FINAL REPORT
of the
Riparian Forest Buffer Panel
presented to tke
CHESAPEAKE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
OCTOBER 1996
Chesapeake Bay Program
CBPmiS 158/96
EPA 903-R-96-015
-------
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Final Report of the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel
Presented to the
Chesapeake Executive Council
Chesapeake Bay Program
October 1996
-------
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 our 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.
C^D
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.
viewpoints and experience and conducted an extensive
stakeholder involvement process.
* Hie 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 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
• 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.
Therefore, 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 all streams and shorelines
will be protected, by a forested or other riparian buffer.
" To conserve existing forests along all streams and. shorelines.
* To increase the use of aH riparian buffers and restore riparian
forests on 2,010 miles of stream and shoreline m 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- farmers, other landowners and local governments, building
lines will not be an easily-achieved goal. Furthermore, reach- new relationships with industry and business, and continuing
ing these goals will require engaging new partners, energizing to develop new and innovative approaches and incentives,
the public to plant trees and restore streams, working with
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
FOR THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION
1AL
, lAf^gr
-O^rri IMl)
1
-------
JAMES GARNER
• 'Hair
Cupare*** Choir
<4 Tt
Ccmmamt
IAN HARDEE
Sa**tifie 4 Ttdmtcei Advumff
CommimtAfwrntr ofktD
RON HEDLUND
VAt
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE
VA Chetaptpkf Boy Load
Ge*tnvmt*t Assmmct Dtp*.
PETER MILLER
WfSXVOC9
ROBERT PENNINGTON
VS fuk mrf midkje Sr«K»
ROYDEN POWELL
AID p/AgnaU^t
MICHAEL RAINS
i/SDA farts Strvnx
ERIC SCHWAAB
kiD Porta Stntv
TOM SIMPSON
HG Dtpanmtmof
Atncmtimrt/Vnivtrsixy of MD
WTLMER STONE MAN
*A Farm Bona*
ANN SWANSON
Chtiaprnfa» Barf Commsaao*
PAUL SWARTZ
StufmeAotme towr Bam
Commuwi
DEOTCE TAPPERO
ItMf F»r*tt PtodmcXi
MIKE THOMAS
YA Ofilci of At Gownor
CAROLYN WATSON
MD OrjM/SBf M of Naumi
frmmrtti
JAMES WHEELER
leoai Gommmtm AOn»ry
Comma**
SYLVIA WHITWORTH
DC £**ro*mtmoi Rtguiano*
AdmimisifW*
STAFF:
FRAN FLANICAN
JEFF MOFFATT
AlbaM** for Ai Cktiefal* Bay
RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFER PANEL
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
October 1, 1996
To the Members of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council:
For the past 18 months, the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel has worked to respond to directive
#94-1, signed by you in October 1994. As we transmit our report to you, we wish to
highlight some of the aspects of our work which we believe are important for your
understanding of the report.
You directed us to recommend, where appropriate, a definition for forest buffers, a
quantifiable goal and timetable, ways to strengthen communication and partnerships, and ways
to support other stream protection efforts. We worked hard to develop consensus
recommendations on all four points. While we believe that the policy advice we are
forwarding to you will, if implemented, greatly enhance our collective efforts to manage,
restore and protect our streams and their riparian areas, we found it impossible to agree on
a numeric goal. We believe the three goals are quantifiable, but they do not contain the
numeric aspect you requested.
Members of the Panel expressed a range of strongly held views on the subject of numeric
goals. Some believe specific targets are needed to accelerate the effort and have
accountability. Others believe the current inventory information and differences in buffer
requirements make it impossible to set reasonable goals, while others expressed concern that
numeric targets are inconsistent with a voluntary program.
We want to say on behalf of the Panel that while there was disagreement on a few substantive
issues, we found much agreement. The representatives of private sector groups brought to
our attention issues and concerns related to implementation. A large number of outside
stakeholders provided invaluable insights and advice. What we learned is that the protection,
restoration and enhancement of riparian areas will be challenging, but we believe it is
essential to the restoration of the Bay and its tributaries. We urge you to take steps to
implement recommendations and to report periodically on progress. We need to move
forward together, in good faith, and with a collective commitment to do what is right for the
Bay and for the citizens of this watershed.
Sincerely,
'&K
James W, Garner
Chair
Louis E. Sage, P:
Co-Chair
-------
Final Report
of tke
Riparian Forest Buffer 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:
+ Develop goals based on sound science
+ Recommend flexible strategies
4- Focus on voluntary incentive-based approaches
+ Increase private and non-profit partnerships
+ Enhance, streamline, and coordinate existing government programs
+ 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:
~ 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.
-------
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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.
4- 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.
4- Existing programs are not adequately funded, integrated, or coordinated to effectively target
riparian forest buffers and track accomplishments.
~ 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.
2
-------
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 ot her 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.
3
-------
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 cf 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.
4
-------
GOALS
The Panel recommends that the Council adopt one long-term and two immediate goals:
4 Assure that every stream in the watershed is protected by a riparian forest or other buffer.
4- Conserve existing forests along streams and shorelines.
4-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.
~ Recommendation I: 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.
~ Encourage public land managers to review current practices and policies (e.g. mowing, wildlife
management, encroachment, disturbance, and practices on leased land) and to develop plans and
goals for riparian system and riparian forest buffer protection and restoration.
~ 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.
5
-------
~ 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.
~ 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.
~ 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:
~ 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.
~ Create flexible state income tax incentives (such as tax credits for tree planting, retention, or
easement expenses in buffers) to promote riparian forest buffers.
6
-------
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.
~ 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.
~ Encourage agencies to evaluate their regulatoiy 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 function 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.
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.
~ 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."
1
-------
Suggested actions include:
~ 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.
~ Ensure coordination among agencies providing landowner assistance to develop and implement a
strategy for enhanced outreach, technical assistance, and education related to stream restoration and
riparian forest buffers on private and public lands.
~ Establish and publicize riparian forest buffer and riparian system conservation demonstration sites
in each jurisdiction which are representative of all physiographic regions and land uses.
CONCLUSION
The environmental benefits of riparian forest buffers presents the Executive Council with a
unique opportunity to develop a Bay-wide policy that will help in meeting the Bay Program's goals
to reduce nutrients and restore habitat for living resources. The Panel urges the Executive Council
to adopt these recommendations and will call upon their respective staffs to implement a
comprehensive riparian system conservation policy which includes forest buffers as an important
component. Revisiting the goals of the policy, evaluating programs, and redirecting actions as
necessary will be important as the Chesapeake Bay Program monitors progress in adding forest buffers
and improving riparian system conservation. The adoption and implementation of a riparian system
conservation policy will assure that the huge effort mounted by the Executive Council over the past
decade continues to advance, while simultaneously respecting the partnerships that have been forged,
the legal responsibilities of the various levels of government, and the evolving knowledge base which
forms the foundation of this work.
8
------- |