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 basis—these 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   problems—backyard
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  island—as 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 stream—and  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   conditions—poorly
    drained and organic rich soils, deep root
    systems and groundwater flow within two
    to  six  feet   of the  surface—buffers
    exhibited exceptional removal of nitrate-
    nitrogen—often 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
bank—about 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  restricted—limited  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 process—from
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
easements—can 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
    Assume—tract 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 Development—cluster 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
  Assume—zoning 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 rights—stream 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 area—thats 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 owner—and 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  Purchase—Purchase 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 Refusal—guarantees 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 purchase—involves 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 source—upstream 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.

-------