
of 50 to 165 acres, and totaling 832 acres with 19,650 feet of
streams, 198 acres of buffers were protected. Another sample of 10
development projects ranging from 10 to 50 acres and totaling 243
acres with 9300 feet of streams, 45 acres of buffers were
identified. These data suggest that Baltimore County's riparian
forest buffer regulations are effective in protecting stream
systems.
-------
261
Chesapeake Bay Commission
A legislative commission serving Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.
AN ANALYSIS OF RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER POLICIES
IN MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND PENNSYLVANIA
ADOPTED JANUARY 6, 1995
Introduction
In June 1994, the Chesapeake Bay Commission adopted the Resolution Supporting the
Development of a Riparian Forest Buffer Policy. The resolution states that it will be the policy
of the Commission to work to maintain riparian forests where they exist and restore them where
they have been lost. It also urges the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop a comprehensive,
watershed-wide policy, with input from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, to maintain and
restore riparian forests. Finally, the resolution commits the Commission to an examination of
existing state and federal programs, policies, and regulations to determine their effectiveness in
promoting the maintenance and restoration of these forests.
This paper presents the findings of'that examination. Information was gathered by
contacting key decision makers in state and federal agencies, talking with landowners, private
industry and private citizens, and reviewing literature, laws and regulations in the Bay region.
A compendium of local, state, and federal laws and programs in Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania that have riparian maintenance and restoration elements can be found in Appendix
A of this paper. The Commission's resolution can be found in Appendix B.
The paper focuses on programs that promote forests in the riparian zone, rather than the
larger universe of stream protection efforts. This focus helps highlight those issues unique to
the implementation of riparian forests. The analysis does, however, adopt a great deal of
latitude in defining riparian "forest" programs. Some of the programs examined revealed very
strong forest elements, while some revealed only limited or incidental riparian forest
maintenance and restoration opportunities. Looking at a broad range of programs, even the ones
where forests play a very small part, helps to identify where the forest "gaps" are, and helps
decision makers think about how to increase the programmatic emphasis on riparian forests.
Issues in Riparian Forest Buffer Maintenance and Restoration
As the Chesapeake Bay Program has shifted its focus to addressing the impact of
nutrients in the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay, riparian forests along the streams, rivers, and
60 West Street, Suite 200 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (301)263-3420
-------
shorelines of the watershed have become an increasingly important component of the strategy
to reduce nutrients and provide living resource habitats. Riparian forests can protect water
quality in streams by mitigating nutrients in both surface and groundwater, by settling out
sediments in runoff, and by decreasing stream velocity and energy during storm events that
might otherwise increase streambank erosion. These forests are also critical to ensuring a host
of living resource habitat benefits for organisms in the stream. The forest canopy provides
shade, thereby moderating water temperature, and provides leaf litter, which serves as the basis
of the riparian food chain. Forests also supply large woody debris, such as fallen logs, which
form protected pools for the propagation of fish eggs and insect larvae and habitat for species
in tidal shallow water areas. This debris creates variations in stream flow as well, which
promote a diversity of in-stream habitats for aquatic organisms.
From a policy perspective, riparian forests are crucial to the restoration of migratory fish
species, such as shad, herring, and striped bass. Without the ecological benefits afforded by
riparian forests, many streams and rivers, including some of those currently targeted for the
construction of fish passages, may not attain the water quality or the habitat requirements
necessary to support populations of migratory fish. Thus the success of the Bay Program's fish
passage efforts is tightly linked to riparian forest maintenance and restoration.
Largely in response to the Commission's resolution, the Chesapeake Executive Council
recently adopted the Riparian Forest Buffer Directive (see Appendix C). The Directive commits
the signatories to developing a comprehensive, watershed-wide policy to enhance the
maintenance, restoration, and stewardship of riparian forests. Specifically, the Directive calls
for a panel to be convened to develop a policy for Executive Council consideration.
The Riparian Forest Buffer Panel will consider and make recommendations, where
appropriate, for a number of policy items. One of the Panel's primary challenges is to propose
accepted definitions of forest buffers which balance the ecological criteria needed to protect
water quality and habitat in the stream with the accommodation of resource management
activities appropriate within the riparian zone. The Panel also has been charged with
establishing time-sensitive, quantifiable goals, measured in acres, stream miles, or other
appropriate terms, to serve as long-term targets for the maintenance and restoration of riparian
forests.
In addition, the Panel will examine ways to strengthen communication and partnerships
between federal, state, and local governments, private landowners, and the public. An interim
report from the Panel outlining the major policy findings will be submitted to the Executive
Council in 1995, with final recommendations for a riparian forest buffer policy due in 1996.
While the Directive was being developed, the staff of the Chesapeake Bay Commission
began its examination of existing state and federal programs, policies, and regulations in
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, as called for in the Commission's resolution. This
preliminary programmatic analysis revealed how. widely riparian protection measures are
dispersed across different laws, programs, land uses, and issues. There are components of
-------
riparian forest maintenance and restoration^ development regulations, agricultural programs,
forestry programs, and even tax policy. Some measures are mandatory while others are
voluntary. Some expressly advocate the maintenance and restoration of riparian forests, while
others provide more limited, even incidental protection of these forests.
This array of programs is advantageous in that it provides a number of different riparian
protection "tools." The disadvantage, however, is that the current policy framework represents
a fragmented approach to riparian forest maintenance and restoration. There is no overarching
policy guidance to better coordinate these discrete efforts. A comprehensive policy is needed
which articulates the benefits of riparian forests and then integrates these concepts into the
implementation of existing programs. With a more consistent policy direction, programs can
be better coordinated and the emphasis on riparian forest objectives can be enhanced, while still
providing landowners and agencies with the flexibility that a "menu" of programs provides.
Modifying the existing programmatic structure, however, requires that decision makers
first assess how well each program or type of program is working to achieve riparian forest
objectives. How many acres or stream miles has a program maintained or restored? How well
are programs being implemented or enforced? How have landowners reacted to these practices?
How cost-effective are these programs? How do we define and measure "riparian forests"?
These questions call for a much more extensive programmatic assessment than Commission staff
alone were able to provide. Taking this analysis to the next level of detail requires the resources
of a broad range of technical stakeholders who can produce and assess empirical data.
Partnerships on Pennsylvania's Conodoguinet Creek
Conodoguinet Creek flows 101 miles through Pennsylvania's Cumberland Valley to the
Susquehanna River, through, a mix of forests, agricultural lands, and development The Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, the Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry, the U,S. Geological Survey (USGS), a Jocal
watershed organization, local governments, and volunteers are working on several projects, including one
to restore riparian forests along the creek. Groups of citizen volunteers, trained by a professional
forester from a major paper company, recently conducted a riparian inventory on randomly selected sites.
With the Bureau of Forestry providing technical assistance, restoration plans were designed and
volunteer^ were organized to begin planting trees at selected sites. Funding for seedlings and other
materials was provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the Pennsylvania Bureau
of Forestry, and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay also has plans to conduct training workshops throughout
the Susquehanna watershed to spread the word about riparian forest stewardship. The workshops would
teach citizen groups, landowners, agency officials, and local governments about the importance of
riparian forests and how to work riparian forest stewardship objectives into local planning. The emphasis
is not simply on planting trees but on planting ideas teaching the general public that riparian forests
matter and empowering communities to initiate their own riparian maintenance and restoration efforts.
-------
The Riparian Forest Buffer Panel is an appropriate forum for continuing this analysis.
The Panel is charged with developing a comprehensive, watershed-wide policy on riparian
forests, which will include adopting accepted definitions of riparian forest buffers and
establishing quantifiable goals to serve as a watershed targets for riparian forest maintenance and
restoration. The Panel is thus well positioned to coordinate the programmatic assessment in a
manner consistent with the accepted buffer definitions and to recommend programmatic changes
that will achieve the established goals.
The Commission's preliminary analysis, however, has revealed a number of key factors
and issues that can influence the success of riparian forest maintenance and restoration efforts.
The Commission's analysis provides a starting point for a more detailed programmatic
assessment, and raises a number of issues which will be important for guiding discussions on
how to coordinate and modify existing riparian programs. These issues, detailed below, should
be considered by the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel as a watershed-wide riparian forest policy is
developed.
Specifying Riparian Forest Objectives
There are a number of riparian programs in which the maintenance and restoration of
trees plays an important role. Yet even these programs sometimes fall short of delivering the
full range of ecological benefits that riparian forests can provide. For example, a program that
does not specify the types of trees that should be maintained may not provide the appropriate
mix of leaf litter necessary to supply food for aquatic insects or to maximize water quality
improvements. Some tree-planting and tree-maintenance programs may not address forest stand
structure issues ~ density, age classes, understory vegetation which can affect water quality
and stream habitat. Thus simply ensuring the presence of trees in riparian areas does not by
itself ensure the ecological integrity of the stream. Programs need to address forests more
comprehensively.
There are many examples of forest "gaps" in riparian maintenance and restoration
programs. Sometimes one or more of the ecological benefits of riparian forests are simply
omitted from a law or program, as with Pennsylvania's Streambank Fencing Program. Although
the program is laudable in that it affords a very substantial measure of stream protection from
the impacts of livestock, it places no specific emphasis on the restoration of trees. Other times,
there may be provisions of a law which work against certain ecological benefits, such as
Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Although the law requires landowners near
streams and rivers to protect forested areas, it also allows the clearing of trees to improve vistas
and the removal of large woody debris from the riparian forest and stream shallows, where it
serves a useful ecological purpose. Finally, the gap may take the form of an exemption to the
law for certain land uses, as is the case with Maryland's Critical Area Law, which often permits
grass-only buffers for agricultural land. If the maintenance of riparian forest buffers is to be
accomplished in these and other programs, then riparian forest objectives - and the package of
benefits riparian forests provide must be clearly defined in the language of the programs.
-------
This does not mean that inflexibility should be advocated. Different resource.uses and
values can and must be accommodated in riparian forest stewardship programs. But by re-
examining our current approach to programs like the ones described above, we may be able to
fine-tune riparian programs to increase the emphasis on forest-values without compromising the
basic needs of landowners. This requires identifying and communicating to agency managers
and landowners alike the full range of riparian forest objectives that policy makers would like
to achieve.
Enforcement
There are many examples in the Chesapeake Bay region of regulatory programs that
maintain riparian forests. Some of these programs, such as riparian forest requirements for
commercial forestry operations in Maryland and Virginia, address a large percentage of riparian
land in each state. Other programs, such as Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and
Maryland's Critical Area Act, cover more limited regions but protect those stream areas nearest
the Bay and its tributaries, and reduce the impacts of development, where the loss of riparian
forests may be permanent. In Pennsylvania, land managers require maintenance of riparian
forests on state lands, thereby protecting some of the state's most pristine streams. These
regulatory programs are essential to maintaining and restoring riparian forest buffers and
protecting water quality throughout the Bay region.
As with all regulatory programs, enforcement is critical to ensuring that the law provides
its fullest measure of protection and that the regulated community is treated equitably. The
preliminary analysis performed by the Chesapeake Bay Commission did not empirically assess
the success of enforcement efforts, although the sentiment was often expressed that greater
enforcement resources were needed. A watershed-wide analysis of enforcement needs would
help determine if regulatory programs are working properly. It is especially important to
conduct this assessment prior to consideration of any additional regulations. Policy makers may
find that there are ample regulatory "tools" available, and that strengthening the enforcement of
existing laws may be a more economical and politically practical means of accomplishing
riparian forest maintenance and restoration than the promulgation of additional regulatory
measures. Also, it would be instructive to compare regulatory efforts to voluntary guidelines
in order to assess the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach in maintaining
riparian forests.
Incentives and Disincentives
Because so much of the protection of riparian land relies on voluntary and contractual
programs, a central element of riparian forest policy involves incentives cost-share programs,
fee payments for land taken out of production, subsidized seedlings, and so on. These incentives
are delivered through a host of agents such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), the Consolidated Farm Service Agency (CFSA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, state and local natural resource agencies, private industry, and citizen groups.
Pennsylvania's Streambank Fencing Program is exemplary in that it provides fencing to restrict
-------
livestock access to streams free of charge to farmers. This has resulted in the installation of
over 100 miles of fencing. Forestry corporations such as Westvaco, Chesapeake, and Glatfelter
provide subsidized seedlings to landowners for reforestation, and countless private businesses
are involved in community forest buffer replanting programs. But the question remains as to
how effective various incentive programs are in meeting the economic needs of landowners while
maintaining and restoring riparian forests.
One-on-One Forestry in Virginia
Virginia's Water Quality Law gives the Department of Forestry legal authority to protect streams
from sedimentation on any forestry operation. The state's voluntary best management practice (BMP)
guidelines, usually recommended as the best way to achieve compliance with the law, specify the
maintenance of a minimum 50-foot forested buffer along streams and retention of at least 50% of the
crown cover or 50 Square feet of tree trunk cover (known as "basal area") per acre. In addition, the
State Forester can instituted stop-work order, implement corrective measures, and impose civil fines for
water quality violations.
But what makes this regulatory program unusual is its flexibility. The law allows the State
Forester to permit unconventional best management practices if they are found to be equivalent to the
state's guidelines in protecting water quality. This motivates industry to comply with the law while
searching for cost-effective, innovative alternatives to standard forestry guidelines. Thus both a stick and
a carrot are employed to encourage landowners and foresters to work together to find mutually agreeable
means of protecting streams.
The law also authorizes the State Forester to provide technical assistance to'counties,
municipalities, corporations, and individuals for the protection of trees, woodlots, and Umber tracts, and
the establishment and preservation of urban forests. Says Tames Garner, State Forester for Virginia,
"We're not just out there telling industry what to do. We communicate with them, one-on-one.
Actually, there are a lot of things we are learning from them about how to protect streams."
The financial benefit a landowner receives can have a significant impact on his or her
willingness to participate in riparian forest programs. For example, Maryland's Buffer Incentive
Program had a backlog of applicants when the program offered landowners a one-time $500-per-
acre payment to establish and maintain minimum 50-foot forested buffers. A recent legislative
modification to the program lowered the payment to $300 per acre; the result was a steep decline
in the number of applicants. A more detailed, formal analysis of economic incentives could help
determine what levels of cost-share are economical to landowners in differing land-use scenarios.
Some relatively minor adjustments to funding levels or structures could result in significant
changes in the willingness of landowners to participate in incentive programs.
Similarly, there may be opportunities in other resource-land incentive programs to
increase the focus on riparian protection where little or none currently exists. For example, all
three states have some type of preferential tax assessment program for land kept in various
resource uses or open space, such as prime agricultural land or private woodlots. These
programs reduce the assessed value of the land, resulting in lower property taxes. Yet these
-------
programs often lack any special provisions for protection of the riparian zone, and none have
specific conditions for maintaining riparian forests. Thus where incentives exist to protect
resource land in general, opportunities to promote riparian forest stewardship could be
considered.
It is equally important to examine aspects of regulatory programs that might hinder
participation in riparian forest stewardship. In Maryland, one landowner reported frustration
with state and federal wetland permitting requirements for constructing stream crossings for
livestock, when the alternative (allowing unrestricted livestock access to the stream) is entirely
.unregulated. Thus there may be instances where a regulatory process, even one geared toward
stream protection, may be perceived by the landowner as a disincentive, to better riparian
stewardship.
Disincentives may exist as well because of conditions in other landowner assistance
programs. For example, some federal subsidy programs, such as the Commodity Set-Aside
program, make payments to farmers based on the number of acres in or available to production.
If that farmer permanently removes part of his land from production for uses such as riparian
forest buffers, he risks losing some of that subsidy. Decision makers need to examine other
resource-use assistance programs to identify disincentives to riparian forest implementation, and
see if there are ways in which those programs could be adjusted to benefit both the landowner
and the riparian area.
Finally, buffer restoration may present perceptual disincentives to landowners. When
some of the trees closest to the stream in a recently restored forest buffer are washed away
during a flood event, questions about the benefits of these efforts are inevitably raised. In some
cases, this kind of natural widening of the stream bed is an expected outcome in a recovering
riparian forest. Viewed as desirable to the stream ecologist, this change in the stream bank can
be perceived by the landowner as a failure of the practice to protect the stream and stabilize
land. Landowners may also view riparian forest establishment efforts as "preservation-only"
encroachments, when in fact many successful riparian forest programs permit and even
encourage active forest management and other resource-use activities in the riparian zone. Thus
addressing disincentives may also involve developing strategies to better communicate with
landowners and land managers, so that they understand the ecology of stream systems and
scientists and agency personnel understand landowner or land manager needs and expectations.
Complexity of Federal and State Cost-Share Practices
There is a bewildering array of cost-share programs and practices available for both
agriculture and forestry uses. Many of these financial incentives affect the riparian zone.
Although this "menu" of practices can provide flexibility in meeting a landowner's needs, it can
also be confusing and result in a piecemeal approach to riparian stewardship. There are many
overlapping and sometimes conflicting practices available in different state and federal agencies.
Even virtually identical practices, with identical names, sometimes have different provisions,
conditions, and requirements. For example, the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and
-------
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) are both administered by the CFSA. According to
Pennsylvania's CFSA manuals, both programs provide cost-share for the establishment of
permanent vegetative cover on critical areas, both have provisions for planting trees, and both
require livestock exclusion from the stream area for these practices. But whereas ACP provides
cost-share at a rate of 75 percent, authorizes payment for livestock fencing, and has a contract
life of 10 years, CRP provides cost-share at a rate of 50 percent, does not authorize payment
for livestock fencing, and has a contract life of 15 years. Often agency personnel have trouble
sorting out these differences and remaining current on similar practices offered in other
programs and agencies. It is likely that landowners may see this complexity as a barrier to
riparian stewardship. Thus what is intended as an incentive may be perceived as a disincentive.
One way in which the Bay Program could address this problem is to involve federal and
state agencies in examining how to strengthen the emphasis on riparian forest buffers while
streamlining cost-share programs, where appropriate, so that the individual practices for riparian
forest stewardship are more comprehensive and consistent with one another. One illustrative
example of streamlining may soon occur on the federal level. The U.S.D.A. Forest Service's
Forestry Incentive Program, which has traditionally been oriented toward timber production, is
scheduled to sunset in 1995. Rather than reauthorize the program, the federal government will
instead focus its efforts on the Forest Service's Stewardship Incentive Program, which addresses
both ecological and production values while promoting enhanced coordination with state-level
agencies.
Another barrier to participation in cost-share practices is the time and paperwork involved
in applying to these programs. A landowner may be referred to two or three different agencies
in order to implement a combination of riparian protection measures. For example, stream
fencing for livestock combined with tree planting in the buffer requires a Maryland farmer to
visit both the Soil Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resource's Forest
Service, which may be located miles apart. Decision makers in resource agencies should
consider ways to better coordinate practices and programs so that a landowner seeking to
implement riparian forests and other conservation practices can do "one-stop shopping." The
Bay Program's efforts to implement a Total Resource Management (TRM) approach to
conservation planning may be highly instructive in making landowner stewardship more user
friendly.
Program Funding and Financing
Throughout the Commission's analysis, concern over inadequate funding for programs
was repeatedly expressed by agency personnel. This appeared to be true not only for
enforcement manpower in regulatory programs, as mentioned above, but also for providing
technical assistance needed to implement cost-share programs. Many agricultural agencies on
both the state and federal levels report being unable to accommodate a long waiting list of clients
who would like to implement conservation practices, which may include riparian forest buffers.
Thus, even when cost-share funding is available, there is a dearth of technical assistance
personnel needed to write conservation plans for landowners.
8
-------
Community Forestry in Maryland
In cities like Baltimore and in other urban and suburban locations throughout Maryland, state
and local governments, citizens, businesses, and non-profit organizations are working as teams to
improve the physical and social environments of public land while protecting stream corridors and other
vital ecosystems. The Tree-mendous Maryland program encourages communities to plant trees on public
property throughout the state and designates stream areas as priority planting sites.
The Maryland Forest service relies on the partnership of local businesses, regional corporations,
and citizen groups to make the program financially self-sufficient. Hie program works with local
governments and volunteers to identify sites and conduct community plantings. Trees are purchased at
a discount from the Department of Natural Resources by individuals, clubs, associations, schools,
businesses, and communities. During the first six years of the program, nearly six million trees were
planted around the state by volunteers. The program has also trained 2,000 people to lead tree-planting
efforts in their communities. Over 250,000 people have been involved in the program since its inception.
The Revitalizing Baltimore program is working to simultaneously restore stream quality and
urban quality of life through community action, hands-on environmental assessment, riparian tree
planting, technical assistance, and community leadership conferences. The program combines
environmental protection with community development to make urban Baltimore more aesthetically and
ecologically desirable. Groups such as Save Our Streams and the Trust for Public Land are working with
urban planning departments and local businesses to teach young people about responsibility and
community development through tree planting and citizen water quality monitoring. The Maryland Forest
Service provides technical assistance. The program demonstrates that environmental protection can play
an important role in teaching people to care, about their communities and in developing skills and
responsibilities that will help them lead more productive lives.
Clearly, more funding will be needed to enhance riparian forest buffer efforts throughout
the Bay region. In an era of fiscal austerity, however, public funds alone cannot supply the
resources needed. Decisions makers must consider exploring alternative financing mechanisms,
as well as seeking the involvement of private industry, businesses, local governments, citizen
groups, and volunteers. Both the Maryland Blue Ribbon Panel, which recently issued its report
on financing alternatives for Maryland's tributary strategies, and Pennsylvania's Stream Corridor
Protection Workgroup may provide some ideas for how to finance riparian forest buffers.
Lack of Consistency
There is enormous variability in the width, density, and diversity of riparian forest
criteria across the range of existing riparian forest programs. Target definitions and ecological
standards need to be specified in order to develop clear policy goals for riparian forests. This
does not mean that a rigid standard should be applied to all streams, for the ecological
requirements needed to optimize water quality and living resource habitats will vary according
to the stream type and adjacent land uses. Some range of definitions, however, should be
applied so that minimum ecological criteria are met in each given situation. This will be one
of the primary tasks which the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel will undertake, as called for in the
Riparian Forest Buffer Directive.
-------
Lack of Data
Although a great deal of scientific data has been collected concerning riparian forest
buffers, decision makers often lack important programmatic data - the kind of data that tell us
how many acres of riparian forest have been restored or how many dollars have been devoted
to riparian restoration efforts. Many programs that affect the riparian zone, even those with
riparian forest components, do not maintain readily available programmatic data on riparian
forest implementation. Sometimes the data are buried in programmatic records, and limited
personnel resources prevent this information from being readily available. In other cases, there
may be no way to separate the riparian forest data from general forest data, because the
program's data collection methods were not designed to differentiate between the two. Both of
these examples clearly illustrate why it is important to integrate a riparian forest policy into the
current framework of resource assistance programs. Moreover, as policy makers reorient these
programs to emphasize riparian forest stewardship, it is critical that a comprehensive, watershed-
wide forest buffer tracking system be developed so that this kind of data can be maintained in
the future.
Impermanence of Incentive Programs
Most cost-share practices are contracted for 10 years. Now is the time to begin thinking
of additional incentives to maintain buffers permanently, in a way which provides for resource
uses but also maintains the long-term ecology of the stream. Otherwise, riparian forest buffers,
to whicji years of money and effort have been devoted, may be converted to other land uses.
Recommendations
The issues raised by the Chesapeake Bay Commission's analysis point to the need for
more information about riparian forest programs and the involvement of a broader community
of stakeholders in developing strategies to enhance riparian forest maintenance and restoration.
The Riparian Forest Buffer Panel, convened to develop a broad-based, watershed-wide policy
on riparian forest buffers, is the appropriate forum for addressing these challenges and
summoning the resources necessary to ensure that analyses are thorough and policy decisions
are technically and politically feasible. Therefore, as the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel carries
out the responsibilities specified in the Riparian Forest Buffer Directive, the Chesapeake Bay
Commission recommends that the Panel consider undertaking the following tasks to support its
work.
1. The Riparian Forest Buffer Panel should continue a watershed-wide analysis of laws
and programs.
This would involve taking the preliminary analysis. by the Chesapeake Bay
Commission to the next level of detail. The Panel could work with Bay Program
subcommittees and agency staff from local, state, and federal governments to ask how
10
-------
many acres or stream miles of riparian forests each program has maintained or restored,
and what benefits those buffers provide. Then the Panel can analyze which programs are
working most effectively and how programs can be modified to more efficiently use
existing funds and-administrative structures.
Given limited funds and time on the part of agency and Bay Program staff, there will
likely be some limit on how detailed this type of analysis can be. As mentioned above,
programmatic data on riparian forest buffers is not always easily available or standardized
from one program to another. Yet simply convening key programmatic stakeholders to
examine current programs and discuss programmatic changes would be an extremely useful
step, as pieces of this analysis may have already been carried out by various state and
federal agencies and the research community.
The Chesapeake Bay Commission would also like to re-emphasize those items from
its Resolution Supporting the Development of a Riparian Forest Buffer Policy that would
be an essential component of this analysis, including:
An examination of what landowners perceive to be obstacles to the
implementation of riparian forest buffers, through a landowner survey and/or
a landowner roundtable.
An analysis of economic incentives and disincentives for implementing riparian
forest buffers, in order to assess the effectiveness of existing riparian buffer
programs.
2. The Riparian Forest Buffer Panel should develop a forest buffer tracking system.
As mentioned above, information on the amount of riparian land maintained or
restored by various programs is often not readily available from those agencies conducting
the programs. Currently there is no watershed-wide tracking effort. The programmatic
analysis would likely reconstruct some of this information from the past. Thus it is
important to develop a coordinated, watershed-wide tracking system, in which different
riparian programs would cooperatively maintain standardized data on the implementation
of riparian forest buffers. This system would ensure easy and timely access to
programmatic information on riparian forest buffers in the future. It would also help the
Bay Program measure its progress toward any goals or related objectives determined by
the Panel.
3. The Riparian Forest Buffer Panel should explore alternative financing mechanisms,
including tax incentives and public/private partnerships.
Recommendations for programmatic changes should address how programs will be
financed. The Commission's analysis revealed that there are a number of existing
programs, such as preferential tax assessment programs for land kept in conservation,
11
-------
where the emphasis on riparian protection could be enhanced. There also exist examples
of successful public/private partnerships, such as timber industry cost-share programs,
Tree-mendous Maryland, and riparian restoration efforts on Conodoguinet Creek. In
addition, the Bay Program can look to Maryland's tributary strategy Blue Ribbon Panel
or Pennsylvania's Stream Corridor Protection Workgroup for ideas on financing
alternatives.
12
-------
APPENDIX A
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS:
LAWS AND PRACTICES IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY STATES
A Compendium of Riparian Protection Programs
in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.
-------
Introduction
This compendium briefly describes the laws and programs that protect or address riparian
forests in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. It focuses on riparian forests, rather than the
larger universe of stream protection efforts. 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 don't 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 toward a more comprehensive policy will
require greater consistency and better coordination among these approaches.
I. 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 mandatory
100-foot, naturally vegetated 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 passed 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 wetland exists adjacent to a stream.
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.
. A-l
-------
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.
Revitalizing Baltimore: This program is working to restore stream quality through community
action, hands-on environmental assessment, riparian tree planting, technical assistance, and
community leadership conferences. The program combines environmental protection with
community development to make urban Baltimore more aesthetically and ecologically desirable.
Citizen groups work with urban planning departments and local businesses to teach young people
about responsibility and community development through tree planting and citizen water quality
monitoring. The Maryland Forest Service provides technical assistance.
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 "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 the designation
of protection areas to all other areas of the county. In addition, one other county outside of
tidewater Virginia (Albermarle) has 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.
Local Zoning Ordinances: There are several thousand individual municipalities in
Pennsylvania. A small number of them have ordinances which restrict timber harvesting
altogether, although there are few specific protections for the riparian zone.
A-2
-------
216
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
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 minimum 12-foot buffer is provided free to rural
landowners by the Pennsylvania Game Commission in exchange for allowing public hunting on
A-3
-------
their land. The Department of Environmental Resources is currently in the process of setting
up a parallel program that omits the hunting requirement.
Federal
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP): This program provides a number of cost-share
practices designed to solve soil, water, and related environmental problems in agricultural areas,
including small woodlands. Many practices are similar to those in state cost-share programs.
Most notably, there is a Riparian Buffer Strips practice, which requires a minimum 95-foot
buffer consisting of diverse, undisturbed forest nearest the stream and managed forest, shrubs,
and grasses farther out. Also authorized under ACP are forestry cost-share practices. The
program is administered by the Consolidated Farm Service Agency.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): This program takes highly credible land out of
production for at least ten years, preferably permanently. Cost-share is provided for tree
establishment and other vegetative cover. Annual rental payments on the land are provided for
the years that the practice is being maintained. The program is administered by the Consolidated
Farm Service Agency.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): The WRP allows fanners to sell permanent easements
to the U.S.D.A. and receive cost-share to restore previously altered wetlands to their natural
condition. Eligible land includes prior converted cropland, farmed wetlands, and riparian areas
along streams or water courses that link wetlands which previously have been protected by an
easement or similar agreement. The program is administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
m. FORESTRY
Maryland
Forest Harvest Guidelines: A minimum 50-foot forested, no-cut buffer is required around all
perennial streams. If a Buffer Management Plan is implemented, selective harvesting is allowed,
so long as (50% crown cover or 60 square feet of basal area per acre is evenly retained.
Buffer Incentive Program: The Buffer Incentive Program (see Agriculture) can also be applied
to non-commercial timber land.
Woodland Incentive Program: Cost-share is provided to non-industrial private woodland
owners for tree planting, including riparian forest buffer establishment, as well as other forest
management activities.
A-4
-------
Virginia
Water Quality Law ("Bad Actor" Law): Gives the Department of Forestry enforcement
powers to implement corrective measures on any forestry operation being conducted in a manner
causing or likely to cause pollution. The state's voluntary best management practice (BMP)
guidelines, usually recommended as the best way to achieve compliance with the law, specify
the maintenance of a minimum 50-foot forested buffer along streams and retention of at least
50% of the crown cover or 50 square feet of tree trunk cover (known as "basal area") per acre.
The Department may allow a reduction in the width of the buffer so long as equivalent water
quality protection is provided.
Woodland Erosion Stabilization: Cost-share is provided to establish permanent vegetation on
eroding areas on forest harvesting sites, although grass and legumes are used.
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 or as a Wilderness Trout Stream by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission. A 200-foot no-cut buffer is required around Wilderness Trout Streams (all of
which are also designated as "exceptional value" streams) and a 100-foot selective-cut buffer is
required around "high quality" streams. Virtually all perennial streams on state forest land are
designated at least "high quality." Some intermittent streams receive this designation as well,
so long as there is a defined stream bed and stream bank.
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 FIP 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 Consolidated Farm Service Agency.
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.
A-5
-------
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.
Program Open Space: This program uses funds from the state realty transfer tax to help local
governments purchase open space. Many of the lands purchased are adjacent to or contain
streams and rivers.
Tree-Mendous Maryland: This program works with local businesses, regional corporations,
citizen groups, and local governments to conduct community plantings on public land. Trees
are purchased from the Department of Natural Resources by individuals, clubs, associations,
schools,, businesses, and communities. The program has also trains people to lead tree-planting
efforts in their communities.
Maryland Environmental Trust: This program helps landowners establish conservation
easements. Requirements for riparian land in easement areas include a minimum 50-foot
vegetative buffer strip.
Virginia
Conservation Easements: Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Virginia may use part of
their funding to purchase conservation easements in eroding areas or areas of important
ecological value, including the riparian zone. A number of Districts currently hold easements
on riparian forests.
Pennsylvania
Easement Purchase Program: Counties or the state may purchase farmland easements for a
minimum of 25 years. Part of the easement purchase decision is based on the level of
stewardship and use of best management practices.
A-6
-------
Federal/States
Scenic and Wild Rivers Program: All three states participate in this federal program, and also
have parallel state-funded programs. These programs can be effective tools in preserving
existing forest buffers and restoring areas to attain Scenic River designation. Pennsylvania, for
example, has its own Scenic Rivers Act, in which a river seeking scenic designation must meet
or be in the process of restoring scenic, ecological, and recreational standards. In the past, the
program has funded riparian forest restoration efforts.
V. TAX PROGRAMS
Maryland
Forest Conservation and Management Program (FCMP): This program provides special tax
assessments on forest land, if the landowner agrees to adhere to a forest stewardship plan for
15 years. In return, the tax assessment is frozen, usually at the agricultural rate or better.
Reforestation/Timber Stand Improvement Tax Deduction (TAXMOD) Program: This
program allows landowners of small forestry operations to deduct from their adjusted gross
income double the costs associated with reforestation activities, including those in the riparian
zone.
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
A-7
-------
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 be eligible for an
investment tax credit and a 7-year amortization. This can include reforestation efforts in the
riparian zone.
A-8
-------
2*1
ISSUES
Streams and their riparian areas cut across ownerships, interest groups, and scientific disciplines. They are
an important part of our larger landscape but can also form our property lines and backyards. Workshops
with landowners,environmental groups and government professionals, have helped to identify} ssues that
may present barriers to implementation of a riparian forest buffer policy. These issues fall into four main
categories:
1. Perceived threat to landowners/developers
Discussion of riparian buffers can generate fear and resistance from landowners, farming interests,
developers, and industry. These fears may represent a broad-based resistance to government programs,
resistance to change or fear that a voluntary agreement to establish a buffer may lead to permanent
regulation of land. Some landowners believe that designation of a buffer may lead to unrestricted public
use, habitation by endangered .species, or loss of use or property value.
2. Economic loss
As with other BMP's, landowners and developers may experience a loss of income associated with
installation or retention of a forest buffer. For farmers, the amount of land removed from production
may be small but the level of impact may vary. For a land developer, it may mean realignment of a
subdivision plan, including roads and utilities, or may change the density of development. Tax laws may
not recognize buffers favorably, thereby failing to encourage their retention. Economic benefits and
tradeoffs of forest buffer retention and establishment are not well understood or documented. Farmers,
developers or local governments, may also lack the time, ability, funds, or desire to plant and maintain
forest buffers.
3. Capability of existing programs
Very few incentive programs are targeted to riparian forest buffer establishment or retention. Buffers,
stream fencing, and other stream protection measures are often not eligible for cost-share programs.
Programs are scattered throughout government, are complex, present bureaucratic hurdles, and may
have significant regional differences. Competition between agencies/programs creates a lack of
coordination and common goals. Some administrative or regulatory policies create disincentives to
riparian forest buffers. Successful programs are sometimes poorly funded. Private and non-profit groups
are underutilized as partners in riparian buffer efforts.
4. Scientific/technical information needs
Although the scientific foundation of riparian forest buffer function is substantial, experience and
technical guidance for establishment and maintenance is limited. Information transfer and technical
training is needed for landowners and field professionals. Monitoring of demonstration sites is limited.
-------
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
Throughout the watershed, people are working to conserve and restore riparian areas through a wide
variety of approaches. Actions which build on successes, reduce landowner and business fears, and
generally enhance a stewardship ethic focussed on riparian forests are needed. The ultimate goal is to
enhance water quality and habitat in our rivers and streams and along the shorelines of the Bay. Achieving
forested buffers is desired, however, it is recognized that some landowners will limit their riparian
stewardship to basic stream protection, filter strip measures, or forest buffers of minimal width.
Overall, the Chesapeake Bay Program can set quantifiable goals and policy guidelines to direct their
accomplishment. A holistic view of the benefits of forest buffer and stream restorationwill help communicate
the effectiveness of this approach and demonstrate its success. Furthermore, establishing Bay-wide riparian
forest retention and restoration goals and tracking progress towards these goals will increase public
awareness, commitment and involvement. Flexibility and innovation through guidelines customized for
various federal, state, and local purposes, will be necessary if we expect to meet these goals. Therefore,
meeting the challenge of retaining and restoring riparian forest buffers will require approaches that:
1. Build commitment among riparian landowners
A more aggressive stream and riparian stewardship program/policy requires a strong commitment by all
levels of government, clear and coordinated goals and objectives, adoption of a sound riparian
stewardship ethic among landowners. Such an ethic should focus on retaining and restoring the integrity
and ecological health of streams and rivers through promotion of naturally functioning riparian systems,
such as forests. Riparian landowners are essential partners in this effort. Practical steps that will assist
us in this effort include:
4 promoting the benefits/importance of RFBs to landowners
developing and using demonstration sites
4 developing information/promotional materials on RFB benefits and on
technical and financial assistance available
4 incorporating RFBs into the "menu" of best management practices through existing natural
resource protection programs
4 setting available goals for RFB establishment
4 retaining the existing voluntary approach for RFB implementation on rural lands
2. Increase technical knowledge about the effectiveness, establishment and management of riparian
forest buffers
In the past, the lack of consensus and understanding about how buffer function has been a significant
barrier to their adoption. The recently released EPA Chesapeake Bay Program report entitled, "Water
Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffer Systems in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed", provides
a foundation for understanding buffers' impact on water quality. Future steps must be taken to develop
management guidance for RFBs that will allow landowners and natural resource managers to
successfully establish and conserve buffers. These steps include:
4 Addressing short and long-term maintenance concerns under varying conditions
4 Developing and refining establishment techniques and design standards
-------
Refining nutrient load calculations for site conditions and land use variability
4 Developing "rule-of-thumb" management evaluation techniques to help natural resource
managers determine the best design of RFBs for site conditions (either by themselves or in
combination with other measures)
4 Incorporation of RFBs in Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategies
4 Monitoring RFBs to provide site specific evaluations on effectiveness
4 Quantifying the economic benefits to the landowner for RFB establishment
3. Increase knowledge of landowners and technical staff
The value of riparian forests for habitat has been recognized for some time. However, the water quality
function of forests has only recently been quantified in the scientific literature. Training in using the
forest as a nonpoint source pollution control BMP is not yet common for those who provide landowner
assistance. Foresters rarely interact with agricultural or urban conservation planners or are unfamiliar
with challenges of working in these areas. Technical information like that described in #2, must be
disseminated to the landowners and technical staff responsible for making resource management
decisions. For example, some managers may be familiar with agricultural or forestry best management
practices, but lack sufficient background on the ecological importance of RFBs. These outreach efforts
could include:
4 Providing RFB training and cross-training among technical staff (ag, foresters, stream
geomorphologists, engineers, biologists) to improve understanding of technical and practical
issues related to stream protection and RFB establishment
4 Develop education fools such as fact sheets, handbooks, and videos for landowners
4 Developing and using demonstration sites for promotion of RFBs
4 Developing landowner "peer" education such as "neighbor to neighbor" and "Master
Conservationists" programs used to promote agricultural BMPs.
4 Integrate RFB's into Clean Water Farm and other environmental awards programs
4. Coordinate and enhance existing programs and policies,
While some existing programs incorporate riparian corridors as part of nonpoint source reduction or land
conservation programs, very few focus specifically on RFB. Many agencies or commissions have
specific but limited responsibilities for activities with the riparian area consequently management or
restoration of this resources can be complicated and confusing. Suggestion for improving coordination
to enhance riparian areas include:
4 Increasing the flexibility of natural resources protection programs (Stormwater management,
Nontidal Wetlands, Forest Conservation, etc.) to allow mitigation funds to be used for RFBs and
stream protection measures.
4 Addressing USDA set-aside programs that are a disincentive to removing land from production
for RFB establishment
4 Encouraging interagency natural resource professionals to cooperate to identify and install
comprehensive projects using RFBs
4 Further integrating state forestry and wildlife/fishery agencies into Bay program efforts and
agricultural conservation agency programs
4 Encouraging public and private partnerships to provide buffer plantings (school, community,
non-profit groups)
-------
5. Provide adequate incentives
The vast majority of riparian areas are on private lands. Greater attention must be placed on the essential
role of private landowners as partners in managing, conserving and restoring riparian resources,
especially for reducing nonpoint source loads to the Bay and its tributaries. There is a general consensus
that government will be more successful in attracting citizen participation in riparian stewardship if their
programs are primarily voluntary. Ideally, landowners should be presented with a range of options
linked to incentives and disincentives. As with most concepts, gaining landowner acceptance and
participation may take some time. A range of incentive programs should be explored, including:
4 Establishing forest buffer programs or refining other incentive programs specifically for RFB
establishment
4 Extending and strengthening tax reductions, credits, or incentives which reduce tax liability for
retention and establishment of forest buffers. Reducing real estate taxes through use-value rate
eligibility, forest/agriculture districts, etc.
4 Linking RFB establishment to existing land trust, mitigation, easement and set aside programs
through purchase of easements, support payments for establishment and grants for planting and
management
4 Providing cost-share support for RFB maintenance and establishment of related stream
protection practices
4 Developing revolving loan funds for local government riparian programs
4 Create Riparian Land Banks and increase RFB emphasis in CRP and WRP criteria
4' Establish recognition programs for landowners, developers, agencies, etc. who contribute
significantly to meeting RFB goals
4 To overcome the fear of "takings", inform the public about appropriate uses in forest buffers
4 Reducing stormwater utility fees by giving credit for buffer areas as on-site BMP
-------
ECONOMICS
Economics Issue Forum
On March 26, 1996, the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel conducted a forum on economic issues related
to forested buffers. The objectives of the meeting were to present to the Panel an array of issues
related to the costs, benefits, and policy impacts of riparian forest buffers and to highlight current and
innovate incentive strategies that could encourage riparian buffer retention, establishment and
management. The outcomes and information shared at this forum were intended to show analysis
performed to assess the cost impacts and benefit contributions of riparian forest buffers, context
policy alternatives in an economics framework, and to add to the knowledge base that the Panel used
to form its policy recommendations. Below are the key points of each of the seven speakers who
presented to the Panel.
Doug Lipton, University of Maryland, Sea Grant College
Economics of a Basin-wide Riparian Forest Buffer Policy
Dr. Lipton presented a discussion of the economic tools that could be used in developing
recommendations on riparian forest buffer policy. He suggests that economic analysis tools that can
help answer the question "will this policy make us better off?" are the right ones and include
benefit/cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. However, the difficulty in using these techniques
is in quantifying the value of benefits. Measuring the value of cleaner water, more wildlife and fish,
and aesthetics is hard to do. Lipton recommended the Panel develop a policy that seeks to
create/maintain forest buffers where there is high impact for low cost but stresses that the policy must
be flexible enough to allow alternative buffers to be applied that provide some positive environmental
impact and are less costly than forest buffers.
Ian Bardie, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural Economics
How Do We Maximize Riparian Forest Buffers in the Bay Region?
Dr. Hardie suggested that the best way to develop practical policy recommendations, and to decide
where to implement riparian forest buffers, is to use a cost-effectiveness approach. If the Panel chose
to maximize environmental benefits, than forest buffers on all streams on all land uses would yield the
greatest benefit. However, this objective is too expensive and probably not feasible. The costs of
implementation rise when considering idle land (lowest cost) to forestry lands to agricultural lands
to developed lands (highest cost). Dr. Hardie recommends that using a least-cost method should be
carried out by selecting a target level of environmental benefits and seeking to achieve that target at
the lowest cost. However, he warns that there may be equity problems with this method. Because
developed lands have buffers that are at higher land use value, owners of developed land that might
otherwise be targeted for buffer retention or restoration would likely be not be targeted because of
the high cost. Most of the burden would fall on the agricultural community due to the lower cost of
land to put into a riparian forest buffer. Ultimately, Dr. Hardie advocates a flexible buffer system
which allows variance or exemptions to any buffer standard or policy. He strongly supports a
voluntary approach and believes that cost-benefit assessments need to include all costs, direct,
opportunity, education, and perceived loss of value due to permanence of forest. (See attachment.)
-------
Rick Cooksey, U.S. Forest Service / Chesapeake Bay Program
Economic Accounting: Impacts of Riparian Forest Buffers on Four Land Use Scenarios
Mr. Cooksey presented the potential economic impacts of conserving or restoring riparian forest
buffers for four typical land use scenarios in the Chesapeake Bay basin. The scenarios are :
(1) agriculture - coastal plain; (2) agriculture - piedmont; (3) forestry - coastal plain; and (4)
development - Richmond vicinity (See attachment). The scenarios presented were snapshots of
impacts from removing the land area from current or intended production and establishing or retaining
a stream side forest. They were intended to illustrate the "average" cost of riparian buffer
establishment to a landowner, and how current state and federal programs could be used in
conjunction with one another or "piggybacked" to reduce those impacts. The figures presented are
actual dollar amounts calculated for each hypothetical field scenario showing variable costs (seeding,
planting, fertilizing, harvest, hauling, labor, and taxes), but not fixed costs (mortgage, equipment
loans). They utilized market prices and USDA agency cost share/commodity crop payment figures
supplied by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency. Mr. Cooksey's
impact scenarios suggest the following:
1. In agricultural areas, the costs of establishing or retaining riparian buffers in Maryland could be
completely covered by existing programs or even provide a net gain to private landowners. In
Virginia, current programs may meet establishment and maintenance costs. In Pennsylvania, existing
programs do not cover these costs and would constitute a net loss to landowners. Current programs
need to be better integrated and adequate incentives should be developed to encourage buffer
establishment.
2. In forestry settings, Maryland landowners can expect to completely cover the cost of retaining or
establishing forest buffers. In Virginia and Pennsylvania, loss of forest production to retain forest
adjacent to streams would impose a net loss on landowners.
3. In the Richmond development example, the developer would lose buildable lots to retain a forest
buffer on the site. According to current zoning, that loss would reduce profits. However, the use
of a density compensation could be employed to recover those lots and might actually increase the
market value of the home next to the buffer.
\
Ms. Jackie Geohagan, University of Maryland
Residential and Other Developed Land Values in Anne Arundel County, MD
Ms. Geohagan presented the preliminary results of her research project at the University of Maryland,
which is focused on developing a mathematical model to predict land use change. The purpose of
this work is to describe how landscapes evolve and land use conversion occurs as a result of different
policy scenarios, land use controls, and nonpoint source regulation. The model is intended to be a
tool that can assist managers in predicting change and can also be a useful mechanism for targeting
areas where efforts to implement buffers should be focused. The initial research focuses on Anne
Arundel County in Maryland. The unique aspect of this work is the attempt to link economic
considerations, human activities on the land, and ecological features in one management tool.
Steve Koehn, Maryland Forest Service
Tax Strategies
Mr Koehn discussed two areas of taxation that impact forest buffers - income and property taxes.
Property taxes: Mr Koehn described a Maryland tax program that allow landowners with
professional forest management plans to receive a preferential tax assessment. In this program the
-------
landowner's property tax will be abated to the agricultural use rate of assessment. There is an entry
fee for the program and an inspection fee every fifth year.
Income taxes: Mr Koehn discussed several tax programs that apply to forest buffers:
Under the.Maryland Tax Modification Program, a landowner can deduct two times the
expenses of creating a buffer from state income tax.
Under the Agriculture, Forestry Incentive and Stewardship Incentive programs, private users.
It was rioted that in Pennsylvania, the public perceives the benefits of buffers to be local, not
improvements somewhere downstream in the Bay.
Under the Reforestation Tax Credit, a landowner can take a tax credit of up to 10% of the
expense of installing a buffer and amortize the remainder of the expense over the next 8 years.
The capital gains tax rate on timber is 28% versus the normal 36%. There is a current
proposal before Congress to allow a shelter of 50% of timber income from taxes.
John Hutson, Maryland Environmental Trust
Conservation Easements
MET's Conservation Easement Program accepts charitable contributions of land easements. The
perpetual easement agreement is voluntary and flexible but prohibits commercial activity and
promotes open space including forestry and agriculture. The result of an easement agreement is to
limit or eliminate development potential. These easements supersede local zoning. The financial
benefit of an easement to the landowner is that the program meets the IRS guidelines for a charitable
contribution. An appraisal is taken of the value of the development rights to determine the value of
the contribution. The charitable deduction is limited by a 30% rule, a rule that limits the maximum
annual charitable deduction a donor can take to 30% of his or her adjusted gross income. If the value
of the easement exceeds that level, the excess can be carried forward for up to five years. The
landowner can also apply for 15 year tax credit on unimproved land.
Mr. Huston stated that it could be possible to increase the value given for the donated land if the
landowner agreed to establish a .buffer. However, the success of this program may depend on
whether the landowner perceives it as a government program or not. Currently, MET does not
require conservation plans on agricultural lands but does require a 50 foot vegetated strip along
streams for lands on which pesticides and manure are used actively. The Maryland Agricultural
Preservation Program, on the other hand, not only requires a nutrient management plan on donated
land but the existence of a plan helps in the application process. Mr. Huston also stated that land
trusts would probably be interested in a program in which federal money is provided to state foresters
to obtain easements, which are then donated to land trusts.
Elizabeth Hickey, University of Maryland - Environmental Finance Center
Creative Financing Techniques
Ms. Hickey discussed a list of techniques for achieving forest buffer goals. She suggested that this
list be viewed as a menu from which some mix of methods could be selected based on the situation
(See attachment). The techniques are ranked according to cost and the degree to which they bind
the landowner.
1) Notification Program: This method is the least costly and least binding. It simply alerts the
landowner via letter that a resource (i.e. buffer) exists on the property and why it is important.
-------
The letter encourages the landowner to maintain and protect the resource.
2) Management Agreements: In this non-binding written agreement, the landowner agrees to
manage a resource on the property for a particular purpose over a stated period of time.
Some compensation may be paid for expenses.
3) Financing Arrangements: These methods may be used to generate funds to pay for projects.
Some examples include:
A) Loans - Special low interest loans are available if the project meets certain guidelines;
B) Revolving Loans - Initial grant money forms the base for loans; loan payments are used
for future loans;
C) Environmental Mini-bonds - These bonds are sold in small denominations, such as $500,
to the general public, and proceeds are designated for specific programs or activities; and
D) Stormwater utilities - Special districts are set up to finance a government service that
benefits the residents of that district only.
4) Easements: Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is one type of easement program whereby
a government body facilitates the sale and purchase of development rights between private
buyers and sellers. Some hurdles TDR systems face are assigning monetary rights, developing
rates of exchange, and the resulting piecemeal approach to development.
5) Acquisition: This involves purchasing property outright or purchasing some percentage of
ownership and, thus, a stake in management decisions. A variation is "right of first refusal,"
whereby the landowner agrees to notify the interested organization that the property will be
offered for sale. The organization may, but is not obligated to, purchase the property.
Ms Hickey stated that a good "package" for a buffer program might include an environmental
inventory, revolving loan fund on a watershed basis, and a combination of notification program and
nonbinding agreements with an education component.
Patty Engler & John Long, Natural Resources Conservation Service
Cost-Share Programs
The speakers discussed a menu of existing financial and technical assistance programs available to
private landowners that could be used to establish forest buffers. In practice, some of these programs
may be combined in order to provide a more comprehensive package of assistance to the landowner.
Most of these programs are reimbursable and, thus, require an initial cash outlay by the recipient.
Through various combinations of these programs, it is not unusual for a landowner to make a profit
on forest buffer installation.
Buffer Incentive Program (BIP) - tree planting and maintenance along streams and shorelines - one-
time $300/acre grant up to 50 acres; must maintain trees for 10 years; 50 foot minimum buffer width;
payment after first season contingent on 65 percent tree survival rate
Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) - forest management plan development, tree planting, riparian
and wetland improvement, recreation and wildlife habitat improvement - up to 65 percent cost-share;
requires at least one but less than 1,000 acres nonindustrial private forest land; requires existing
Forest Stewardship Plan for contiguous forested acreage; must maintain for at least 10 years
Forest Incentive Program (FTP) - increase future sustainable supply of saw timber - can be up to 65
-------
percent cost-share capped at $10,000; requires at least 10 acres with capability of producing 20 cubic
feet/acre/year; requires forest management plan
Woodland Incentive Program (WIP) - financial assistance for tree planting, stand improvement, and
management to private, nonindustrial woodland owners - requires between 10 and 500 contiguous
wooded acres capable of producing 20 cubic feet/acre/year; up to 50 percent cost-share capped at
$5,000 for one year or $15,000 for three year project; requires a forest stewardship plan prepared or
approved by licensed forester; must maintain practice for at least 15 years; access must be allowed
for inspections .
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) - agricultural best management practices
- pays up to 75 percent of installation costs of most BMPs but capped at $3,500/year; in Maryland,
requires approval by State Conservation Review Group
Partners for Wildlife
* used to retain, create or manage wetland habitat for wildlife
* used mainly by horse farms
* seen as program of last resort
Maryland Agricultural Cost Share (MACS) - popular cost-share program for agricultural producers;
and 87.5 percent cost-share capped at $10,000; can include trees
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) - purpose is to restore wetlands on agricultural lands; can be used
to connect 2 wetland sites (including the establishment of a forest buffer) separated by no more than
one mile. And, easement purchased on the site of a restorable wetland but payment is capped at the
agricultural value of the land; cost-share is currently 100 percent.
KEY POINTS of PANEL DISCUSSION:
- Create or designate one organization to coordinate the spectrum of programs and provide a
menu/catalog that is brief, concise and specific. Agencies do not encourage participation in the entire
range of programs; rather they focus on their own programs.
- Although there may not be enough emphasis on "civic duty" as an incentive, monetary subsidies are
important because some landowners are "land rich, but cash poor" and need a financial boost to
accomplish desired objectives.
- There is a need for a commitment by agriculture agencies to help "sell" forest buffers to landowners
as a viable practice.
- Large landowners like tax programs, while small landowners like cost-share programs. This raises
the issues about need for a menu of program options.
- A Blue Ribbon Panel was assembled to develop creative financing options for Maryland's Tributary
Strategies. That Panel developed a menu of 36 ideas with case studies. These ideas should be
-------
240
considered for applicability to a buffer program.
- Since so many existing programs reimburse the landowner, low-interest revolving loan funds could
be used to fill the need for up-front cash outlays.
PANEL REQUESTS ADDITIONAL POLICY INSIGHT FROM ECONOMISTS
It was suggested that an additional policy team be formed to further develop incentive and financing
ideas. However, since all existing policy workgroups were already discussing economic issues
relative to their land use area! it was decided that a new policy team would not be formed. As an
alternative, Ian Hardie was selected to contact each guest speaker at this issue forum and ask them
for two ideas for effective incentive and tax programs. Ian Hardie and Rick Cooksey compiled these
suggestions and distributed them to the Panel and Technical Team. Below are the suggestions
presented as a result of their request. .
List of Possible Incentive Recommendations
1. Provide a State matching or per-acre supplemental payment program to private organizations
that get private landowners to establish and maintain or improve and maintain riparian forest
buffers. Payment would go to the organization working with the landowner for acreage or
miles of streamside actually buffered by landowner action. Payment would not be connected
to any particular type of easement, agreement, method of negotiation, etc. Funds could pass
to the landowner as part of a private agreement. Participating organizations would have to
apply for and demonstrate fiduciary responsibility for the supplemental grants to the States.
4- Existing Land Trusts and Environmental Trusts emphasize voluntary, donated easements, but
purchase some easements or lands when this makes sense from an environmental viewpoint.
Donated easements are often given by wealthier landowners who can obtain significant
income tax benefits from making a charitable contribution. Easements may also reduce
property values for estate settlement purposes or lower the net price to the buyer of a large
property. Landowners with smaller parcels and lower incomes receive less tax benefits and,
therefore, have less interest in these programs. The objective of this incentive would be to
encourage private land trusts, citizen community improvement groups and other private
organizations to promote establishment and maintenance of riparian forests buffers. Program
flexibility would be maintained by tying the incentive payment to buffer production rather than
type of private program or landowner agreement.
The listed potential recommendation is an alternative to the suggestion made on March 26
to John Huston of a program where federal money would go to state foresters to obtain
easements which then be donated to the land trusts.
2. Expansion of Maryland Buffer Incentive Program to other parts of watershed.
4- This possibility would satisfy the agricultural sub-panel consensus by endorsing an existing
-------
241
program in Maryland but would require new legislation in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The
Maryland program currently provides a one-time $300 per acre grant to landowners who
plant and maintain forested buffers for a minimum of ten years. The grant can provide a
substantial incentive since it can be packaged with cost-share assistance from federal cost-
share programs. Relatively high incentive levels, the possibility of adjusting the level of the
one-time grant, and the focus on establishing new buffers may make this the most effective
of the listed alternatives for meeting the 40 percent nutrient reduction goal for the Bay.
However, implementation would be more costly to state governments than that of other
proposed recommendations. This type of program has the virtue of simplicity when
compared to something like Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and may have lower
administrative costs as a consequence. Such a program may also raise some concerns due to
the existing critical area and coastal zone regulations in Maryland and Virginia which force
some landowners to establish or improve buffers without corresponding levels of
compensation.
3. Supplement the tree planting component of Federal CRP or cost-sharing programs with State
programs. Restrict supplemental efforts of planting and maintaining buffers.
+ This option takes the viewpoint that existing Federal programs are effective (especially when
packaged together) but lack sufficient funds. States in the Southeast have developed state
programs that extend Federal FIP programs, so there is some precedent for this practice. This
option may be very dependent on forest type. CRP tree planting incentives, which have
provided about $160 per acre average net present value incentives to the landowner, have
been available nationally for nearly a decade. But, actual planting has occurred almost
exclusively in the southern pine forest. One drawback to supplementing federal programs is
- that they are re-established every five years, their budgets vary and a supplemental program
could end up with nothing to supplement. Administrative costs also are likely to be higher
than an one-time grant program if CRP and several cost-share programs are simultaneously
supplemented. Direct costs to the states could also be high if new quantitative miles/acres
goals require substantial expansion of the acreage being enrolled in these currently small
programs.
4. Exempt acreage of forest buffer established and maintained from local property taxes.
Include a tax repayment penalty for land from which buffers are subsequently removed.
+ Note: exemption was chosen instead of reduction to match the no-tax suggestion from the
forested land policy subgroup. Reduction to the land's agricultural assessed value is already
part of the Maryland package. The Panel can easily substitute reduction for exemption in this
listed alternative.
+ Property tax exemptions would obviously be more attractive to landowners with lower
income levels than existing tax incentives. Thus, this incentive could affect a different group
of landowners. Property tax exemptions would also provide a continuing incentive that
would supplement the one-time income tax events. The primary effect of the tax incentive
might be to preserve existing buffers instead of establishing new ones, unless the incentive is
-------
paired with cost-sharing, rent payment, one time grants or other means of getting new buffers
established. A penalty of removing tax-exempted buffers might also be necessary to keep
from subsidizing landowners who are simply holding land with established buffers for future
conversion to another land use. The effect of such exemptions on local government revenues
could vary substantially, depending on tax rates, tax revenue levels, and the acreage of stream
sides to be buffered within each local jurisdiction. Considerable effort could be required to
establish this option, given the large number of local governments and the existing variation
in current property tax legislation and collection procedures. Some kind of education-
coordination support would probably be needed to assist local governments if this option was
recommended..
5. Revise existing land development regulations (e.g. disturbed site and stormwater management
regulations) so that they integrate forest buffers. These may include allowing or requiring
design of stormwater systems that disperse stormwater through buffers, introducing buffers
as a component on site development plans and integrating buffers into open space
requirements.
4- Existing land development regulations do not consider forest buffer as a design component.
Regulations often require stormwater to be piped directly into a stream, losing the water
quality benefits that could be gained by dispersing this water through a stream side forest
buffer. While site characteristics such as topography, size and shape can make it difficult to
incorporate standardized buffers into development plans, many sites offer opportunities to
make flexible buffers an important component in the overall site plan. A recommendation
could stimulate potential revisions of existing regulations that would integrate water quality
values from riparian forest buffers into the present development process.
6. Allow for compensating lot size adjustments in development plans that include forest
streamside buffers, or create transferable development rights that allow landowners who
voluntarily establish forest buffers to offset lost development values on other properties.
+ Density credits for buffers incorporated within specific site plans could be part of a revision
of existing regulations. Transferrable development rights are appealing because they directly
address landowner concerns that establishing buffers on undeveloped sites will "wipe-out"
development values. The values at risk can be considerable:. the average payment in
Maryland for Purchases of Development Rights ( a TDR "cousin" in which the government
buys the right) was $756 per acre in 1987. Ignoring these values may create a significant
barrier to the establishment or maintenance of forest buffers on land with significant
development potential. Conversely, a review of existing TDR's by Pitt, Phipps, Bonsignore
and Lessley indicates that they have complicated interactions with zoning regulations, seem
to be suitable mostly for localities close to metropolitan areas, and have high administrative
costs. It is also necessary for government to establish the development values as separate
entities before they can be transferred.
7. Account more fully for nutrient reduction and sediment control values from riparian forest
buffers in farm conservation (BMP) plans as they are developed.
-------
4- If credit is not given in farm conservation plans for the nutrient and sediment control benefits
provided by riparian forest buffers, farmers have no incentive to include them. This
recommendation simply calls for expansion of the definition of desirable BMPs and should
not be difficult to implement.
8. Establish state revolving loan programs (or a watershed-wide program) to provide financing
for landowners unwilling or unable to pay the immediate costs of establishing buffers.
Payment of loans could be linked to the receipt of cost-share funds by the landowners.
f This recommendation was made by Elizabeth Mickey at the March 26 Panel meeting. It
recognizes that existing cost-share programs would compensate for buffer establishment costs
only after they are incurred. The landowner has to make the initial investment and then wait
for compensation. Some may not be in the financial position to do so.
-------
Economic Considerations for Riparian Forest Buffers
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Maximize Benefits from Forest Buffers?
Suppose the panel chose to recommend that the environmental benefits provided to the Bay
watershed by riparian forest buffers be maximized. What would this cost (economically, not
politically)?
The figure titled "Costs of Forest Buffers" represents these costs.
Notes:
Benefits are maximized by maximizing the miles of stream side buffered and by
using a 3-zone or equivalent buffer.
Definition of "stream" is critical. Miles and benefits depend on order of streams
included.
Features:
Segment 1: stream side that is already buffered on land that is not in commercial
use (possibly floodplain or steep stream side). Slope and position of this segment
indicates belief that costs of maintaining such buffers will be low and will not
vary much across owners.
Segment 2: stream side that is already buffered on land that is used for
commercial forestry. Level of segment is based on assumption that some timber
harvests will be foregone. Buffer strips with more valuable timber are represented
at upper end of line segment.
Segment3: stream side that is currently being farmed. Level of segment is higher
because buffers will have to be established. Slope is steeper because costs will
vary more across farmers.
Segment 4: stream side that is already in a developed use. Level of segment is
high and slope is steep. Costs of establishing buffers on this land could entail
removal or reconstruction of existing structures.
Issue: Are costs too high for this to be an acceptable policy? (already resolved?)
-------
Z1S
0
c
o
c
05
O
O
Costs of Forest Buffers
Segment 4
Developed Land
(Residential, etc.)
Segment 3
Land being
Actively Farmed
Segment 1
Forested Land
(Floodplain - Idle)
Segment 2
Forested land
(Commercial)
Miles of Stream Side
-------
Develop a Cost-Effective Policy?
If costs of maximizing environmental benefits are too high, Panel could set a benefit goal
(Imagine a vertical line at some specified stream side mileage).
Total costs of meeting this goal could be minimized by moving up the total cost curve from the
origin:
(1) first preserve forest buffers on floodplain and "idle" land, then
(2) keep buffers on commercial forest land, then
(3) establish buffers on farmland, then
(4) establish buffers on developed land.
The goal would determine how far one went up the cost curve.
Such a cost-effectiveness approach raises an equity issue. High-cost owners are exempted. Most
of the burden is placed on farmland owners.
Issues: Should the Panel establish an environmental benefit goal?
What role should cost-effectiveness play in Panel recommendations?
Is it important to distribute the burden of the buffer policy across all owners?
-------
Flexible Buffers?
Setting and meeting prescribed goals becomes more difficult as policy becomes more flexible.
Consider, for example, a flexible buffer policy with exemptions and variances to a prescribed
buffer type.
Effect on total costs:
Exemptions from establishing buffers would shorten the length of the third and
fourth line segments.
Variances such as a decreased buffer width would affect the slope of the
segments. Level would be affected only if variance were granted to all owners
(essentially a change in the definition of the prescribed buffer).
Total costs might increase. Variances can decrease buffer effectiveness and
exemptions can remove lower-cost mileage. One might have to move further up
the cost curve to meet a given benefit goal.
Effect on benefits:
Benefits will depend on variances and exemptions. Benefit goals must be
established simultaneously rather than independently.
Issues: Should the Panel recommend a flexible buffer policy and forego an independent
benefits goal?
. Should such a policy be a process (such as a zoning board which rules case-by-
case), or a set of rules that apply to a designated situation?
Examples of possible rules:
(1) narrow buffer if topography is such that buffer can only provide shade
and in-stream habitat (no nutrient or sediment control).
(2) no buffer if its establishment significantly reduces landowner income.
(3) variable-width buffer if part of approved land development plan.
(4) narrow or no buffer if established or approved storm water
management system renders nutrient and sediment control ineffective.
(5) grass buffer instead of forest buffer if view is important.
3
-------
Voluntary Compliance?
Voluntary compliance policies require incentives because landowners must be encouraged to
change from a preferred land use. Landowner benefits must outweigh the costs of making the
change.
Four costs are relevant in a voluntary compliance program:
(1) Education costs: costs of learning about riparian forest buffers and what a landowner
must do to establish and maintain them.
(2) Direct costs: costs of establishing buffers plus discounted costs of future maintenance
minus discounted returns from any future timber harvests from the buffer.
(3) Opportunity costs: the present value of the net returns or private benefits given up by
taking the stream side land out of its current use.
(4) Costs of losing ownership rights: possible costs of losing future rights to use land as
desired or of having to conform to particular environmental stewardship laws (such as the
endangered species or wetlands acts).
Some of the gains to the owner of having a cleaner bay, purer water, forested stream side, etc.
can be netted from these costs. But some gains must remain to induce landowner participation.
Effect on Total Costs:
Length of the third and fourth cost segments may be greatly reduced. Miles of
buffered stream side will be less. Total costs will decrease.
Figures titled "Total Cost of Carbon Sequestration"show this effect in another
context. Policy represented there is to expand CRP program to get marginal farm
land converted into forests that will sequester carbon and abate global warming.
Incentives are 50% cost-sharing plus 10 years of rent at a level equal to average
farm net return in the geographic area. One figure shows the total cost curve if all
eligible farmers participate in the expanded CRP program. The other shows what
happens if farmers participate at rates observed during the first 11 CRP sign-ups.
Same point about low participation was made about sediment control programs in
Virginia by speaker in agriculture panel meeting (Jim Cox?, Jack Frye?).
-------
Total Cost of Carbon Sequestration
If All Eligible Owners Participate
148.9 Million
Tons of Carbon
Sequestered
CD
0
0
20
40 60 80
Millions of Acres
100
120
-------
300
Total Cost of Carbon Sequestration
If Past Participation Rates Continue
3
Q
CO
c
.g
S
1
0
14.7 Million
Tons of Carbon
Sequestered
0
3456
Millions of Acres
8
-------
Issues: Can a voluntary incentives-based program add enough miles of buffered
stream side to significantly improve water quality in the Bay and watershed?
Can the Panel successfully recommend a voluntary compliance program without
figuring out the mix and level of incentives needed to meet an environmental
benefits target? Will the Panel need to estimate the total costs of the program?
Possible incentives include:
technical and educational assistance,
property tax easements,
cost-sharing,
rent subsidies,
purchase of use rights,
purchase of land,
exemptions from BMP's or other land use regulations.
How should the burden of incentive payments be apportioned between federal,
state, local, and private sources? Does the Panel need to address this?
Preserve, Retrofit, or Target Change?
The static cost curve framework used above keeps land use and ownership fixed. The possibility
of getting buffers established while land is being developed or use is being changed is left out.
Regulations are seemingly more acceptable when land ownership changes. Consider the existing
zoning regulations, storm water and sediment regulations, etc. associated with land development.
Contrast these with the incentives policies needed to change current land use decisions of
existing owners. Note also that costs can be lower because buffers can be made a part of land
use planning.
A Final Issue: Should the Panel develop distinct recommendations for preserving and
establishing buffers on land that is being switched from one use or
ownership to another?
-------
Example Farm: Riparian forest buffer establishment
f
-. . - - . .i-V, .. . t . '- > . .
...r it -v>* .. . . - . -(>- .. .
, | .-.' r- , . . . , - , -
fe».: ^.; ......-'.I . V . . . -N.J:. -..,j.,..
S-J. «..>-,-..- v :» - ..... .v.f»-''.!,.-.!in
«* A 9- -«, . -!'4 :.-.. v >;«.^. n
Existing Forest
Perennial stream
Intermittent stream
x-K Property boundary
17^ ^ Riparian forest buffer planting
-------
305
AGRICULTURAL SCENARIO - COASTAL PLAINS
Two Crop, Two Year Rotation (Corn, Soybeans)
139 acre Field - 2640 ft. Buffer
Crop Production
1. Gross annual income per composite crop acre
2. Annual production cost per composite crop acre
3. Nat Annual Income - per composite crop acre
$456.25
($330.00)
$126.25
Buffer Cost (per acre)
1. Buffer cost per square foot
Grass (orchard grass/ladino clover)
Trees (mixed hardwoods)
2. Net cost per acre of tree/grass buffer
Buffer (trees-75'/grass25') - 100 foot width
Buffer (trees-38'/grass-12') - 50 foot width
= $ 0.0027
= $ 0.00021
= $ 0.0026
$117.61
TOTAL COST TO LANDOWNER PER ACRE
$243.86
Program Opportunities for BMP and Buffer Implementation
Virginia
Maryland
1. CRP (50% cs and 71 lac annually)
2. Woodland Buffer Filter Area ($100/ac -one time)
1. CRP
2. Buffer Incentive Prg. ($300/ac- one time)
Pennsylvania
1.CRP
2. Streambank Fencing Prg. (12-foot buffer fencing - free)
$129.81
$100.00
$229.81
$129.81
$300.00
$429.81
$129.81
$129.81
-------
30V
NET LOSS/GAIN (-/ + )
Total net annual income for field $17,586.63
Net Annual Income lost to Buffer
100 feet (6 acs.) $757.50
50 feet (3 acs.) . $378.75
Virginia
Total Cost to Landowner of Buffer with Programs
100 feet ($84.30)
50 feet ($42.15)
Maryland
Total Cost to Landowner of Buffer with Programs
100 feet $1.115.70
50 feet . $557.85
Pennsylvania
Total Cost to Landowner of Buffer with Programs
100 feet ($684.30)
50 feet ($342.15)
* Figures are for first year with buffer establishment.
* * Second year to end of CRP contract = net annual income - CRP.payment ($55.25)
Resource Returns for Buffer
TREES Net annual return per acre - loblolly pine - 35 year rotation $67.27
WILDUFE Average hunting lease per year per acre $3.00
WATER QUALITY A public value - not measurable
-------
AGRICULTURAL SCENARIO - PIEDMONT
Three Crop, Two Year Rotation (corn, wheat, soybeans)
40 acres with 680 foot Buffer
Crop Production
1 . Gross annual income per composite crop acre
2. Annual production cost per composite crop acre
3. Net Annual Income - per composite crop acre
Buffer Cost (per acre)
1 . Buffer cost per square foot = $ 0.0027
Grass (orchard grass/ladino clover) = $ 0.00021
Trees (mixed hardwoods) = $ 0.0026
2. Net cost per acre of tree/grass buffer
Buffer (trees-75'/grass25') - 100 foot width
; Buffer (trees-38'/grass-1 2') - 50 foot width
$541.38
($455.00)
$86.38
$117.61
TOTAL COST TO LANDOWNER PER ACRE
$203.99
Program Opportunities for BMP and Buffer Implementation
Virginia
Maryland
1. CRP (50% cs and 71/ac annually)
2. Woodland Buffer Filter Area ($100/ac -one time)
1. CRP
2. Buffer Incentive Prg. ($300/ac- one time)
Pennsylvania
1.CRP
2. Streambank Fencing Prg. (12-foot buffer fencing - free)
$129.81
$100.00
$229.81
$129.81
$300.00
$429.81
$129.81
$129.81
-------
NET LOSS/GAIN (-/ + )
Total net annual income for field $3,455.20
Net Annual Income lost to Buffer
100 feet (1.6 acs.) $138.21
50 feet (0.8 acs.) $69.10
Virginia
Total Cost to Landowner of Buffer with Programs
100 feet $41.31
50 feet $20.66
Maryland
Total Cost to Landowner of Buffer with Programs
100 feet $361.31
50 feet $180.66
Pennsylvania
Total Cost to Landowner of Buffer with Programs
100 feet ($118.69)
50 feet ($59.34)
*" Figures are for first year with buffer establishment.
* * Second year to end of CRP contract = net annual income - CRP payment ($ 15.38)
Resource Returns for Buffer
TREES Net annual return per acre - red oak - 60 year rotation $16.00
WILDLIFE Average hunting lease per acre per year $3.00
WATER QUALITY A public value - not measurable
-------
Example Forest: Streamside Management Zone
Designation
Harvest area
Buffer Area .
2. Cutting Units
- - ' " Roads
<*X Property Boundary
-------
FORESTRY SCENARIO - COASTAL PLAINS
Non-industrial Private Landownership
54 Acres of Mixed Pine/Hardwood - 3000 ft. of 50'-wide Buffer
Timber Production
1. Gross income per acre
2. Production cost per acre
Harvest - payment to logger (labor.equip. maim., haul, ins., FOB)
Planting - enhancement/management (optional)
3. Net Income - (value of trees left In buffer)
$ per Acre
$1,268.00
$634.00
$200.00
$434.00
Buffer Cost (site)
Harvesting Alternatives within Buffer
Total Return
1 . Total clearcut of entire area $34,300
2. Selective - All Sawtimber in Buffer (>50%ba) $33,991
3. Selective - Hi Q. Sawtimber in Buffer « =50%ba) $31 ,602
4. No Harvest in Buff er $28,531
Change % Change
($309) -10.00%
($2,698) -7.80%
($5.769) -16.80%
Program Opportunities for BMP and Buffer Implementation
Virginia:
Voluntary Participation No programs for retention.
Fed. and state cost-snare available for riparian zone enhancement:
* SIP - 75% cost-share (Practice 5, 6, 8)
CRP - 50% cost-share
ACP - 75% cost-snare
Va. BMP Cost-share Prg. - 75% cs
* Tax Incentive - Public Law 96-451 (10% credit up to $10m)
Maryland:
* Fed. programs same as above
* MD Income Tax Mod. for Reforestation and Timber Stand Imp.
* Tax Incentive - Public Law 96-451 (10% credit up to $10m)
Pennsylvania:
* Fed. programs same as above
Tax Incentive - Public Law 96-451 (10% credit up to $10m)
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
$150.00
$100.00
$150.00
$150.00
$20.00
$170.00
$150.00
$400.00
$20.00
$570.00
$150.00
$20.00
$170.00
IMETLOSS/GAIN (-/+)
Virginia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
($264.00)
$136.00
($264.00)
-------
rer
Example Development: Riparian forest buffe
Retention/Establishment
Proposed
Infiltration
Trenches
Proposed Infiltration Trench
RPA - 2 - where the buffer is
measured bom the 100-yetr
noodpliin. Eiuv
100-ye«r
Qoodplain
Stream bank
RPA -1 -.where the buffer is
measured bom stream bank.
,00 JO 0 «" *
-------
310
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO - RICHMOND VA VICINITY
Small Subdivision with Resource Protection Area (Bordering Stream)
17.6 Acre subdivision - 44 lots
Zoning Allowances
1. Minimum lot size allowed 9000 sq.ft.
2. Current number of buildable lots 44 lots
3. Finished lot price $61,000.00
Implication of CBPA on Use of Platted Lots
100 foot buffer (lose three lots) $ 183,000.00
50 foot buffer (lose one lot) $61,000.00
Additional Cost Estimates for CBPA and Buffer
1. Site plan, erosion control plan (already required) $0.00
2. Water quality stormwater management plan (engineering time) $650.00
3. Installation and maintenance of erosion control devices (already required) $0.00
4. Installation of required infiltration devices $25,000.00
5. Reserve drainfield (served by public sewer) $0.00
6. minimize land disturbance and natural vegetation removal (could show net savings) $0.00
7. Review fees (could be $0) $250.00
TOTAL COST TO DEVELOPER FOR COMPLIANCE $25,900.00
* Total per lot $589.00
* Percentage of Total value 1 %
** Estimate does not account for lost lots. Consultants suggest that innovative
land use approaches such as clustering could reduce this type of loss.
*** Market research has indicated that lot values increase approximately 5%
due to proximity to buffer.
-------
Typical Stream Protection System
Practice
Cost
1000 feet of fence
1 livestock watering trough
Stream Crossing
1 acre forested buffer
Ag BMP's2600 + 2500 + 1200
ACP Cost Share (75% )
MACS Cost Share (87 1/2%)
Cost to Producer
Cost of Forest Buffer
S.1.P (65%) Cost Share
B.I.P (8300/ac)
$2600
2500
1200
400
S6700
$6300.00
3500.00
2012.50
S 787.50
$ 400.00
260.00
300.00
Cost to Procucer
-Q-
-------
ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH
RIPARIAN FOREST B UPPERS
What is the Value of Water Quality and Environmental Benefits?
Clean streams, rivers and the Bay offer many benefits. Riparian forest buffers help
ensure those benefits and avoid costs to repair damaged and degraded natural
systems. As a Best Management Practice (BMP), riparian forest buffers typically
preform these functions for free.
Sediment Trapping - Urban retrofits and stormwater management technology are
expensive. Studies indicate that urban stream systems may fail to function if the
watershed is at 10% or greater impervious surface, resulting in "blown-out" streams
that silt downstream areas and increase flood potential. Riparian forests help retain
stream integrity.
Stormwater treatment options that integrate natural systems, such as grass swales and
bioretention areas- like forest, are less expensive to construct than storm drain systems
and provide better environmental results. In fact, costs of engineered stormwater BMPs
range from $500 to $10,000 per acre, and will cost that much again over 20-25 years.
After public outcry about degrading streams, Montgomery County, MD is spending
$20,000-50,000 per housing lot in some areas to repair damaged streams and restore
riparian forests.
In Fairfax County, VA, a local bond issue provided nearly $1.5 million dollars to
restore 2 miles of degraded stream and riparian areathats over $750,000 per mile.
Nutrient Removal - Adequate buffers can reduce costly water treatment
Riparian forest buffers are a low maintenance and long-term solution. It is estimated
that forest buffers can remove 21 tts of nitrogen per acre eachyearfor $.30 per pound,
and about 4 Ibs of phosphorus per acre every year for $1.65 a pound.
The Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) estimates that urban
retrofit of BMPs to remove 20% of current nutrient runoff will cost approximately $200
per acre, or $643,172,600 for the Bay basin.
In the same study, estimated costs of reducing runoff from highly credible agricultural
land are $130 per acre, or $68,758,430for the basin.
Wastewater treatment facilities in the Washington DC area have annual costs of $2-
$10 million per year per facility, which equates to $3-$5 per pound of nitrogen removed.
-------
313
Maryland's Tributary Strategies show that, to reach a 40% reduction of nutrients by
theyear 2000, forest buffers and nonstructural controls are significantly more cost
effective than engineered approaches. Where forest buffers are estimated to cost
$617,000 and nonstructural shore erosion prevention/control $1.6 million per year,
comparable structural techniques could cost $3.7 million to $4.3 million per year.
Pollution Prevention - Air pollution and deposit of airborne pollutants are a multi
billion dollar problem nationally that affects human health, damages vegetation, and
reduces visibility. Trapping and filtering atmospheric pollution is a benefit that trees
provide, as well as riparian buffers.
In 1991, trees in Chicago removed an estimated 17 tons of carbon monoxide, 98 tons of
nitrogen dioxide, and 210 tons of ozone.
Reducing air pollution by 20% would cut agriculture losses in half, saving Maryland
fanners $20 million.
In Fairfax, Va, open space trees and buffers are estimated to have reduced the cost of
traditional air pollution controls by over $4.5 million in 1995.
Energy savings of 10 percent can result by adding as little as 10% tree cover to buffers
.- near buildings.
Forest conservation has been estimated to reduce the amount of urban runoff generated
from development in Utah by 17%.
A single mature tree releases about 100 gallons of dean water per day into the
,, atmosphere, and provides the cooling equivalent of nine room air conditioners operating at
8000 Btus per hour for twelve hours a day.
Stream Temperature - The absence of streamside trees can have a dramatic effect on
aquatic life through increased water temperature. Cold water trout streams were once
common in the Mid-Atlantic states, but have been greatly reduced due to loss of
riparian trees.
The relationship between stream shade and trout production has been found to firmly
linked. Studies have shown that when stream surface shade is reduced to 35%, trout
populations can drop by as much as 85%. ,
In 1991, Maryland recreational fishers contributed $467 million to the state economy.
-------
The Value of Services Provided by a Wooded Stream Corridor
Erosion Control - Erosion and sediment control produces significant costs during
development and in maintenance to communities down the road. Buffers mitigate
some of these costs for free and add quantifyable and non-quantified benefits.
Current state and local requirements for erosion and sediment control (ESC) increase the
cost of development. On a typical site, costs of ESC average $500-$1500 per cleared
acre. Forest conservation, riparian buffers, and clustering sharply reduce ESC costs and
provide services for free.
Average costs for subdivision development include - clearing (forest) $4000 per acre; and
sediment control $800 per acre. However, forest conservation keeps soil on site resulting
in less time and labor re-grading, stabilizing, and re-landscaping the site.
It costs $10-11.5 million annually to dredge and dispose sediments deposited into
Baltimore Harbor to keep it navigable. Sediment produced by forest land is the lowest of
all land uses.
Flooding - When floods pass through a forested stream cooridor or floodplain, the
roughness of the forest and its lush vegetation help to reduce the energy of the water
flow and thereby reduce downstream flooding. Forests reduce the quantity of water
for stormwater.
Retaining forest area and buffers has reduced stormwater costs in Fairfax County, Va by
$57 million.
Observations made after the 1993 floods in the Midwest showed that where forests were
retained in the floodplain or where levees had overgrown with trees, damage to the levee
system and the river were less than areas maintained in grass or farmland. Although
these benefits are difficult to put a price on, property damage exceeded $50,000 -
$250,000/mile.
Similar observations of damage to river banks and adjacent farmlands were recorded
following floods in Virginia in 1994-95 where statewide damage totaled more than $10
million.
Increased Property Values - Frequently seen as a "loss," forests and buffers have
been found to increase the value of property, as well as providing important
environmental and recreation benefits.
Property values grow with trees. When surveyed by the Bank of America Mortgage, real
estate agents say that homes with treed lots are 20 percent more salable.
In Maryland, the Forest Conservation Act is working. Forest and buffers are being
conserved and developers say that they are receiving 10-15% premiums for lots adjacent
to forest and buffers.
-------
A recent economic study done for areas in southern California states that home prices
increase an average of 17% because of trees and buffers.
Builders in Amherst, Ma reported that added costs afforest retention on site are always
recouped in increased sales prices.
Recreational Greenways - Linear forests along are rivers are an important recreation
resource to communities and attract revenue.
Housing prices were 32% higher when located next to a greenbelt buffer in Boulder,
Colorado. In one neighborhood, increased property value of $5.4 million attributable to
the greenway results in additional annual property tax revenues of over $500,000.
Greenways offer business opportunities. Evidence shows that the quality of life of a
community is an increasingly important factor in corporate relocation decisions.
Greenways are often cited as contributors of quality of life.
According to a 1995 attitude survey, 77% Maryland resident respondents said that it is
important to have natural areas dose to where they work and live. Almost half said that
they would be inclined to move if existing open space in their community were lost.
Wildlife Habitat - Buffers provide valuable wildlife habitat Many species use
riparian areas at various stages of their life cycles and as travel corridors. Organic
matter produced by riparian trees is the foundation of the food web in most stream
environments.
Each mile of 50 foot buffer on both side of a stream protects 12 acres of habitat along
shorelines and creeks.
Tourists and residents place a high premium on wildlife watching. A 1994 report says
that nearly 60% of suburban residents actively engage in wildlife viewing near their
homes, and are willing to pay premiums for locations in settings that attract wildlife.
In 1989, the Maryland Department of Economic and Employment Development
(DEED) estimated that the economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay to be $678
billion to the economies of Maryland and Virginia through commercial fishing, marine
trade, tourism, port activities, and land values.
Marylanders spent $270 million observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife in 1991
as reported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Department of Natural Resources of Maryland reports that $133 million was spent
in die 1991-1992 season. Hunting related industries support an estimated 4,600 jobs
in the state.
-------
31 U>
Creative Financing Techniques for Establishing Riparian Forest
Buffers in the Chesapeake Watershed
Elizabeth Mickey, Coordinator
Environmental Finance Center
University of Maryland
("Organization'' in this menu refers to either a nonprofit conservation group or a
governmental agency.)
Least Binding, Least Cost
Notification Program
Owners who are made aware of important resources on their properties are often
willing to protect them once they learn of their existence or significance. In this
program, the organization might notify the property owner with a brief letter describing
why the forest buffer and stream bank deserves protection with a follow-up visit to
answer questions. Notification can be an important first step in establishing good will
with a property ownerand may eventually result in a permanent commitment to
protecting a significant resource.
Recognition Program
A recognition program takes notification one step further by announcing publicly that a
property or portion of a property is significant. Similar to the National Natural
Landmarks Program, the idea is to play on the pride of the owner, who wants to
maintain a respectable standing within the community and may have an inclination for
stewardship. By presenting plaques or certificates to owners of significant property, the
community as well as the owner gain from the publicity.
Nonbinding Agreement Programs
A variation on a recognition program might require the property owner to agree, in
writing, to protect certain specified features of their property. The owner's obligation to
comply is strictly voluntary. The agreements are based on mutual trust, pride of
ownership, recognition and appreciation of the resource.
Management Agreements
Management Agreements
Under a management agreement, a property owner agrees to care for a significant
resource on their property in a specified manner for a set period of time, or the owner
-------
3IT-
lets an organization carry out the management. Sometimes an owner receives
compensation for expenses.
Leases
Leases entitle the lessee to control the use of a property in return for rent, which may
be nominal. An organization may lease the property from a property owner for a
nominal fee or at market prices. On the other hand, an owner may agree in the lease
simply to forgo destructive forestry or other practices that threaten the resource. In a
lease-purchase agreement, the rents are applied toward an agreed-upon purchase
price.
Financing Arrangements
Agreements tied to Loans
Home buyers and owners have access, through their banks, to low-interest loans for
homes that are built in desired areas and have environmentally sensitive features,
such as a smaller footprint, more open space/undisturbed land, retention of forest
buffers, etc. An agreement would be developed whereby a State and/or county
government would place funds, in the form of the purchase of certificates of deposit, in
local banks in exchange for certain criteria in loan agreements. Governments would
accept a lower yield (interest rate) on the certificate with the understanding that the
bank would pass the rate savings on to the home buyer/owner.
This program could also be designed for the development community as well.
Developers would have access, through their banks, to low-interest loans for homes
that are built in desired areas and have environmentally sensitive features
State Revolving Loan Program
The SRF was established through the Water Quality Act of 1987 to replace the U.S.
EPA Construction Grants Program for wastewater treatment facilities. The objective of
the program is to improve water quality. Grant funds are appropriated by Congress to
states, who then make loans to communities. Many states leverage their federal grant
and provide state matching funds to increase the amount of money available for loans.
Loans to communities are made at or below market interest rates for up to 20 years.
Repaid principal and interest are then used for new loans.
An idea is to extend the SRF program to the private sector so that private and
public/private partnerships can use and leverage program funds to engage in
environmental activities. Projects such as stormwater management, erosion and
sediment control, stream restoration, structural shore erosion controls and agricultural
runoff control would be considered for loans. SRF loans can be provided for up to
100% of the project costs, including planning, design and construction, to finance
-------
private sector capital projects. The criteria of water quality benefits and the capacity to
repay are the most important factors in project qualification.
Environmental Mini-bonds
Mini-bonds are bonds issued in small denominations (e.g.$500) available for
purchase by the general public. Proceeds of mini-bonds could be designated for
specific programs or activities, such as stream restoration and forest buffers.
Maryland has issued mini-bonds twice, raising $24.2 million in 1990 and $11.8 million
in 1991. Unfortunately, the cost of issuing mini- bonds can be a significant barrier to
their use. Typically, the cost of issuance per $1,000 of bond is $6-8. In 1990, the
state-issued mini-bonds cost $11.80 per $1,000, and in 1991, the cost was $17.10.
These costs include the cost of bond council, charges by rating agencies, and the
administrative costs of printing and distributing official statements. Administrative costs
are the largest component due to the large number of bond holders. These costs
could be potentially reduced by soliciting donations of time and services from bond
service departments of banks and bond counsels.
Stormwater Utilities
A stormwater management utility is a form of a special assessment district. A special
assessment district is an independent government entity formed to finance
governmental services for a specific geographic area. They can range in size from a
city block to a multi-jurisdictional arrangement. Special districts focus the costs of
enhanced services on the beneficiaries of those services by separating benefited
taxpayers from general taxpayers. Residents of special districts pay taxes (usually in
the form of increased tax rates) to finance improvements from which they will benefit.
Special districts have the power to levy taxes, fees and special assessments in order
to pay for the debt incurred in developing the service as well as to pay for the ongoing
upkeep of the project. Special districts can issue debt independent of state or county
government, reducing the burden on general debt capacity.
Easements
Conservation Easements
0 Donation
0 PurchasePurchase of Easements or Development Rights-Vne purchase of
development rights by a local or state government. This necessitates the
community assigning "development rights" to all parcels of land, and then
purchasing those rights, to be used in designated "receiving" areas, usually in
urban or already developed areas. Rights can also be extinguished or held in
perpetuity.
-------
0 Transfer Transfer of development rights-perm its property owners in
development-restricted areas to sell their development rights to property owners in
designated receiving areas. This requires a community to have designated
"sending" and "receiving" areas (resource or rural areas and developed of urban
areas, respectively). It allows landowners in sending areas to realize the market
value of their land without developing it. Developers who purchase these rights can
increase their marginal profits by increasing the density of their development.
Acquisition of Land
Acquisition of Undivided Interests in Land
Purchase of a percentage ownership in a property, which allows for a legal interest in
its management.
. Outright Acquisition of Property
0 Land Banks (Program Open Space and transfer taxes)
0 Rights of First Refusalguarantees the organization the opportunity to purchase
important properties, but does not obligate it. By granting a right of first refusal, a
property owner agrees to notify an organization that the property has been offered
for sale and invites the organization to match the offer. This allows the organization
to identify prospective buyers and negotiate with the potential new owner
protection an agreement to protect the property (using one of the methods
discussed here). This right may be donated to an organization of sold for a nominal
fee.
0 Option to purchaseinvolves paying the landowner for the guarantee that the
landowner will reserve a property at an agreed-upon price for a set period of time
(typically ninety days to one year).
-------
32.1
FOREST LANDS
The following information was developed as part of the forest lands policy team - a
subcommittee of the RFB Panel
Implementing RFBs within the context of existing forested land use requires a different
starting point than either agricultural or urban land uses. Since the land is already
forested, efforts to maintain are more important than efforts to restore. Clear accepted
guidelines for management already exist within the stream corridor and are widely
practiced by industry and private landowners. The strategy for implementing RFBs in
existing forested landscapes is based on the following understandings:
1. Forest management is compatible with maintaining the functions of RFBs. A wide
range of managment objectives are appropriate within RFBs, including timber harvesting
options. Many landowners will be unable to maintain RFBs without the opportunity to
derive income from forest management In order to assure and to demonstrate this an
auditing process should be created which includes implementation and effectiveness
monitoring of BMPs.
2. It is essential to the success of a RFB strategy that a favorable climate is created and
maintained for continued forest land use ownership. Important to creating this favorable
climate will be:
a. Education of and voluntary compliance by landowners and forest professional
with RFB criteria.
b. Recognition by the general public that the forest use is the most beneficial for
water quality and habitat.
c. Appropriate technical and financial incentives, for at least some forest owners,
are critical for RFB retention and restoration.
3. The RFB strategy should rely on and expand as necessary existing educational and
assistance programs such as the Forest Stewardship Program, the SFI Sustainable
Forestry Initiative, etc.
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER PANEL
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE
FORESTRY ISSUES
13 February 1996
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Sandy Saige, Panel Co-Chair, announced that a final report for the Executive Committee is due October
1996. The first draft of the report is due in April, public comments should be in by June and July, the
final draft is due to the EC by August and the final report should be completed by early September.
2. WORKGROUP UPDATES
Developed Lands: Sean Davis
The WG met on 31 January in Fairfax, VA. At the meeting, WG members developed an outline which
covers the planning, management and assistance of maintaining buffers where they exist and restoring
them where they do not. This WG will differentiate between developed and developing lands, as such,
there will be two different goals. The outline was distributed to the WG members and they were asked
to complete it out and return to Sean Davis The next meeting date has not been determined.
Agricultural lands: Fran Flanigan
The WG met on 6 February in Annapolis, MD. At the meeting, the WG preferred adopting a stream
corridor management approach to developing the Policy. The WG also recommended incorporating into
the Policy a site specific approach that would allow for flexibility. The outline, developed by the
Developed Lands WG, was presented to the Ag WG who felt that 90 percent of the outline would work
well for the agricultural recommendations. They were asked to complete the outline and send to Alex
Gagnon. The next meeting is scheduled for 1 March.
3. RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS ON COMMERCIAL FOREST LANDS
Jonathan Keyes, University of MD Cooperative Extension Service, discussed the issue of riparian forest
buffers on commercial forest lands. In commercial forest lands the riparian forest buffers are maintained
primarily for sediment and erosion control with secondary benefits of wildlife habitat. There are
differences with buffers located in agricultural and urban. The discharge of nutrients in a forested system
is relatively minor when compared to the discharges in agricultural and urban setting. Forestry is in its
second generation dealing with policies regarding streamside zones, while the agricultural community
has never had buffer policies. Forestry applications in buffers zones are regulated more strictly than in
agricultural activities. Certain components of the buffer need to be protected during harvesting including
soil structure, organic litter layer, vegetative cover and hydrology. Research has shown that it is not the
cutting of trees that cause sedimentation but rather the building of logging roads.
BMPs consist of streamside management zone, stream crossings, skid roads, pall roads, landings and
, log decks and soil stabilization techniques. BMPs in some states are regulatory while other states
maintain voluntary compliance. Studies have shown that actual compliance of these controls is not
dependent on where they are voluntary or regulatory.
-------
3Z5
4. STATE PROGRAMS
Pennsylvania - Bob Merrill
Of the 28 million acres of forest land in Pennsylvania, 17 million acres are commercial. Of these 17
million acres, 21 percent is publicly owned by the State of Pennsylvania (i.e., EOF, Game Commission),
5 percent is owned by industry and 74 percent is privately owned. On private lands, PA recommends
a 50' forest buffer. PA has sold the concept of riparian forest buffers to loggers by sponsoring Forestry
and Conversation Together (FACT) workshops. These are one day workshops for forest operators or
anybody else who is going into the forest to withdraw resources (i.e., minerals, oil gas). The workshops
specifically cover the development and implementation of soil erosion and sedimentation plans, hi
addition, PA does have a logger certification program which covers safety, erosion, first aid, silviculture,
ecology and maintenance skills.
The regulation of soil erosion and sedimentation plans is the responsibility of the County Conservation
District. If there are violations, the County Conservation Districts and the Land and Water Bureau
intercedes. On state forest lands, there is a mandatory 200' no-cut zone buffer along Special Protection
Waters (i.e., trout streams). While, on High Quality Streams, which includes perennial and some
intermittent streams, there is a 100' selection-cut buffer which also requires a crowd cover. Lastly, on
most intermittent streams there is a 25-50' selective type-cut zone on state forest managed lands. PA
sponsors a Forest Stewardship Program which helps to develop plans for landowners for the
management of their land and its resources. In these plans, harvesting recommendations are suggested
and guidelines for timber removal are provided. PA provides a guide called Timber Harvesting Issues
for municipalities to use if they want to establish a forest ordinance within their jurisdiction.
Virginia-Mike Foreman
VA DOF's number one objective is to improve water quality. To achieve this objective, their goal is to
institute a set of standards for conducting activities in an environmentally sound manner within a non-
regulatory framework. In 1988, VA DOF adopted specific goals including: reduce sedimentation from
silvicultural activities by 40 percent by the year 2000; have pre-harvest plans for 90 percent of the forest
products by 1995, implement educational programs for loggers, landowners and foresters and monitor
sediment and nutrient loads within select watersheds. Virginia believes that instituting pre-harvest plans
will help achieve these other goals. VA DOF has been success in meeting some of these goals, but not
all of them. Sediment loads have been reduced by 28-30 percent instead of the desired 40 percent. Only
about 50 percent of products have pre-harvest. VA DOF has successfully instituted educational
programs such as workshops and training days for loggers. Another success is that within Virginia there
are eight watersheds that are being monitored for sediment and nutrient loads.
For every timber tract five acres or more, Virginia conducts two inspections once when the harvesting
begins and once when it is finished. These inspections are performed by the Public Works Department
and the BOF. Once the inspections are completed the compliance for BMPS is recorded. Of the 2,800
harvested tracts per year in Virginia, roughly 10 percent of those tracts have problems with BMPs.
Virginia DOF believes that SMZs are the most important BMP.
Within Virginia there is 50' buffer guidance recommendation, with increased buffer width if it is located
adjacent to a trout stream. Partial harvesting is allowed within 50 percent of the crown cover. VA DOF
has a Bad Actor Law which allows for recommending corrective action, initiating civil penalties or as
a last resort, project shut down if water quality degradation is observed. VA's Chesapeake Bay Act has
designated Resource Protection Areas (RPA) within which BMPs are mandatory; while in Resource
Management Areas (RMA) BMPs are voluntary.
-------
Maryland - Steve Koehn
The major law that directly impacts riparian forest buffers in Maryland is the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Areas Act. This law established a 1,000 Critical Area measured from mean high tide. The first 50' is
a no-cut buffer zone except if there is Loblolly pine or Yellow Poplar. The second 50' can be managed,
however the thinning cannot reduce basal area below 60 square feet BA. The buffer can be extended
landward by the presence of Habitat Protection Area, Natural Heritage Protection Areas, Wetlands of
Special State Concern and sensitive features (i.e., steep slopes).
Maryland's Forest Conservation Act requires a Forest Stand -Delineation which identifies sensitive
retention areas to be avoided in the development process (i.e., 50' riparian forest buffer).
Sediment and Erosion Control Regulations are mandatory in the state of Maryland. A Sediment and
Erosion Control Plan is required when harvesting disturbs over 5,000 square feet. There are two types
of sediment control plans: standard and custom. The standard has a set of requirements which are
dependent on the site conditions. If one cannot meet the conditions of a standard plan, than a custom
plan is used. One of the standards under this regulation establishes a no-cut using the 50 + 4 formula.
SMZ restrictions include: no equipment, roads, trails or landings within the buffer zone, no tops in the
creek, a residual BA of 60 square feet of well distributed growing stock in stems 6" or greater must be
maintained, only permitted crossings are allowed and a distributed forest floor must be repaired
immediately. '
Maryland supports logger training which requires that the logger go through a sediment and erosion
control course. They also have a recognition program for superior loggers called the Master Logger
program which is funded through Coastal Zone Management Grants and the Maryland Forest
Association. Lastly, Maryland is streamlining the permitting process through their TEAM program.
5. PRIVATE SECTOR VIEWPOINT
Stone Container - Denice Tappero
Stone Container's primary focus is writing management plans for landowners. They believe that the
Panel needs to be reasonable when asking landowners to leave buffers; as such, their right to derive
income from their buffer needs to be preserved. However, most people are easily persuaded to leave
buffers because they are not changing the use of the property and eventually money will be derived from
the buffer. Stone Container has noticed that landowners are less receptive to maintaining a buffer if there
is no scientific reason provided to them for not harvesting the buffer.
Westvaco - Pete Miller
Westcavo is looking to be ahead of the game with research and development that supports water quality
improvements. Westvaco supports the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) which they will continue to
follow even if it is no longer embraced nationally. The main difficulty with regulatory programs is their
lack of flexibility. The Panel should develop a plan for selective, effective harvesting along riparian
areas and standardize the riparian forest buffer protection plans within the Bay states.
Glatfelter - Charles Brown
Glatfelter owns 100,000 acres of timber land in the Bay watershed, about 3/4 of this amount managed
for pine species. In addition, they manage 25,000 acres of private land primarily in Pennsylvania. Their
objective is to reinforce the notion that timber is a natural resource that can be renewed for economic
value today and in the future; thereby managing their base. Two of the most important things Westvaco
wants is to maintain flexibility within the buffer and provide economic incentives to the landowner.
-------
32S*
Chesapeake - Larry Walton
In 1971, Chesapeake adopted their Environmental Guidelines which is intended to provide for wildlife
diversity, timber management, etc. Essentially the BMPs are working and improvements have been seen.
There needs to be guidelines for managing riparian forest buffers for economic value and establishing
woodlands. The group was cautioned to make sure there was a problem before we intended to act,
especially considering that land uses changes undoubtably have greater impacts on buffers than forestry
activities. Too many regulations might result in increased incidents of non-compliance because
landowners and loggers will be overwhelmed by the laws and will not follow them. Therefore if it is
decided that there is a problem than pursue education and training versus regulations.
5. ISSUES FOR STATE FORESTS AND SMALL LANDOWNERS
State Forest Management - Bob Merrill PA Bureau of Forestry
There are two million acres of state forest in Pennsylvania. State forests are managed for timber but also
for wildlife, recreation and watershed protection. If after an evaluation a timber area is-deemed to be
acceptable for harvesting, a proposal for the logging is submitted and examined. Once approved, the
site is inspected frequently during the harvesting and the loggers have to follow strict erosion and
sediment control provisions to ensure the protection of the resources. When the sale is complete, the area
is returned to its original condition. State forest land management is highly supervised and controlled.
Pennsylvania does allow selective harvesting in riparian forest zones, with selective harvesting allowed
in exceptional value/trout streams. Eighty percent of the states exceptional streams reside in the state
forests. Last year, the state of Pennsylvania made 14 million dollars in timber sales and that was cutting
half of what the sustainable limit would allow.
6. DISCUSSION GROUPS
1. Riparian Forest Buffers in Forestry Land Use
because of the nature of forestry activities there is a different starting point than other land
uses
clear guide lines and recommendations already exist
low nutrient and sediment loadings for forests
history of implementation by industry
is the 3-zone system applicable in a forestry setting? Since the land is forested there really is
an extended buffer, but still a need to manage carefully adjacent to the stream.
industry would like recommendations to reflect a positive statement about their role and the
benefits of commercial forest land
focus of the recommendation should be on maintaining and properly managing RFBs and then
protecting them when the land use changes
2. Education and Voluntary compliance is important
Foresters will implement willingly if they are educated and trained
ensure that water quality principles are included in training as a reason for
implementing buffers
need stable and continuous effort
setting goals such as
number of loggers trained, workshops held, education sessions
tree harvesting/erosion and sedimentation plans
compliance audits as a way to measure progress
-------
educating the public about forest practices is important
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) is an important opportunity and may yield good results
for streams and the Bay
focus on what we want to achieve
include statements in recommendations that increase assurance that forests can manage within
RFBs.
relate the recommendations to current forestry practices, not the past.
promote responsible management of riparian forest buffers and all the values that entails
3. Enforcement capacity needed
foresters needed on-site reviews/visits
voluntary approach backed up by regulations that ensure implementation
feedback from enforcement to education - what is education program missing
SFI umbrella has the potential to create a "green market" that will force companies to comply
4. Refine the Program
learn from previous experience
flexibility is important including harvest requirements
need to retain management within the buffer as an option
need to periodically assess if performance standards are having the desired effect - refine as
needed.
pre-harvest planning for sediment and erosion control is important
link erosion and sediment control planning to a desired outcome (do not plan for the sake of
planning)
make a distinction between forest harvest and land clearing
do not use forest management ordinances to control growth and development - use
development ordinances
make state or regional guidelines that maximum limit - prevents local governments from
making them more stringent and thus unreasonable
must have a way to demonstrate the value of forested land ($ and otherwise)
5. Economic Incentives
look at inheritance taxes
link buffers on agricultural lands to the forest industry
look at taxes based on land use - give equity for forested land
in forestry you must consider a longer time frame than is typical for agriculture - time frame
varies with tree species
when agriculture land is converted to forest buffer, is there a way to offset the loss of regular
income from the land
retain working forest landscapes
bureaucratic and regulatory relief
need legislative champions
economic loss can be minimal if RFB is managed appropriately and with flexibility
reduce/streamline the regulatory environment
link cost-share money to baseline requirements
-------
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
The following information was developed as part of the agricultural lands policy team - a
subcommittee of the RFB Panel
Agricultural areas also offer substantial opportunities for the establishment of riparian forest buffers.
The promotion of riparian forest buffers should be a part of routine farm conservation planning
efforts, and standards for their use should be consistent with a Bay-wide Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) standard.
In addition to Agricultural Policy Team meetings, the Panel sponsored an Agricultural Policy Forum
on January 16. At this meeting, various issues regarding riparian forest buffers on agricultural lands
were discussed. The Agricultural Policy Team adopted a stream corridor management approach
when developing their recommendations, while deciding not to define a stream. The Policy Team
also suggested when targeting their objectives that it was more important to target specific
watersheds, rather than stream order, thereby maximizing limited money and manpower. The Policy
Team supported adopting specific quantitative goals for buffers in agricultural lands. The group
proposed establishing goals for restored acres/miles, implementing training courses, providing
incentives, establishing watershed teams and improving landowner participation. Farmers and
landowners have numerous concerns and questions regarding buffers. Major concerns farmers share
about buffers include shading of crops, creating habitat for wildlife (specifically engaged species)
which damages crops, obstructing views, reducing acreage available for crops, limiting livestock
access to water and maintenance of the buffer. Several common themes emerged from these
meetings, including:
f Consolidation of incentives so there is less bureaucracy and paperwork
f Better communication of the value of buffers to farmers and landowners
' + Allow for flexibility and site-specific planning
f Communicate the voluntary nature of the Policy
f Stress the economic returns that forested buffers can provide as well as their role in improving
water quality
Lloyd Casey, US Forest Service, provided the RFB Panel with a menu of buffer programs and
incentives that could be used at the local, state and federal level.
Local Level
+ Purchase conservation easements
f Purchase buffer corridors
f Reduce the tax rate on land in a buffer to compensate for the cost of maintaining the
buffer
+ Delay tax payment on land in a buffer until the harvest of trees grown in that buffer
-------
State Level
4 Purchase conservation easements
4 Reduce income tax from buffer-related income
4 Special license plate program to generate funds
4 zone buffers
4 Reduce the cost of sport licenses in exchange for buffers
4 Reduce or limit the landowner's liability from public use
4 State rents the buffer corridor from the landowner, landowner pays the state some
percentage of tree harvest revenue.
Federal Level
4 Federal tax credit for buffer implementation
4 Index for inflation
4 No tax on buffer-related income
4 Tax imported forest products
The keys to successful implementation are planning on a farm and watershed scale, improving
education and coordination of existing programs and offering a variety of incentives. In order to sell
these recommendations to the agricultural community, the "package" must allow for flexibility.
Flexible, site-specific conservation or stewardship plans will incorporate landowner objectives and
a range of practices necessary to achieve healthy and functional streams.
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
There may be some need to separate maintaining buffers and restoring them. Characteristics of
successful stream corridor management in agricultural areas include:
4 Reducing random cattle access to streams and wetlands
4 Removing livestock holding areas from stream corridors
4 Eliminating cropping activities directly adjacent to streams and shorelines
4 Maintaining permanent vegetation, and promoting natural forests within the stream corridor.
4 Controlling accelerated channel erosion through use of natural channel approaches
Proper stream corridor management is broadly recommended, and riparian forest buffer activities
should receive additional emphasis and targeting in priority watersheds.
4 Reduce the conversion of existing riparian forests to agricultural uses.
4 Establish or enhance natural forest cover in stream corridors to decrease nutrient losses and
improve stream corridor habitat.
4 Ensure.that a "package" of priority programs are in place to adequately support the efforts
to improve.
4 Increase landowner participation in stream corridor management.
4 Through an interdisciplinary team, define levels of stream corridor management, and establish
quality criteria which rank practices by value to stream and riparian health.
4 Identify a "model" stream buffer and minimum corridor width.
4 Establish a set of "quality criteria" in order to prioritize areas for protection.
4 Support the enforcement of existing laws and regulations such as the MD Critical Areas and
Forest Conservation Acts and VA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.
4 Increase the use of riparian corridor easements.
-------
f Flexible stream corridor and buffer widths related to watershed objectives, site-specific
conditions and landowner needs.
4- Identify "levels" of stream corridor protection with appropriate BMP's, and place focus on
promoting forested stream corridor.
DEFINITION OF A STREAM
The Policy Team decided not to define a stream in agricultural lands because the individual planner
and willing landowner might be receptive to planting riparian forest buffers regardless of whether a
particular stream would qualify under an adopted definition.
PLANNING
Planning and implementing a stream corridor management program should take place at both the
individual farm level and the watershed scale. Protecting water quality at a site can be accomplished
by the various practices described above; however, restoration of degraded conditions and long term
success also require looking at the stream in the context of its watershed and considering upstream
impacts and the linkages with other farms and properties.
Farm Scale
Utilize existing mechanisms of Conservation Districts and Landowner Assistance
At the farm scale, the concepts of stream corridor management and the promotion of forests as a
preferred vegetation have to be a part of routine farm conservation efforts. Assistance provided by
NRCS conservationists and District personnel, as well as state and consulting foresters, are the
vehicle for this planning action. Conservation Plans should specifically address how to integrate the
concept with other farm practices. This will require increasing the priority for these actions within
existing conservation programs.
Watershed Scale
Assess Current Watershed Conditions
Summarize existing riparian corridor condition by the type of Vegetation and use of the land. Identify
the potential natural vegetation for riparian area (recommended natural vegetation). Using existing
inventories where possible, identify the location, extent, and type of degraded streams in the
watershed. Quantify impacts such as loss of riparian soils, nutrient inputs, thermal impacts, and
benefits such as increased herd health, injuries to livestock and fish enhancement.
Prioritize Watersheds for Riparian Corridor Management Activities
Identify key scientific/technical decision criteria such as type, extent, and location of degradation, land
use and potential for change, and assess the potential effectiveness of RFB's and other stream
corridor practices as tools. In addition, other criteria, such as level of landowner or community
interest and participation, should be identified.
GOALS
The Agricultural Policy Team discussed and supported a numeric goal of miles or acres of riparian
forest buffer as part of stream corridor management (to be determined as a portion of the overall goal
for the Riparian Forest Buffer Directive). The Policy Team suggested that this goal be set based on
a combination of the inventory results tempered with the reality of existing programs and some
provisions for targeting priority areas identified by a scientific approach. Additional goals are needed
related to education, program coordination, incentive programs and research and monitoring.
-------
330
Programmatic Goals
Establish and implement an ongoing training and education program in each jurisdiction to
communicate the importance of riparian forests and stream corridor management, methods of
protection and establishment, and resources available to resource professionals and decision makers.
Each jurisdiction will develop and implement mechanisms to increase interagency coordination,
implementation, and monitoring of stream corridor management and riparian buffer programs.
Each jurisdiction and federal agency will review, enhance, and update the implementation of a
"package" of priority programs and incentives for stream corridor management.
Establish a recognition program which reward the practice of stream corridor management.
NRCS will establish a specific stream corridor management system which includes forest buffers that
can be implemented as a component of Farm Conservation Plans.
Establish riparian forest buffer/stream corridor demonstration streams in each of the major tributary
watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay.
States will ensure that local governments have the authority to provide preferential property tax
treatment for protected or enhanced streamside forest buffers or corridors.
-------
URBAN AND DEVELOPING LAND ISSUES
The following information was developed as part of the developed lands policy team - a
subcommittee of the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel
It is important to recognize that implementation of riparian forest buffers (RFB) in developed and
developing areas are different from their implementation in agricultural and forestry settings. First,
the changes resulting from impervious cover of buildings, streets, and other infrastructure are
permanent and typically result in cumulative changes in the hydrological regime. In contrast, the
changes resulting from farming and forestry can be reversed. Second, the per-unit value of developed
and developing lands is significantly greater than the per-unit value of farm or forest land.
Ideal RFB conditions are rarely found in developed or developing watersheds due to the stresses
associated with development. Accepting this reality and allowing for flexibility and site-specific
adaptations will be critical for effective implementation in a developed or developing landscape.
A policy team composed of public and private sector participants identified a variety of issues that
should be considered in RFB policy recommendations. These issues include:
1. Flexibility is critical. "One size fits all" approaches, technical or programmatic, must be
avoided.
2. Existing federal, state and local stream protection programs are not well coordinated. Some
zoning and other means of land use guidance have the effect of preventing RFB
implementation or even eliminating existing RFBs.
3. Landowners' key concerns are what size stream must be buffered and how much land will be
required for the RFB (definition of "stream" and RFB size requirements).
4. Typically, RFBs receive no credit as Best Management Practices (BMPs), and often their
presence restricts the implementation of other BMPs.
5 . Costs and potential time delays are key concerns of developers. Developers must weigh an
individual site's increased value due to RFB implementation against the loss of revenue when
development density must decrease to accommodate those RFBs.
6. It has been questioned whether a working definition of "stream" should be based on science
or observation, and there is no commonly accepted set of criteria used across programs to
identify or classify streams in the field.
7. It is not clear what criteria should be used to prioritize stream systems or watersheds for RFB
implementation.
8. There are varying opinions about what uses are appropriate within RFBs and what level of
management is appropriate or needed for RFBs to remain healthy, viable and functioning.
9. There are distinctions between RFB policy recommendations that would be effective and
appropriate in an already developed area versus the greater range of opportunities in
developing areas. These distinctions need to be identified and the recommendations need to
reflect them. What threshold determines that an area qualifies as .urban (instead of
developing) land?
-------
33*-
DEFBVITION OF A STREAM
The Policy Team recommends that any program or locality implementing RFBs adopt a clear
definition of "stream," thus establishing the bodies of water RFBs are intended to protect. The
definition should reflect local conditions and values, be consistent with existing program guidance,
and include a description of stream flow characteristics (perennial, intermittent), channel morphology,
floodplain area included, and a reference point for delineation (topographical or drainage area
mapping system). It should be based on sound science, but it should also be tempered by public
acceptability. Furthermore, the definition should allow refinement of delineation through field
verification.
It is generally accepted among scientists that the smallest streams (first and second order, or
headwater streams) are considered the most important for maintaining good water quality
downstream. These low-order drainage areas comprise the largest land area and greatest challenge.
Some members of the Policy Team expressed the opinion that a definition should establish a threshold
or cutoff point for stream drainage areas in general, and the cutoff should be quantitative for
headwater streams. Others believed the definition should be simple and not based on size or extensive
mapping, realizing that any definition that is too technical will not work for the average landowner.
While Policy Team members agreed that first and second order streams are extremely important, they
also agreed that streams in urban areas and larger downstream segments should not be ignored.
Ideally, all programs would use the same definition. However, the Policy Team recognizes that a
unified definition is probably not practical, given the number of jurisdictions and agencies that
regulate or otherwise address streams with programs having widely varying objectives and already
differing definitions. RFB Panel members have agreed that, ideally, the definition of "stream" should
be consistent across land uses. The Policy Team also agreed that it is not the Panel's charge to
develop a new stream definition for broad use among federal, state and local agencies.
PRINCIPLES
The conservation, restoration and management of RFBs in developed and developing areas present
a challenge for any community. To ensure that RFBs are being effectively promoted and managed
in the developed and developing landscape, the following principles should be considered in
developing the Panel's recommendations:
I. Recognize that first and second order streams are the most important locations for RFBs, but
don't ignore urbanized streams and rivers and the wider downstream reaches;
2. Public lands should incorporate RFBs in ways that set an example for private landowners;
3. Promote RFB guidelines that are clear, but allow flexibility for on-site interpretation;
4. Provide guidance documents and training/education programs for various groups among the
public to improve knowledge and understanding of RFBs and their importance;
5. Promote better communication between developers, design consultants, resource managers,
and local government officials;
6. Encourage conservation and restoration of RFBs by providing appropriate tax and other
incentives, such as density compensations, buffer width averaging, and stormwater
management (SWM) pollution removal credit;
7. Recommend flexible policies and implementation options to avoid a prescriptive "one size fits
-------
333
all" type of program; allow each jurisdiction to develop its own approach tailored to be
compatible with existing programs;
8. RFB implementation should be targeted to small watersheds by some system of priorities;
9. Embrace the three-zone buffer planning model(U.S. Forest Service) as appropriate for
achieving a sustainable forest environment along the stream corridor and protecting stream
corridor integrity, at the same time recognizing that such buffers are not always feasible;
10. In order to create a low-maintenance, sustainable system, promote the use of native species,
appropriate species diversity, and natural succession while discouraging the use of exotic
species and maintaining against the invasion of invasive, nuisance species.
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
The key to the success of this policy will be how it is implemented and maintained at the local level.
There are practical differences in how an RFB policy can be implemented in existing developed areas
versus newly developing areas, For example, the following criteria, entitled Nuts and Bolts of a
Developed Stream Buffer, were developed by the Center for Watershed Protection:
A RFB should be a minimum total width of 100 feet, including the floodplain.
4- There should be zone-specific goals and restrictions for the outer, middle and streamside
zones.
4- A vegetative target should be established based on the pre-development plan community.
4- The middle zone could be expandable to include wetlands, slopes and larger streams.
4- Use clear and measurable criteria to delineate the origin and boundaries of the RFB.
4- The number and conditions for allowing buffer crossings should be limited.
4- The use of RFBs for stormwater runoff treatment should be carefully prescribed.
4- RFB boundaries should be visible and obvious before, during, and after construction.
Other implementation recommendations from this Policy Team are categorized as follows:
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
4- Conserve and manage RFBs where they already exist.
4- Restore RFBs, as much as is feasible, where they do not exist,
4- Provide flexibility and incentives, rather than more regulations, to landowners and
jurisdictions to encourage and promote more RFBs.
EXISTING PROGRAM COORDINA TION
4- Encourage the integration of RFB guidelines with those of other land use and resource
protection programs.
4- Jurisdictions should prepare or support the preparation of a listing and description of existing
federal, state and local regulations and programs that may be used or required as related to
RFB implementation; this directory should include such information as cost-share rates,
process information, and a contact name, address and telephone number,
4- Support existing state and local laws, regulations and programs that protect RFBs.
4- Examine existing programs and regulations for potential coordination and integration,
reassess their criteria and requirements to eliminate unintended conflict with one another.
-------
334
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
General
4 Promote RFB education and monitoring programs that protect buffer integrity.
4 State and federal natural resource agencies should consider stimulating the creation of
statewide or regional citizen-based organizations to provide information, training and direct
assistance to their communities regarding RFBs.
4- Promote the establishment of RFB vegetation according to a hierarchy of vegetation types,
recognizing that trees provide more diverse functions and benefits than shrubs, and shrubs
more than herbaceous plants such as grass.
4 Natural resource agencies and organizations should develop and distribute fact sheets, videos,
posters, etc., to assist in education/outreach efforts.
4 Appropriate staff of natural resource agencies should be cross-trained to be prepared to
advise property owners and work together to provide assistance.
Developed Lands
4 Educate citizens regarding the benefits of RFBs, and encourage their participation in stream
restoration and clean-up, events, watershed organizations, etc.
4 Promote citizen participation in RFB conservation and maintenance and in stream monitoring
and clean-up efforts (e.g., walk-your-watershed, adopt-a-stream, and citizen monitoring
programs).
4- Work with organizations and associations in each jurisdiction to develop linear recreational
sites as living laboratories and urban RFB demonstration sites.
Developing Lands
4- Promote RFB guidelines that are clear, but allow for site-specific consideration for
application.
4- Reference existing program directory - mentioned above under "Existing Program
Coordination."
4- Encourage developers, planners, design consultants, and local governments to communicate
more effectively with one another during the development process to arrive at plans that
achieve the developers' goals while conserving RFBs.
INCENTIVES
General
4 Allow flexibility for expansion, contraction and averaging with respect to buffer width criteria
to account for steepness of slope, drainage patterns, floodplains, shoreline erosion and
accretion trends, limited lot size, etc.
4- Provide for flexible uses within RFBs, including freedom to harvest timber for firewood or
even commercial sales, consistent with state forestry agency criteria ensuring a sustainable
forest environment (e.g., Virginia allows the removal of 50 percent of the basal area within
a "streamside management zone").
4- Promote tax credits, exemptions, preferential assessments, and other tax incentives to
encourage landowners to conserve existing buffers or create them where they do not exist.
4 Promote a unified and streamlined development plan and permit review process.
4 Promote tax credits, exemptions, preferential assessments, and other tax incentives to
-------
33S*
encourage landowners to conserve existing buffers or create them where they do not exist.
4- Encourage property owners to establish RFB conservation easements.
4- Establish watershed-wide or state-specific banks to ensure that appropriate and inexpensive
riparian tree seedlings are readily available at a reasonable cost to landowners, and provide
opportunities for private support of such banks.
Developed Lands
4- Target limited RFB restoration funds to priority, watersheds, to be chosen by each jurisdiction.
4- Establish small grant programs that will provide seed money to local watershed groups and
community organizations to develop and implement RFB restoration activities.
Developing Lands
4- Promote RFBs as low-maintenance stormwater management BMPs or as a part of a BMP
system that incorporates stormwater management ponds and wetlands within the buffer to
allow treatment of runoff from the greatest possible area and to make construction easier and
less expensive; allow the pollution removal effectiveness of buffers to be credited in
stormwater management plans and calculations.
4 Provide for development density compensation where buffers are required or proposed, so
that a developer can establish the same number of lots on the parcel outside the RFB that he
or she would be allowed to establish on the entire parcel if there were no RFBs.
4 Consider the institution of Transfer-of-Development-Rights (TDR) and Purchase-of
Development-Rights (PDR) programs
LAND USE PLANING
4- States, planning districts and local jurisdictions need to work together to identify stream
networks and watershed boundaries and inventory where RFBs exist and where they do not.
4 Local governments should evaluate local stream systems, determine relative levels of stress
on them, identify existing and preferred uses, and determine appropriate levels of protection
that might be provided by RFBs.
4- Local comprehensive planning activities should be linked with regional or watershed-wide
SWM planning to assist in understanding the potential effects on the stream system and other
natural resource of various build-out scenarios, and to help with planning to mitigate the
negative effects; RFBs may be among the various mitigation practices.
4- Promote guidance to localities that incorporates RFB retention (conservation) and design
among development planning considerations.
4- Incorporate RFBs into the design of stormwater management (SWM practices such as ponds
and wetlands).
4- Reforest previously disturbed areas that are utilized and, perhaps, abandoned (e.g., vacant
lots, brown fields, etc.).
4- Restore RFBs along open streams on public lands, such as parks, and other open lands with
the participation of willing landowners, linking RFBs to public recreational uses wherever
feasible.
4- Promote a unified and streamlined development plan and permit review process.
-------
FEDERAL LANDS FORUM
Federal Lands are diverse:
+Public recreationals lands + Restricted-use lands 4- historical sites
^National Monuments +Floodways + Open space
Federal Agency missions are diverse:
+ Manage public forests and parks ^Military defense and training + Research and
refuge lands + Tecnical landowner assistance programs + Grant providers
The following proposed actions were discussed and endorsed by federal
agencies.
Public Land Management
1 . Federal land managers will review current practices and policies related to stream
corridor and riparian buffer management and develop specific plans and goals for riparian
forest buffer protection and restoration on those lands.
2. Federal land managers will ensure, that all land uses, including agricultural, silvicultural or
commercial leases on public lands will implement practices which promote, protect and
where feasible restore riparian forest buffers and stream corridors.
3. Develop plans for federal land management which reduce unnecessary mowing, manage
leases, prevent wildlife damage, encroachment and disturbance of riparian buffers in order
to enhance forest growth.
4. Provide opportunities on federal lands for the establishment of demonstration and research
sites for riparian forest buffer establishment, function, maintenance and management.
Assistance. Education, and Research
5. By 1997, complete an assessment of federal cost-share and incentive program
accomplishments, barriers, and recommendations for targeting, modification and use in
promoting riparian forest buffer establishment and stream corridor management.
6. By 1998, Federal agencies which provide landowner assistance within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed will develop a strategy for enhanced outreach and implementation of riparian
forest buffers on private and public lands.
7. Federal Agencies will provide technical assistance and training in cooperation with the
states to increase stream restoration activities and riparian forest buffer establishment of
private lands.
8. Establish and implement an education and training program for federal land managers on
watershed assessment, stream corridor management, and riparian forest buffer protection
and establishment.
-------
POTENTIAL ACTIONS
The following menu of actions includes att items that were suggested during Panel meetings and
land use Policy Team discussions. They are presented as recorded without significant editing
or assessment of feasibility.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACTIONS
Increase Awareness and Recognition of Stream Corridor Management
4- Utilize "Master Farmer" peer programs to educate landowners and create demonstration farms to
illustrate proper stream corridor management.
4- Utilize non-profit groups to assist in door-to-door contacts and bring landowners together in
individual watershed meetings or efforts.
4- Establish forested stream corridor management demonstration sites at research sites conducting
agriculture "Field Day" programs and incorporate them into education programs.
4- Establish a farmer recognition program to reward and recognize farmers practicing proper stream
corridor management.
Education/Training for Resource Professionals and Farm Assistance Personnel
4 Provide training to agency staffs and field resource professionals so that they can explain stream
corridor management needs and the benefits of riparian forest buffers.
4 Develop educational materials and tools such as videos, posters, fact sheets, displays, and
brochures to assist in education efforts.
4- Establish several riparian forest buffer/stream corridor demonstration streams in each of the major
tributary watersheds in each jurisdiction.
Enhance Existing Programs
4- Designate interagency state "Riparian Teams" charged with coordinating and monitoring the
implementation of statewide stream corridor enhancement.
4- Increase the level of field personnel commitments of federal and state conservation agencies based
on watershed-based planning for stream corridor management.
4- Increase the capacity of public and private partners to facilitate restoration efforts by establishing
a small grants program for outreach and education to farmers and coordination of restoration
projects.
4- Increase priority placed on stream corridor management in existing conservation programs.
4- Establish a specific stream corridor management component in Farm Conservation Plans.
4- Ensure that existing agricultural cost-share programs support a wide range of stream corridor
management practices including planting trees and shrubs, greater use of temporary/portable fencing
for pasture livestock management, and development of off-stream water development.
4- Ensure that periodic maintenance, weed control, and selective harvest in the forested buffer is
allowable where it is does not affect or is beneficial to buffer function, growth and health.
4- Provide increased resources for development of Soil and Water Quality Conservation Plans on
farms in the watershed.
4- Encourage farmland preservation and other land conservation easements to include conditions for
stream corridor management in easements and extra compensation for riparian forest buffer
establishment.
-------
34-0
4 Pool multiple agency resources at the state level to establish a stream corridor management
incentive program and relax rules on piggy-backing RFB programs.
4 Establishment of a streamlined permit processes at the state and local level applicable to
landowners who implement a complete stream corridor management approach including
establishment of riparian forest buffers.
Provide Adequate Incentives
4 Establish a unique package of programs and incentives for stream corridor management.
4 Provide preferential property tax treatment for protection or establishment of proper stream
corridor management with priority for forested buffers.
4 Create a flexible tax credit system based on % of forested stream corridor completed and adjust
the credit by width.
4 Develop and establish mechanisms for conversion of CRP or other temporary stream corridor
protection to permanent easements through a bonus payment or other means.
4 Establish variable cost share rates in existing conservation programs that give preferred
consideration and added incentive for riparian forest buffers (100% for forest, bonus payments, etc.)
or in priority watersheds.
4 Ensure that riparian forest buffers are given highest priority consideration in CRP offerings.
4 Allocate a minimum fixed portion of state agricultural cost share programs for stream corridor
management activities to increase interest and local delivery.
4 Establish a watershed-wide or state-specific private seedling bank to ensure that appropriate and
inexpensive riparian tree seedlings are readily available to landowners and conservation districts and
provide opportunities for private support.
4 Modify existing cost-share programs to allow use of funds for maintenance of riparian forest buffer
plantings for a minimum of 3 years.
4 Increase cost share support for BMP's and practices that support forested stream corridor
establishment such as polywire fencing, off-stream watering, etc.
4 Initiate a Bay-wide legislative effort to target funds to forested stream corridor management
efforts.
Research/Technical Support Needed for Implementation
4 Develop a simplified computer model useful in the field to generate buffer widths, management
info, and determine costs and benefits of stream corridor and forest buffers maintenance or
establishment.
4 Establish a tracking system which utilizes existing federal, state, and local institutions to identify
and report stream corridor and forested buffer accomplishments.
FOREST LAND ACTIONS
Education and Voluntary Compliance
4 Keep current programs voluntary.
4 Reinforce the message that forested buffers are the best land use for :water quality using all
technical agencies with State Forestry Agencies and Forest Industry taking the lead.
4 Utilize the recently enacted Industry Sustainable Forestry Initiative to further develop this issue.
4 Management within the forested stream corridor is essential to program success.
-------
341
Enforcement Capacity
4 Continue in Maryland and Virginia and begin in Pennsylvania a site auditing process to examine
and track progress.
4 Recommend no new regulations by localities or more stringent than the States'.
4 Do not use forest management ordinances to control growth and development.
Incentives
4 Develop a tax structure that rewards the landowner for keeping the stream corridor in forest.
Suggest a "no tax" zone for the stream corridor. Another suggestion would be to offer "tax credits"
for forested stream corridors.
4 Offer a targeted and liberal cost-share program designed to increase the width and length of
forested stream corridors.
4 Propose a uniform inheritance system that discourages the break-up of property in order to ease
financial burden.
URBAN AND DEVELOPING LANDS ACTIONS
Developed Lands Guidance
Increase Awareness and Recognition of Stream Corridor Management
4 Develop stream corridor management demonstration sites specific to the urban landscape.
4 Target churches, local governments, neighborhood and civic organizations, schools for stream
cleans ups/stream corridor education/forest buffer plantings.
4 Work with local governments to develop solutions.
Education/Training for Resource Professionals and Property Owners
4 Provide training to agency staffs and field resource professionals so they are better able to
communicate the importance of stream corridors to the public.
4 Develop fact sheets, videos, posters, etc. to assist in education/outreach efforts.
Financial Incentives
4 Research grants available from government, state, and non-profit organizations.
4 Provide incentives to landowners willing to maintain their forest buffer.
4 Recommend small grant program that will provide seed money to local watershed groups and
community organizations to develop and implement restoration activities .
Coordination and Targeting of Existing Departments and Programs
4 Continue to support existing federal, state and local buffer regulations.
4 Encourage coordination of federal, state and local programs and policies.
4 Promote buffer averaging - allows flexibility to identify areas to build out.
Other Ideas
4 Tax incentives - offered by state or local governments to riparian landowners to protect and
enhance stream corridors.
4 Tax exemptions - offered to landowners who retain stream corridor for established period of time.
4 Preferential Assessment - land would be assessed at a current open space value and a reduced tax
pressure than highest and best use level.
-------
Developing Lands Guidance
Increase Awareness and Recognition of Stream Corridor Management
4- Develop stream corridor management demonstration sites specific to developing areas.
4- Provide educational outreach to school groups, civic organizations, local governments.
4- Coordinate approaches with local governments.
Education/Training for Resource Professional and Property Owners
4- Provide training to agency staffs and field resource professionals so they are better able
communicate the importance of stream corridors.
4- Develop fact sheets, videos, posters, etc. to assist in education/outreach efforts.
Financial Incentives
4- Provide preferential property tax treatment for protection or establishment of proper stream
corridor management with priority for forested buffers.
4- TDR programs to focus growth and development in planned areas that provide resource
protection.
4- Create a flexible tax credit system based on % of forested stream corridor completed and adjust
the credit by width.
4- Establish a watershed-wide or state-specific private seedling bank to ensure that appropriate and
inexpensive riparian tree seedlings are readily available to landowners and provide opportunities for
private support.
4- Initiate a Bay-wide legislative effort to target funds to forested stream corridor management
efforts.
4- Provide BMP "credits" for buffer flexibility.
Coordination and Targeting of Existing Departments and Programs
4- Strongly encourage developers, planners, landscape architects, and stormwater managers to
communicate more effectively with one another in the development process.
4- Review existing regulations and polices for effectiveness.
4- Allow flexible width approaches, such as standard width associated with stream order.
1-3 100'
4-5 150'
4- Promote stream corridor and RFB considerations in comprehensive planning. Prioritize stream
order and habitat (trout streams, oyster beds).
-------
SECTION 7:
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
At the outset, both the RFB Panel and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay have been totally
committed to an open and public process. The Panel did not meet or deliberate in secret and
meeting dates, times and locations were available to anyone who asked. In addition, meeting
dates were included with the interim report and were occasionally printed in the Ray Journal At
times towards the end of the process I was instructed by the Panel not to distribute the current
draft of the report. However even this was not to be secretive. Instead it was only because the
entire Panel had not had the opportunity to agree that the draft accurately reflected comments and
meeting discussions.
One early P.R, piece was the white paper that was written by Karl Blankenship and Al Todd. The
white paper attempted to get the Lowrance report and other sources into a form that could be
digested by the general public. This was, and still is, being distributed widely. Also, Karl
repeatedly published articles about RFBs and the Panel's deliberations and reports. The Bay.
loumal mailing list is 30,000+ and covers the entire Bay watershed and beyond. The Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay received a good number of requests for information from people who had
read articles in the Bay Journal.
Later in 1995 a large mailing was sent out which included the interim report and the white paper.
A memo was included with this mailing which offered a speaker from the Panel, additional copies
of the white paper, the opportunity to get on a mailing list for information about future Panel
meetings, and more detailed information about RFBs.
The mailing lists used for this distribution were complied from ACB databases of stakeholder
groups and individuals as well as lists and individuals contributed by Panel and Technical Team
members. The mailing went to a broad range of people and organizations such as SCDs, Trib
Teams, river groups, CBP committees, trade associations (i.e., farm bureau, etc) and more. In
addition Ray Journal'carried a series of stories about the Panel and its work including contracts
for information. The Delmarva Farmer newspaper also carried a story.
In addition to requests received through the response form mentioned above, ACB and Panel
members worked to coordinate meetings where representatives of the Panel could present the
Panel's work. Over 20 meetings were held where Panel or Technical Team members of staff
spoke about the Panel's work. Panel members may have spoken to other meetings, formally or
informally, which were not reported. Some organizations which were contacted could not
schedule a speaker but printed articles in their newsletter/journal or distributed (and instructions
for comment) at their meetings. Audiences for these meetings covered a wide range of interests,
from river groups to trade associations to government bodies. General oral comments from these
meetings were noted by the speakers. Speakers notes were made available to all speakers.
It should also be noted that written comments were always encouraged because they increased our
ability to accurately portray the comments. All written comments (and speakers' notes of oral
-------
comments) were kept by ACB. Each was summarized into a matrix and categorized into general,
technical and policy issues. These summaries of comments were repeatedly sent or distributed to
the Panel and Technical Team members to be reflected in the drafts of the report. In sum there
were over 60 sets of comments from individuals and groups. All written comments are available
for anyone to view.
ACB served as the point-of-contact for the Panel and often fielded phone calls and provided
information about the Panel and its work. The following pages contain a matrix of written
comments received during the Panel Outreach process.
-------
COMMENTORS ON POLICY DRAFT
RFB PANEL AND TECHNICAL TEAM
Bill Bostian, The Natural Conservancy
Ian Handle, University of Maryland/STAC
Tom Simpson, MD Department of Agriculture/University,of Maryland
Jeri Berc, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (MD)
Royden Powell, MD Department of Agriculture
Paul Swartz, Susquehanna River Basin Commission
Sandy Sage, Bigelow Laboratory
Ann Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Commission
David Brubaker, PennAg Industries
Sean Davis, LDR International
Ron Hedlund, VA Department of Conservation and Recreation
Mike Eckert, MD Farm Bureau
Bill Adams, PA Farm Bureau
Bob Tjaden, MD Cooperative Extension Service
Patty Engler, Natural Resources Sonservation Service (MD)
John Lipman, Chesapeake Bay Commission
PRIVATE
Franklin Hall, Halhvood Enterprises
John Blake, MD Forests Boards and Fredrick County Forest Conservancy
Wayne Barfield, Westvaco
TRIBUTARY STRATEGY TEAMS
Patapsoc/Back River Tributary Team
Upper Potomac Tributary Team
Middle Potomac Tributary Team
Patuxent River Commission
Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Team
FARM BUREAU
VA Farm Bureau Forestry Committee
VA Farm Bureau President
MD Farm Bureau
PA Farm Bureau
PA Farm Bureau NER Advisory Committee
CONSERVATION GROUPS/ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Trout Unlimited, PA
Izaak Walton League, VA
Friends of the North Fork Shenandoah, VA
Coastal and Watershed Resources Advisory Committee
-------
Save Our Streams, MD
MD State Water Quality Advisory Committee
AGENCIES/GOVERNMENT
Judy Okay, VA Department of Forestry
Jim Cox, VA Department of Conservation and Recreation
Y.D. Hance, Calvret County Soil Conservation District (MD)
Board of Supervisors, Washington County Soil Conservation District (MD)
Garrett County Soil Conservatin District (MD)
Executive Board, VA Association of Soil & Water Conservation Districts
MD Association of Soil Conservation Districts
Soil Conservation Committee, MD Assoc. of Soil Conservation Districts
David Welsch, US Forest Service
Jeffrey Mahood, USDA Natural Resurces Conservation Service, PA
Elmer Dengler, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, MD
Robert Whitescaver, USDA Natural Reources Conservation Service, VA
Ken Carter, USDA Natural Reources Conservation Service, VA
Bruce Nichols, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
George Lechilder, Montgomery County Soil Conservation District, MD
Joan Kean, Somerset County Dept. of Technical & Community Services
Dept. of Environmental Protection & Resources Mngt, Baltimore County
Ron Tibbott, PA Fish & Boat Commission
Robert Heidecker, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, PA
Wicomico County Soil Cosnervation District (MD)
Cindy Tibbott, PA Field Office, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Larry Land, Director, Policy Development, VA Association of Counties
Claudia Jones & Greg Schaner, MD Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Com.
Ronald Schabel, US Department of Agriculture
INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS
Roger Waldman
Charles Conklin
Bea Dewing
Barbara Taylor-Suit
Ajax Eastman
Steele Philips
Frank Lucas
Guy Steucek, Millersville University
John Clark Barber
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Local Government Adivsory Committee
Citizen Advisory Committee
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
-------
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER PANEL
PUBLIC COMMENT MATRIX
COMMENTORS
Bill Bostian
The Nature Conservancy
Friends of the North Fork
Shenandoah
Franklin Hall
Hallwood Enterprises
Westvaco
Patapsco Tributary
Strategy Team
Patuxent River Commission
Tributary Strategy Team
VA Farm Bureau Forestry
Committee
c
R
A
P
P
T
T
F
w
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
GENERAL COMMENTS
4 supportive of recommendations
4 excellent effort
4 supportive
4 additional comments will be sent
4 look more closely at industry and urban
areas, not farmers
4- not supportive
4 90% of goals can be reached along
shorelines of the Bay, not in the watershed
not the best technology
4- very supportive
4- liked focus on voluntary approach, tax
strategies, incentives and streamling
programs
4- need to acknowledge existing laws in MD
and reduce overlap or confusion
4- agriculture is disproportionately targeted
4- increase recognition of opportunities for
federal land RFB restoration
4- need to acknowledge existing laws in MD
and reduce overlap or confusion
4 agriculture is disaproportionalely targeted
4 increase recognition of opportunities for
federal land RFB restoration
4 cautiously optimistic
4 support voluntary and flexible approach
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
4- editorial comments
4 recommends additional goal change
4 move up some time lines
4 incorporate Trib Teams as coordinating
committees
4 increase focus on economic uses of RFBs
/
4. none
4 desirability of a minimum width vs. site
flexibility which considers land use
4- is a 3-zone concept too complex to
implement - may want a simpler approach
4 better define intermittent streams
4- concern about desired width not matching
inventory
4 better define intermittent streams
4 concern about desired width not matching
inventory
4 none
ISSUE COMMENTS
4 clarify focus on natural streams and specify
focus is not on ditches
4- make delivery of programs and buffer practices
simple to gain acceptance
4- keep flexibility and allow, alternatives to RFBs
recognize need to address specific needs of
cattle farmers
4- voluntary approaches are only a precursor to
mandatory regulations
4- regulations place too much burden on private
landowners
4- none
4- availability of funding and incentives to ,
implement - will it be available
4- availability of funding and incentives to
implement - will it be avaible
4 concern that voluntary approach may lead to
regulation
R = Riparian Forest Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
Q= Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commentora
P = Private
T - Tributary Strategy Teams
W = provided written comments
F= Farm Bureau
I = Individual Citizens
O = provided oral comments
C = Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
A = Conservation Groups/Advisory Committees
-------
COMMENTORS
W
GENERAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
ISSUE COMMENTS
VA Farm Bureau President
not supportive
provide only broad guidance
appreciate involvement in process
* RFBs should not be favored above all
others
+ ensure flexibility to allow application to
diversity of VA landscapes
+ need better information to deal with wildlife
damage to agricultural lands
* goals should not be measured in miles or
acres
* fear of future regulations
+ need assurance that additional incentives will
be in place
MD Farm Bureau
4- have concerns about goals and
applicability to small streams
4- change structure of goals and definitions
to match NRCS Riparian Buffer Standard
4 editorial comments
4 delete intermittent from stream definition
4 remove 75' desired width and allow
flexible width based on site conditions
4 remove 60% from retention goals
4 replace guidance with NRCS technical
standard references
4 apply goals to targeted priority watersheds
4 delete all quantitative goals which specifically
focus on forested buffers and replace with goals
that reflect a general multiple BMP approach
4 do not preclude non-forest vegetative buffers
where forests are hot practical
4 report should recognize and not infringe upon.
private property rights
4 do not increase focus on agricultural incentive
programs on RFBs - competition for incentive
dollars
PA Farm Bureau
NER Advisory Committee
4 positive toward approach being taken by
Panel
4 interested in information on buffer
functions
4 don't try to move too fast - new ideas
require time to take hold
4 RFBs need to be presented in the context
of farm management
4 stream maintenance issues including gravel
bars - groups needed clarification
4 groundwater issues - groups need
clarification about differences between
groundwater and surface water movement
4 need to explain RFBs in simple terms with an
emphasis on benefits to the landowner
4 concern that "voluntary" programs are the first
step toward regulatory programs
Ian Hardie,
University of Maryland, STAC,
Panel Member
4 supportive
4 restoration of buffers should be prioritized
based on cost effectiveness and the potential
for water quality and stream benefits
4 need for detailed analysis to quantify costs
and potential benefits
Tom Simpson
University of MD/Maryland
Department of Agriculture
4 well written report
4 too many sub-goals and actions
4 need to re-emphasize voluntary approach
and landowner role
4 describe additional scientific and technical
information needs
4 clarify application to ditches and on-farm
drainage
4 specific width recommendations are
problematic - supports lower minimum but
need for more than 75' in other cases
4 too many sub-objectives confusion in
implementation strategy
4 editorial comments
4 reassess goals 2 and 3
4 relationship of Panel report and recommended
action and EC directive or Governor's Executive
Orders
4 need to ensure financial incentives are
available
Judy Okay
VA Department of Forestry
4 supportive
4 editorial comments
4 none
R = Riparian Fomtt Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
0 = Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commentora
P = Private
T = Tributary Strategy Teama
W = provided written comment* '
F = Farm Bureau
I = Individual Citizena
O = provided oral comments
C = Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
A = Conservation Groups/Advisory Committees
-------
COMMENTORS
Bob Tjaden
MD Cooperative Panel
Members
Y. D. Hance
Calvert SCD, MD
Jeffrey Mahood
NRCS- PA
Elmer Dengler
NRCS- MD
Jeri Berc
MD State Conservationist
NRCS - Panel Member
Dave Welsch
U.S. Forest Service
Robert Whitescaver
NRCS - Verona, VA
c
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
w
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
GENERAL COMMENTS
4 supportive
+ none
4- definitions should be changes to make
with site specific (suggestions included)
4- landowner economics is critical
4- none
4- favors "ecosystem flexible* approach
based on ecology, economics and site
factors
4- remove 75' width and replace with
language allowing for site-specific
adjustments
+ supports emphasis on "sound science'
4- supports 75' minimum width
4 "Headwaters Conservation Partnership*
says they are excited about draft report -
timely, needed, ambitious
4- RFBs will be main thrust of Shenandoah
segment of Potomac Trib Strategy
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
4- editorial comments
4 need to move away from specific width
recommendations
4 do not rely on NRCS technical standard as
a recommendation - it is -not currently
accepted in states and is inadequate for many
situations
4 allow variety of standards to be references
4- strengthen connection of stormwater with
urban aspects of RFB
4 narrow widths and steep banks create
erosion problems
4- proper maintenance, is essential to protect .
stream buffers
4 cost-share money should not be siphoned
off of existing programs
4 is proposed policy meant to include RFBs
around wetlands?
4 where temperature is primary goal, RFBs
should be especially encouraged
4 editorial comments
4 editorial comments
4 remove 60% from conservation goal
4 change "native species* reference - don't
exclude non-native but encourage natives
4 suggested re-wording for restoration goal
to focus on priority areas
4 prohibit grazing in buffer
4 if NRCS standard is recommended if should
say "minimum width of 75"
4 recommends using technical specifications
from Lowrance study
4 include wetlands in definition of riparian
area
4 don't limit to native species - first priority
but not the only good plant material
ISSUE COMMENTS
4- none
4- should add section dealing with "management
and maintenance of riparian corridor*
4 add section on importance of recreational
value of buffers, especially in urbanizing areas
4- RFBs should be a component of a treatment
system - they can't replace upland treatment and
will ba more effective if upland controls are in
place
4" none
41 none
4- concern about the ter "stakeholders' since it
seems to apply to selected interest groups rather
than all citizens
4 if an interdisciplinary coordinating committee is
created, it should be a new committee not NRCS
Tech Committee
4- will be glad to share information on incentives
and the 31 newly planted sites in their district
R = Riparian Forest Buffer Panel a> Technical Team Member
G = Agencies/Qovemmant
C = Affiliation of Con
P = Private
T = Tributary Strategy Teams
W = provided written comments
F = Farm Bureau
I = Individual Citizens
O = provided oral comments
C = Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
A = Conservation Omapa/Advisocy Committees
-------
8
COMMENTORS
W
GENERAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
ISSUE COMMENTS
Ken Carter
VA State Conservationist
NRCS
4- report seams to be moving in the direction
of removing flexibility
4- 75% goal seems unrealistic
4- need to document stream miles currently
protected, in need of protection, etc.
4- 3-zone description not adequate for
technical purposes
4 RFBs should be presented as a tool in the
toolbox
4- need more technical information on
implementation, flexibility, site specific decisions
and how to combine with other management
practices
Trout Unlimited, PA
+ supportive of need for forest buffers
4- sensitive to concerns of landowners in
agricultural areas
4 none
4- need an effective tax structure for setting
aside buffers
4- focus on stream corridors and watershed-
based planning
Izaak Walton League, VA
+ there is a lack of support at the local level
for recommendation like these
4- this audience very supportive but
frustrated with perceived lack of local
support
4- use SWCD's as source of information at
local level
4- local engineers and VdoT people need to
be educated
+ flood plain functions and storm/flood
events poorly understood
4- need education for local planners, engineers
and supervisors
4 need Incentives for farmers
4- need to relate buffers to economists,
especially in connection to stormwater
management
Middle Potomac Tributary
Strategy Team
Bill Magette
4- raised series of questions about the draft
asked Eric Schwaab to respond at their
meeting
4- agree that forest buffers provide
ecological benefits
4- incentives need to be in place at beginning
of effort, not in the year 2000
4- forest buffers may not be as beneficial to
farmers as grass because of maintenance
issues
4- report appears to discount value of grass
buffers
4- want more information and discussion on
economics of forest buffers on agricultural land
Local Government Advisory
Committee
Tony Redman
4- recommendations should be consistent
with LGAC'S work on Local Government
Partnership directive
4- written comments will be sent
4 width standards may undermine local
ordinances - either do not set one or set an
ambitious one
4- better define role for local governments by
listing specific actions
Upper Potomac Tributary
Strategy Team
r
4 not supportive
4- concerned about first and second order
streams
4- buffer widths are too wide and would
eliminate mush farmland in western Maryland
4- prefer non-forest buffer types for
agricultural land
4 remove 25' no-cut zone for forested land -
fear of regulation
4- tax breaks and easement programs are the
best way to encourage buffer use
4 feel that current programs are insufficient
R = Riparian Forait Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
G ~ Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commentora
P= Private
T = Tributary Strategy Team*
W = provided written comment*
Farm Bureau C =
Individual Citizen* A =
- provided oral comment*
Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committee*
: Conservation Groups/Advisory Committee*
-------
COMMENTORS
W
GENERAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
ISSUE COMMENTS
Royden Powell
MD Dept. of Agriculture
Panel
4 eliminate definition of stream because it
conflicts with the ongoing inventory as a
result we won't know the current status of
RFBs as defined by the Panel
4- the science shows most nutrient removal is
in first 15 m, so 75' width requirement is not
essential - use of a site-specific system which
as NRCS standards is more acceptable and
may result in 75' or more of the width
anyway
4 RFB width is not currently being tracked by
agriculture agencies
4 the amount of farmland required for 75'
RFBs is cost-prohibitive
4 existing cost-share (BIP) programs provide
incentives for RFBs with width less than 75'
4 retain prominently the intent to achieve water
quality and stream protection goals in the context
of stream corridor management systems
4 the recommendations are unacceptable unless
they provide flexible, site-specific, and cost-
effective mechanisms to protect streams
4 whever possible make use of existing
mechanisms for implementation
4 any implementation oversight committee
should include private interests
VA Association of Soil & Water
Conservation Districts
Executive Board
4 RFBs not just a panacea - should be
considered just one of many BMPs.
4 not supportive of basin-wide numeric
goals- should be set locally or by watershed
4 lots of issues and concerns raised by
group but in a polite and reasonable way
4 need to be able to manage buffer areas for
insects, animal damage, etc.
4 need to assure that scientific deta is
Virginia-specific so we will know what to
expect from RFBs in VA
4 shoreline erosion problems sometimes will
require removal of trees
4 need document describing existing buffer
programs, funding and baseline data
4 if buffers are good for the Bay they are
good for all waters and should be promoted
statewide
4 if public access is linked to buffers it could be
a bid issue for landowners
4 what is the implication of numeric goals? If
they are not reached will regulations follow?
4 emphasize voluntariness and provide adequate
incentives
4 don't make criteria too flexible so that RFB
effectiveness would be compromised
4 need for considerable public education about
RFBs
4 tax breaks are preferable to cost-share
Paul Swartz
Susquehanna River Basin
Commission
Panel
4 supportive of the need for RFBs
4 does not support making stream corridor
management and RFBs two separate issues
4 promote riparian areas first with a stream
corridor management approach in order to
achieve all of the objectives in the directive
4 remove 60% from retention goals
4 include more detail on 3-zone buffer
concept
4 include a suggested minimum width of 75'
if NRCS standard is recommended
4 none
John Blake
VP, MD Forests Association
Chair, Frederick County
Forest Conservancy Board.
4 commends recognition of need for
incentives, flexibility, education and forest
management
4 MD Forest Conservation Act should be
amended to allo local jurisdictions to include
floodplains in net tract area
4 urban buyers of small plots of forested land
are unaware of need to protect streams on their
property
4 education of urban environments needed
regarding benefits of forest management
I Team Member P = Private
T= Tributary Strategy Teams
W = provided written comments
F= Farm Bureau
I = Individual Citizens
O = provided oral comments
I Advisory Committees
ory Committees
cn
-------
COMMENTORS
Sandy Saga
Bigelow Laboratory
Panel
Ann Swanson & John Lipman
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Panel
Lower Eastern Shore Tributary
Strategy Team
David Brubaker
PennAg Industries
Washington County (MD)
SCD Boards of Supervisors
Aimer Weibley
Roger Waldman
Bruce Nichols
District Conservationist
NRCS
c
R
R
T
R
G
1
G
w
X
X
X
X
X
X
O
GENERAL COMMENTS
+ report is well written
Noticed the scant of the air has changed
suggests that 'tone* of report be more
encouraging and emphasize landowner
involvement
4 too long - needs editing
4 put detail in supporting document or
appendix
4 change format to respond to '94 directive
4 focus on key actions and measures of
progress
4 none
4- very supportive of voluntary approach
4 need for considerable education
4 use some type of numeric target
4 editorial comments
4 identify NRCS standards by name
4 need a precise definition of 'native
vegetation*
4 define "forest" - shrubs may play an
important role and, if allowed, could help sell
buffers to ag community
4 75' buffer width is good bu not magic
number - don't make it a hard rule
4 if buffers are so important then make
conservation goal 100% and make
restoration goal 100% on selected
watersheds
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
4 more emphasis need on quantitative
improvement in specific stream reaches
4- definitions too long - should just focus on
riparian forest buffers
4- include range of widths
4- minimize number of actions being proposed
to 3-4 per section
4 75' width is inadequate - standard should
be 1O01
4- none
4- none
4- none
4- suggest a formula for buffer width based
on slope, soil, etc
ISSUE COMMENTS
4- states need to commit to production of
adequate numbers of native trees by state
nurseries
4 need greater effort to educate landowners with
first to third order streams on their property of
the importance of their participation
4- report should have these sections: 1 . accepted
definitions, 2. quantifable goals, 3.
communications and partnerships, 4. support
other stream protection efforts
4- none
4- none
+ none
4- none
4- economics is the one approach to selling RFBs
- program must be economically driven
R = Riparian Forest Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
Q= Agencie«/Govemment
C = Affiliation of Commentora
P = Private
T = Tributary Strategy Team*
W = provided written comment*
F = Farm Bureau
I = Individual Citizen*
O = provided oral comment*
C = Cheiapeake Bay Program Advisory Committee*
A = Con*ervatk>n Group*/Advisory Committee*
-------
COMMENTORS
W
GENERAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
ISSUE COMMENTS
CBP Citizens Advisory
Committee
4 don't go for consensus if it results in a
very watered-down report
4 keep measurable goal, stream corridor
approach, definitions, voluntary, site-specific
4 need PR and education - value of RFB to
stream and Bay
4 integrate with ongoing programs- don't
make a new, independent program
4 don't give a big list of recommendations
to PSC/EC
4 how do you quantify benefits of RFBs as
part of natural infrastructure
4 make goals specific to land use
4 none
Jim Cox
VA OCR
4 the coordinating agency should be the
lead nonpoint source agency in each state
4 current buffer widths are unrealistic- if
you suggest one at all give a minimum of
15-25'
4 educational materials and programs,
should be established but not be limited to
forest buffers
4 if the inventory is completed first and
agencies track buffer establishment then
there is no need to do a GIS inventory every 5
years
4 do not set any goals for conservation or
restoration until the inventory is set
4 do not limit effort to forest buffers, allow
all types of buffers - delete forest where it
limits the type of buffer that could be used
4 do not spend more money on buffer
research - use those funds to expand cost-
share programs
Charles Conkline
4 specific actions should be identified to
address RFBs in agricultural areas
4 will goals be distributed across the states,
local jurisdictions, or watershed?
4 should state goals be states?
4 editorial comments
4 tributary strategy teams could play a
management/leadership role - identify a role for
the teams
4 some local jurisdictions (i.e., Baltimore County,
MD) do not allow harvest with RFB areas
MD Association of Soil
Conservation Districts
George Lechlider
President
4 RFBs have been taken out of context and
should be treated as just another alternative
4 remove "forests" from tile to make clear
that all buffers are allowed
4 must continue to be strictly voluntary
4 width should be a site-specific criteria
4 NRCS standards for different buffer types
should be used
4 allow select cutting within buffer - use a
written permit
4 provide compensation to landowners for loss
from restricted harvesting in RFB
Garrett Soil Conservation
District, MD
George Bishoff, Chairman
4 report is flawed because it fails to
recognize all buffers
4 cannot emphasize voluntaries enough
4 buffer width should be site-specific many
variables
4 landowners need written, permanent
guaranteed from state and federal government
that proper harvesting and management practices
will be allowed in new woodlands
Bea Dewing
Lower Potomac Tributary
Strategy Team
4 should ensure public access to buffered
shoreline areas so that move people can feel
that they are stakeholders
R= Riparian Forett Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
G = Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commentors
P= Private
T= Tributary Strategy Teams
W = provided written comments
F = Farm Bureau C =
I = Individual Citizens A -
O = provided oral comments
Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
: Conservation Groups/Advisory Committees
G»
0\
-------
COMMENTORS
W
GENERAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
ISSUE COMMENTS
CBP Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
Mr. Grant Gross, President
4 report is quite sound on its scientific and
technical aspects
4 STAC is prepared to assist with increasing
the level of scientific and technical knowledge
about buffers
Richard John stone
Forestry Supervisor,
Delmarva Power
MD Coastal and Watershed
Resources Advisory Committee
4 overall strategy is sound
4 low trees and shrubs should be allowed on
farm buffers at the edge of the field
4 tax incentives are good relief for private
property owners
4 require buffers on farm ditches on eastern
shore through may not succeed with forested
buffers
4 put emphasis on natural succession rather
than planting trees
Steele Philips
4 must be voluntary effort with incentives
to encourage and promote objectives
4 change reference to Stream Corridor
Management to recognize current BMPs
being used with different types of vegetation
in buffers
4 recommendations should be site-specific
and seek best site objective
4 agricultural drainage ditches should not be
considered a stream except in the upper areas
of rivers where channels have been cleared
4 promote RFBs where applicable but realize that
shoreline trees on large rivers and the Bay can
accelerate erosion
4 do not let RFBs become a threat to dwindling
pool of prime agricultural land
Dept. of Technical &
Community Services Somerset
County, MD
Hoan Kean, Director
4 avoid "one size fits all" approach
4- recognize buffers other than forested
buffers
4 in the lower eastern shore, grass and shrub
buffers may be as good as or better than
forested buffers
4 reconsider definitions to exclude drainage
ditches
4 include long-term water quality monitoring, not
just modeling'* develop a re-evaluation element
Montgomery County, MD Soil
Conservation District
George Lechlider
4 keep this a voluntary program
4 be flexible to include grass buffers
4 focus on perennial streams and eliminate
intermittent form stream definition - not cost-
effective to apply program to intermittent
streams
4 clarify how the 75' buffer width relates to
3-zone concept
4 high maintenance cost (equipment and labor)
min establishing buffers could deter
implementation - factor this into incentives
4 what level of tree survival is adequate for a
successful program
4- timelines should be earlier for technical
assistance, education/outreach, demonstration
sites, adding technical assistance staff and
modification of cost-share programs to support
stream corridor management
Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource
Management, Baltimore
County, MD
George Perdikakis
Director
4 insufficient emphasis on role of RFBs in
maintaining stream stability
4 does not state at what scale streams and
buffers will be mapped and managed
4 3-zone model is useful but only valuable if
flexible and site-specific
4 buffer width should be stated as a range
rather than a minimum and should state that
the key fact is that the buffer protect the
resources on site
4 guidelines and BMPs for forest harvest do
exist but data shows that harvest operations
do not fully comply
4 RFBs are the most effective" and most cost-
effective measure against for protecting this
resource, but report sacrifices maximum
implementation for compromises in recognition of
landowners objectives and economic gain
4 program should focus on 'assisted
participation* rather than "voluntary compliance"
and include a comprehensive education program
R = Riparian Forest Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
G = Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commenton
P= Private
T = Tributary Strategy Teams
W = provided written comments
F = Farm Bureau C =
I = Individual Citizens A =
O = provided oral comments
Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
i Conservation Groups/Advisory Committees
-------
COMMENTORS
W
GENERAL COMMENTS
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
ISSUE COMMENTS
PA Fish & Boat Commission
Ron Tibbott, Hyd. Engineer
Technical
4 report should not advocate planting trees
right at stream edge - this can lead to
increased erosion and stream de-stabilization -
instead plant trees back form edge and plant
shrubs at edge
Soil Conservation Committee,
MD Association of Soil
Conservation Districts
Louise Lawrence
4 coordination and implementation of goals
should use existing mechanisms and
committees
4 buffer width should be site-specific for all
land uses- KlRCS standards accomplished this
4 current stream definition is too broad - do
not include drainage ditches
V recognize, promote and credit vegetative
buffer types other than forest
4 buffer zone management should not
preclude harvest or noxious weeds or pest
control
4- if fencing is required incentives should be
available for maintenance costs as well
Robert Heidecker
State Resource
Conservationists
NRCS - PA
4 focus should be on steam corridor
restoration rather than simply RFBs
4 SE PA farmers interested in stream
corridor conservation but not RFBs
Wicomico County, MD
Soil Conservation District
Robert Davis, Chairman
4 report does not acknowledge geographic
diversity and whether a RFB is appropriate in
a particular region
4 will strenuously oppose inclusion of
drainage ditches in stream definition
4 width should be site-specific
4 no scientific evidence that forested buffers
provide any more protection than other
vegetative buffers'
PA Field Office, US Fish &
Wildlife Service
Cindy Tibbott,
Acting Supervisor
4 program should not be implemented
without increased staffing at technical
assistance agencies
4 tree planted at the steam edge can cause
more sediment and nutrient problems as well
as stream instability
4 no evidence that trees are more effective
than grass or shrubs
4 program will require enormous education effort
4 in PA 75' of buffer may be financially
impossible
VA Association of'Counties
Larry Land, Director of Policy
Development
4 VA Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
already requires local to adopt ordinances
seeking to preserve at least 100' of
vegetative buffer
4 need to complete inventory
4 need to accurately monitor increases or
decreased after completion of the inventory
4 need financial and other incentives to
encourage establishment of additional RFBs
MD State Water Quality
Advisory Committee
4 scientific studies indicate varying opinions
on optimal buffer width
V in 1992 MD Planning Act requires buffers to
be addressed in all comprehensive plans-
education program should be used for local
governments
4 setting minimum width may undermine local
ordinances
R= Riparian Forest Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
G = Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commentora
P= Private
T = Tributary Strategy Teams
W = provided written comments
F = Farm Bureau
I = Individual Citizens
O = provided oral comments
C = Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
A = Conservation Groups/Advisory Committees
-------
o»
COMMENTORS
MD Chesapeake Bay Critical
Area Commission
Claudia Hones - Science
Advisor/Greg Schaner, Natural
Resource Planner
Ronald Schnabel
Research Coil Scientist
USDA
Frank Lucas
Pequea-Mill Creek Project
PA
Guy Steucek
Dept of Biology
Millersville University
John Clark Barber
C
G
G
1
1
1
W
X
X
X
X
X
O
GENERAL COMMENTS
4 concern that recent version of watered
down from May 8 version of report
V retain statement in report that, 'forests
provide the greatest number of
environmental benefits...* there is sufficient
discussion in text of report to alleviate on-
size-fits-all concern
4 retain monitoring and tracking
recommendations
4 very well thought out
4 strategy suggests flexibility for forest
buffers but not other types
4 requiring trees over other buffers of
engineered solutions may prolong
compliance time and benefit realization
4 great idea in theory but doesn't see it
being successful, especially in farm country
4 recognize in introduction that most
benefits acres downstream to the public and
little to the landowner who implements -
basis for public assistance
TECHNICAL COMMENTS
4 as long as site-specific flexibility is
recognized, a fixed and scientifically - derived
minimum width is an appropriate goal and
creates a quantifiable performance measure
4 if a 75' standard is uses, specify that it is
based on water quality and aquatic habitat
goals - more width is required for many
terrestrial species
4 whether a forest buffer should be used to
the exclusion of other types depends on the
restoration or management goal
4 distinguish between forested wetlands and
riparian zones more like upland streamside
forests - riparian forests not often "wet"
4 75' of forest will not buffer 100' of
agriculture/suburbia
4 report omits focus on restoring many small
wetlands «1/2 acre) this would do more for
water quality than streamside buffers
4 be careful to adopt the 3-zone concept
much more flexibility in management is
needed
4 clarify buffer averaging
ISSUE COMMENTS
4- ensure that cost-share program dollars don't
just shift form non-forest programs
4- list of assistance programs would be useful '
R = Riparian Forest Buffer Panel & Technical Team Member
G= Agencies/Government
C = Affiliation of Commentora
P= Private
T= Tributary Strategy Team*
W = provided written comments
Farm Bureau C
: Individual Citizens A
= provided oral comments
= Chesapeake Bay Program Advisory Committees
= Conservation Groups/Advisory Committees
-------
SECTIONS:
LIST OF STATE/FEDERAL PROGRAM CONTACTS
-------
FEDERAL AND STATE
INCENTIVE PROGRAM CONTACTS
Buffer Incentive Program
MD DR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410) 974-3776
Virginia Agricultural BMP Cost-share Program
Woodland Buffer Filter Area
Loafing Lot Management System
Virginia Department of Forestry
Forest Health Management/Water Quality
PO Box 3758
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(804) 977-6555
Streambank Fencing Program
Pennsylvania Department of the Environment
Bureau of Land & Water Conservation
PO Box 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
Mr. Larry Nygren
(717)787-5259
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Natural Resource Conservation Service
John Hanson Business Court
339 Busch's Frontage Rd, Ste 301
Annapolis, MD 21401
Attn: Resource Team
(410)757-0861
Conservation Reserve Program
MD State FSA Office
8335 E Guilford Road
Columbia, MD 21046
Ilka Gray
(410)381-4550
-------
Wetlands Reserve Program
Natural Resource Conservation Service
John Hanson Business Court
339 Busch's Frontage Rd, Ste 301
Annapolis, MD 21401
Anne Lynn
(410)757-0861x319
Woodland Incentive Program
MD DR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Officer
(410) 974-3776
Forest Stewardship Program
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410) 974-3776
Virginia Dept of Forestry
PO Box 3758
Charlottesville, VA 22903
State Foresters Office
(804) 997-6555
Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry
PO Box 8552
Harrisburg, PA 17105
State Foresters Office
(171 787-2703
Forestry Incentive Program
Natural Resource Conservation Service
John Hanson Business Court
339 Busch's Frontage Rd, Ste 301
Annapolis, MD 21401
Anne Lynn
(410)757-0861x319
-------
Stewardship Incentive Program
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410) 974-3776
Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry
PO Box 8552
Harrisburg, PA17105
State Foresters Office
(717)787-2703
Special Rivers Project
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410) 974-3776
Tree-mendous Maryland
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410)974-3776
Forest Conservation and Management Program
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410)974-3776
Reforestation/Timber Stand Improvement
Tax Deduction (TAXMOD) Program
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD21401
State Foresters Office
(410)974-3776
-------
3UO
Agricultural Use Assessment
Maryland Department of Assessments & Taxation
Real Property Division
300 West Preston Street Rm 511.
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
State Supervisor
(410)767-1199
Use/Value Taxation
Virginia Department of Forestry
Forest Health Management
PO Box 3758
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(804) 977-6555
Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act ("Glean and Green Act")
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
Department of Farmland Preservation
2301 N. Cameron Street
Harrisburg, PA. 17110-9990
Mr. Ray Pickering
(717)78.7-1079
Reforestation Tax Incentive (Public Law 96-451)
USDA Forest Service
5 Radnor Corporate Ctr Ste.200
Radnor, PA 19085-4585
Lloyd. Casey
(610) 975-4-13S7
-------
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Act
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission
45 Calvert Street 2nd Floor
Annapolis, MD 21401
Executive Director's Office
(410)974-2426
Forest Conservation Act
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410) 974-3776
Nontidal Wetlands Act
Maryland Department of the Environment
Tawes State Office Building, B-3
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
Denise Clearwater
(410) 974-3265
Economic Growth, Resource, Protection and Planning Act
Maryland Office of Planning
Comprehensive Planning
301 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-2365
Chief Planner
(410) 767-4562
Reforestation Act
MD DNR Forest Service
580 Taylor Avenue, E-l
Annapolis, MD 21401
State Foresters Office
(410) 974-3776
-------
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (VA)
Virginia Department of Forestry
Forest Health Management/Water Quality
PO Box 3758
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(804) 977-6555
Dams Safety and Encroachments Act
Pennsylvania Bureau of Dams, Waterways & Wetlands
POBox 8555
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8554
Director
(717)787-6826
Water Quality Law ("Bad Actor" Law) (VA)
Virginia Department of Forestry
Forest Health Management/Water Quality
PO Box 3758
Charlottesville, VA 22903
(804) 977-6555
Special Protection Streams
Pennsylvania Bureau of Water Quality Managment
PO Box 8465
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
Chief
(717) 787-9637
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1997 - 514-003/50532
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership leading and directing
restoration of Chesapeake Bay since 1983. The Chesapeake Bay Program partners include
the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the District of Columbia; the
Chesapeake Bay Commission, a tri-state legislative body; the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which represents the federal government; and participating
citizen advisory groups.
In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Chesapeake Bay Program partners set a goal to
reduce the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Bay by 40% by the year 2000. In
the 7992 Amendments to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, partners agreed to maintain the
40% goal beyond the year 2000 and to attack nutrients at their sourceupstream in the
tributaries. The Chesapeake Executive Council, made up of the governors of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the mayor of Washington, D.C.; the EPA administrator; and the
chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, guided the restoration effort in 1993 with five
directives addressing key areas of the restoration, including the tributaries, toxics,
underwater bay grasses, fish passages, and agricultural nonpoint source pollution. In 1994,
partners outlined initiatives for habitat restoration of aquatic, riparian, and upland
environments; nutrient reduction in the Bay's tributaries; and toxics reductions, with an
emphasis on pollution prevention.
The 1995 Local Government Partnership Initiative engages the watershed's 1650 local
governments in the Bay restoration effort. The Chesapeake Executive Council followed
this in 1996 by adopting the Local Government Participation Action Plan and the Priorities
for Action for Land, Growth and Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region, which
address land use management, growth and development, stream corridor protection, and
infrastructure improvements. A 1996 riparian forest buffers initiative furthers the Bay
Program's commitment to improving water quality and enhancing habitat with the goal of
increasing riparian buffers on 2010 miles of stream and shoreline in the watershed by the
year 2010.
Since its inception, the Chesapeake Bay Program's highest priority has been the restoration
of the Bay's living resources-its finfish, shellfish, bay grasses, and other aquatic life and
wildlife. Improvements include fisheries and habitat restoration, recovery of bay grasses,
nutrient reductions, and significant advances in estuarine science.
------- |