3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-1 

1 Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management

5. 

2 Contents 

3 1 Introduction..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4 1.1 Why Riparian Buffers? ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5 1.2 Who is This Document For?...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6 1.3 What Does this Document Cover?..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

7 2 Background..............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

8 2.1 Definition of Riparian Areas...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

9 2.1.1 Organization of this Section...................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

10 2.2 Benefits of Natural Riparian Areas.................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

11 2.2.1 Regulating the Movement of Water to the Stream Error! Bookmark not defined.

12 2.2.2 Filtering Sediment Pollution..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

13 2.2.3 Filtering Nutrient Pollution....................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

14 2.2.4 Maintaining Aquatic Habitat..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

15 2.2.5 Aesthetic Value......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

16 2.3 Riparian Area from the Longitudinal Perspective ..........Error! Bookmark not defined.

17 2.3.1 Longitudinal Zones and Stream Order...................Error! Bookmark not defined.

18 2.3.2 Longitudinal View of Ecological Functions and ProcessesError! Bookmark not defined.

19 2.4 Planning and Management Implications.........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

20 2.4.1 Importance of Lower Order Streams .....................Error! Bookmark not defined.

21 2.4.2 Increased Focus on the Buffer/Stream Interface....Error! Bookmark not defined.

22 3 Restoring and Reestablishing Riparian Forest Buffers............Error! Bookmark not defined.

23 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

24 3.1.1 Organization of this Chapter..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

25 3.2 Analyzing Existing Conditions and Identifying Potential ProblemsError! Bookmark not defined.

26 3.2.1 Hydrology ..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

27 3.2.2 Soils........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

28 3.2.3 Riparian Vegetation ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

29 3.2.4 Special Characteristics and Potential Problems Associated with a Previous 

30 Land Use ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

31 3.3 Buffer Width and Connectivity.......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-2 

1 3.4 Establishing Riparian Vegetation ...................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

2 3.4.1 Natural Regeneration .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

3 3.4.2 Planting Trees ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

4 3.4.3 Protecting Seedlings...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

5 3.4.4 Reinforcement Planting .........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6 3.5 Cost .................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

7 3.6 Sources of Funding .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

8 3.6.1 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ..................Error! Bookmark not defined.

9 3.6.2 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)Error! Bookmark not defined.

10 3.6.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)Error! Bookmark not defined.

11 3.6.4 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) .......Error! Bookmark not defined.

12 3.6.5 Conservation Security Program (CSP) ..................Error! Bookmark not defined.

13 3.6.6 Virginia’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)....Error! Bookmark not defined.

14 3.6.7 Maryland’s Buffer Incentive Program (BIP) .........Error! Bookmark not defined.

15 4 Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas .......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

16 4.1 Background.....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

17 4.2 Long-term Maintenance..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

18 4.2.1 Watershed Evaluation ............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

19 4.2.2 Land Use ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

20 4.2.3 Managing Plants............................................................................................ Species Error! 

21 4.3 Protection ........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

22 4.3.1 Acquisition.............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

23 4.3.2 Zoning and Protective Ordinances.........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

24 4.3.3 Water Quality Standards........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

25 4.3.4 Regulation and Enforcement..................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

26 4.3.5 Education and Training..........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

27 5 References................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

28 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-3 

1 1 Introduction 

2 1.1 Why Riparian Buffers? 

3 A riparian area is defined as 

4 A vegetated ecosystem along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and 

5 water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are 

6 subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent waterbody. These 

7 systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of those two 

8 landforms. They will sometimes, but not in all cases, have all the characteristics 

9 necessary for them to be also classified as wetlands (USEPA 2005). 

10 In other words, riparian areas are the areas between 

11 uplands and adjacent waterbodies that encompass the

12 floodplain and a portion of the adjacent upslope area from 

13 a waterbody (Tjaden and Weber 1998). They act as natural 

14 filters of nonpoint source pollutants, including sediment, 

15 nutrients, pathogens, and metals, to waterbodies such as 

16 rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The term 

17 riparian buffer is used to distinguish a specific area to be 

18 managed within a riparian area or, in some cases, it might 

19 include the entire area. Riparian buffers can significantly 

20 aid in reducing pollution contributions to the Chesapeake 

21 Bay, including nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and 

22 sediments. They also contribute to the protection of 

23 streams and streambanks and provide habitat for a 

24 multitude of species. For those reasons, EPA considers the 

25 protection and restoration of riparian buffers to be a critical 

26 element of the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

27 Riparian Buffer Goal forFor the Chesapeake Bay: Forest buffers should exist on 

28 at least 70 percent of all shorelines and streambanks in the watershed (Curkendall 

29 and Clagget 2004). 

30 Riparian forested buffers in particular have long been recognized as a vital part of the 

31 Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In 2003, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted the above 

32 riparian buffer goal for the Bay. EPA reiterates this goal in this guidance. 

33 Approximately 60 percent of the bay’s riparian areas are forested. To reach the long-term goal of 

34 70 percent coverage in the entire watershed, the Chesapeake Bay Program and its partners will 

35 need to restore at least 30,000 miles of riparian buffers and conserve all riparian areas that are 

36 forested. The following two implementation measures for riparian buffers are intended to enable 

37 the 70 percent goal to be met. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-4 

1 Implementation Measures forFor Riparian Buffers 

2 1. Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged and destroyed riparian 

3 systems, especially in areas where the systems will serve a significant [nonpoint source]

4 pollution-abatement function as well as the suite of valuable ecosystems services riparian 

5 buffers provide. 

6 2. Protect from adverse effects riparian areas that are serving a significant [nonpoint source]

7 pollution-abatement function and maintain this function while protecting the other 

8 existing functions of these riparian areas. 

9 As explained above, thosethese two measures are intended to enable the Chesapeake Bay to meet 

10 the 70 percent goal that was established by the Chesapeake Executive Council in 2003. 

11 TheThese measures are in line with past EPA guidance, as well those made in the National 

12 Research Council report Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management in 2002

13 (NRC 2002). 

14 1.2 Who is This Document For? 

15 This chapter of this guidance is written for a broad audience and should be useful for those 

16 involved in watershed planning, including conservation districts, local municipalities and land 

17 use managers, TMDL developers, conservation trusts, and natural resource contracts specialists. 

18 1.3 What Does this Document Cover? 

19 This chapter has three main sections. 

20 • Section 2 describes the benefits of buffers, including pollutant-removal efficiency and 

21 factors that affect it. 

22 • Section 3 outlines recommendations for the restoration of forested buffers in the 

23 Chesapeake Bay and includes site selection, planting, and short-term maintenance of 

24 newly restored sites. 

25 • Section 4 discusses strategies for the long-term maintenance and the protection of 

26 existing forested riparian areas. Such areas must first be identified and assessed before 

27 they can be properly maintained and protected. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-5 

1 2 Background 

2 2.1 Definition of Riparian Areas 

3 The word riparian is derived from its Latin origin, ripa, which means bank of a stream. In 

4 modern use, however, a riparian area extends laterally for some distance from the stream channel 

5 that usually includes the floodplain and some transitional upland area. Both soils and vegetation 

6 in riparian areas are usually distinctly different from the surrounding uplands and typically 

7 support a diverse and unique population of animals as compared to uplands. 

8 As described in section 1.1, riparian areas are inextricably linked to the stream itself. 

9 Disturbances that affect the riparian area affect the stream and vice versa. Stream corridor is a 

10 term used to describe the combined riparian/stream ecosystem (FISRWG 1998). 

11 As previously mentioned, the term riparian buffer is used to distinguish a specific area adjacent 

12 to the stream within a riparian area or, in some cases, it might include the entire area (see Figure 

13 2.1. Buffer boundaries can be mapped and, with proper legal authority, specific rules can be 

14 applied to protect and manage the buffer. In most cases, the primary purpose of designating a 

15 riparian buffer is to physically protect the stream from encroachment, pollution, and other types 

16 of cultural disturbances. Ideally, a network of buffers along a stream can act as a natural right-of17 way, allowing the stream to move through the landscape buffered from direct influences of 

18 development in the watershed. 

19 

20 Figure 2.1. Relationship between uplands, riparian areas, riparian buffers, and the stream channel.

21 Stream corridors in the Chesapeake Bay region evolved within temperate, forested watersheds 

22 (Williams 1989). Thus, system structure, functions, and biota in the corridor all developed within 

23 a range of natural conditions associated with forest ecosystems. For that reason, management 

24 plans aimed at restoring streams to more natural state typically focus on restoring and protecting 

25 riparian forest buffers. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-6 

1 2.1.1 Organization of this Section 

2 Section 2.2 examines key benefits of natural riparian areas. Such key benefits are as follows: 

3 • Regulating the lateral movement of water to the stream 

4 • Filtering out sediment pollution before it reaches the stream 

5 • Filtering out nutrient pollution before it reaches the stream 

6 • Maintaining aquatic habitat in the stream channel 

7 • Providing aesthetic value to property 

8 Section 2.3 examines the stream corridor in the longitudinal view and discusses how ecological 

9 structures and functions change from headwaters to mouth. Key concepts include: 

10 • Ninety percent of streams are headwater streams (first- to third-order streams). 

11 • Water quality in all streams is affected most by the condition of headwater streams. 

12 • Riparian buffers exert their greatest influence on headwater streams. 

13 Section 2.4 wraps up the section by providing an overview of three key planning and 

14 management implications for landowners and others responsible for forested riparian buffer 

15 restoration. 

16 • The importance of lower order streams 

17 • Increased focus on the buffer/stream interface 

18 2.2 Benefits of Natural Riparian Areas 

19 There are literally hundreds of benefits associated with forested riparian areas. Some of these 

20 benefits can be replicated with technology such as reservoirs (flood control) and treatment plants 

21 (pollutant removal). However, none of these single function replacement technologies provide 

22 the multiple simultaneous functions of riparian areas. 

23 The following subsections discuss a few of the most important of these many benefits. In 

24 general, benefits can be categorized into one or more of six broad ecological functions (FISRWG 

25 1998) (Figure 2.25-1): 

26 • Barrier and Filter—The ability to stop or limit penetration of water, materials, energy, 

27 and organisms into, through, or along the stream corridor 

28 • Habitat—The spatial structure of the riparian area and stream, which allows organisms to 

29 live, feed, and reproduce 

30 • Conduit—The ability of the corridor to serve as a flow pathway for water, materials, 

31 energy, and organisms 

32 • Source and Sink—The net movement of water, materials, energy, and organisms in or out 

33 of the buffer 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-7 

1 2.2.1 Regulating the Movement of Water to the Stream 

2 A key benefit of riparian areas is regulating the pathway, timing, and intensity of water moving 

3 laterally from the landscape into the stream. In natural, forested areas, approximately 40 percent 

4 of falling precipitation is returned to the atmosphere (evaporates or is transpired by plants) and 

5 about 50 percent infiltrates the soil and enters the groundwater system. Usually only 10 percent 

6 or less runs downslope as surface runoff (FISRWG 1998). 

7 The volume and rate of streamflow is dependent on the pathways precipitation takes as it moves 

8 to the channel. Streamflow itself can be divided into two basic components: 

9 • Stormflow—the precipitation that runs off the landscape as surface runoff or shallow 

10 subsurface flow and quickly enters the channel 

11 • Baseflow—the precipitation that percolates down to the groundwater system and moves 

12 slowly into the channel 

13 

Source: FISRWG 1998

14 Figure 2.25-1. Critical ecosystem functions. 

15 A stream’s baseflow is particularly important because it sustains flow during periods of dry 

16 weather. During intense storms, the stormflow component might cause stream levels to rise to 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-8 

1 bankfull elevation and spill into the hydrologic floodplain. In natural conditions, that type of 

2 flooding can be expected to occur in about 2 of every 3 years. Flooding is important because it 

3 reconnects the floodplain to the stream and provides habitat conditions critical for the 

4 reproductive cycle of some species of fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. 

5 When a watershed is developed, the components of the hydrologic cycle often change. As 

6 discussed in chapter 3,Usually the land surface usually becomes more impervious and 

7 compacted. Such a condition increases the volume and rate of surface runoff at the expense of 

8 other parts of the water cycle, especially the fraction that infiltrates the soil (Schueler 1995) 

9 (Figure 5-2.3). A reduction of groundwater recharge can lower the water table and potentially 

10 reduce baseflow in the channel. Correspondingly, surface runoff increases create more intense 

11 stormflow in the channel, more frequent flooding, higher water temperatures, more pollution, 

12 and streambank erosion and other changes to channel structure because of increased flow energy 

13 and sediment loads. 

14 

Source: FISRWG 1998
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-9 

1 Figure 5-2.3. The relationship between impervious cover and surface runoff. 

2 Therefore, an important benefit of forested riparian area is that it help keeps the hydrologic cycle 

3 and streamflow in a more natural balance by dissipating surface runoff energy and supporting 

4 groundwater recharge. Specifically, 

5 • Riparian vegetation slows down surface runoff from upland areas.

6 • Groundwater recharge sites add precipitation to the groundwater system and helps 

7 maintainmaintains the water table and baseflow in the channel.

8 • Natural floodplains are maintained, which can temporarily store floodwaters and help 

9 reduce flood impacts downstream.

10 • It helps regulate streamflow energy and maintain the natural structure of the channel and 

11 banks. 

12 To maintain natural hydrology, the stormwater runoff moving through the riparian area should 

13 not be allowed to concentrate, channelize, and convey directly to the stream. 

14 

15 

16 2.2.2 Filtering Sediment Pollution 

17 Erosion, transport, and deposition of various-sized soil particles from the watershed into the 

18 stream channel are natural processes that shape the landscape over time. Sediment sources in a 

19 developed watershed can include construction sites, agricultural fields, overgrazed pastureland, 

20 washed out roads, slopes devoid of vegetation, and other places where soil is exposed. All these 

21 sources have the potential to increase sediment loading to the stream and cause a variety of 

22 negative in-stream effects, such as:

23 • Destroying beneficial channel structures such as pool and riffles 

24 • Damaging gills of fish and aquatic insects 

25 • Filling in pore spaces on the stream bed and suffocate benthic biota 

26 • Interfering with fish spawning habitat and egg and larval survival 

The rate of infiltration depends on soil porosity, a term used to describe the percentage of total soil 

volume taken up by spaces between soil particles. Natural riparian forest buffer sites usually have 

high infiltration rates because soils are loosely packed and possess large open pores. Importantly, 

the pores are protected from being plugged up by a layer vegetative cover and leaf litter. In contrast, 

soils that are compacted or composed primary of clay particles have low porosity because pores are 

small or nonexistent (impervious). 

The rate of infiltration depends on soil porosity, a term used to describe the percentage of total soil 

volume taken up by spaces between soil particles. Natural riparian forest buffer sites usually have 

high infiltration rates because soils are loosely packed and possess large open pores. Importantly, 

the pores are protected from being plugged up by a layer vegetative cover and leaf litter. In contrast, 

soils that are compacted or composed primary of clay particles have low porosity because pores are 

small or nonexistent (impervious). 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-10 

1 • Reducing light penetration and interfering with algae and aquatic plant photosynthesis 

2 Riparian areas help regulate the amount and size of sediment that reaches the stream from upland 

3 sources through filtering mechanisms closely related to the overland movement of stormwater 

4 runoff. Assuming that sediment-laden runoff moving through the riparian area is not allowed to 

5 concentrate, channelize, and convey directly to the stream, sediment will be deposited as riparian 

6 vegetation slows runoff and it infiltrates the soil. In general, runoff in the form of diffuse sheet 

7 flow moving across thicker herbaceous vegetation functions best for filtering sediment. 

8 Streambanks are also an important potential source of sediment, especially when increased 

9 watershed imperviousness causes more frequent and stronger stream flow rates. Root systems of 

10 riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to the stream help bind sediments, which help reduce 

11 bank erosion. Additionally, overhanging branches of streambank vegetation can deflect and 

12 dissipate flow energy. 

13 2.2.3 Filtering Nutrient Pollution 

14 NNitrogen and P phosphorus are two nutrients essential for algae and other aquatic plants to 

15 grow. When present in excessive amounts, however, they can trigger algal blooms, nuisance 

16 levels of plant growth, and overall degradation of a stream. Sources of nonpoint nutrient 

17 pollution in developed watersheds include lawn and agricultural fertilizers, animal wastes, and 

18 septic systems. Because of different chemical properties, the potential pathways to a stream of 

19 the two nutrients differ, however. Correspondingly, the filtering mechanisms for phosphorus and 

20 Nnitrogen within riparian areas also differ. 

21 Phosphorus has a strong tendency to sorb to soil particles and organic matter. Therefore, it is 

22 usually moved across the landscape attached to sediment that is carried in surface runoff. 

23 Consequently, the conditions and mechanisms that serve to filter out sediments in riparian areas 

24 serve to filter out phosphorus. As sediment settles from runoff and water infiltrates the soil, the 

25 attached phosphorus can either remain in the soil or be taken up by riparian vegetation. 

26 Nitrogen, on the other hand, does not sorb strongly to sediment. While Nnitrogen in particulate 

27 form can be physically filtered out similar to sediments, the dissolved inorganic Nnitrogen form 

28 can infiltrate the soil, move with groundwater, and potentially enter the channel with shallow 

29 subsurface flow or baseflow. 

30 Bacteria residing in riparian soils play an important role in filtering Nnitrogen through a process 

31 called denitrification. That process reduces nitrate to nitrite and then to Nnitrogen gas, which 

32 then returns to the atmosphere. The basic requirements for denitrification are anaerobic 

33 conditions or restricted oxygen availability (saturated soil conditions), a good supply of nitrate 

34 and organic material, and warm conditions (above 50 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]). Other 

35 microorganisms and biota in the soil take up Nnitrogen, as do plants if the aquifer is within the 

36 root zone. 

37 The Mid-Atlantic Water Program (MAWP) at the University of Maryland (UMD) led a project 

38 in 2006–2007 to review and refine definition and effectiveness estimates for best management 

39 practices (BMPs) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, including grassed and forested riparian 

40 buffers in agricultural areas. The objective was to develop estimates that reflect the average 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-11 

1 operational condition representative of the entire watershed to better reflect monitored data in 

2 modeling scenarios and watershed plans. Table 2.5-1 summarizes the nutrient and sediment 

3 reduction efficiencies for forest and grass buffers at different locations on the basis of the 

4 literature review performed for this study. As indicated by the results, forest buffers are better at 

5 reducing Nnitrogen loads to the Chesapeake Bay; however, forest and grass buffers are the same 

6 in their ability to reduce phosphorus and sediment loads. These efficiencies take into account 

7 other BMPs that might be in place upland from or adjacent to the riparian buffer. 

Table 2.5-1. Average nutrient and sediment reduction efficiency comparison of riparian forest 

and grass buffers (Simpson and Weammert 2009)

TN reduction (%) TP reduction (%) TSS reduction (%)

Location Forest Grass Forest Grass Forest Grass 

Inner Coastal Plain 65% 46% 42% 42% 56% 56% 

Outer Coastal Plain Well Drained 31% 21% 45% 45% 60% 60% 

Outer Coastal Plain Poorly Drained 56% 39% 39% 39% 52% 52% 

Tidal Influenced 19% 13% 45% 45% 60% 60% 

Piedmont Schist/Gneiss 46% 32% 36% 36% 48% 48% 

Piedmont Sandstone 56% 39% 42% 42% 56% 56% 

Valley and Ridge—marble/limestone 34% 24% 30% 30% 40% 40% 

Valley and Ridge—sandstone/shale 46% 32% 39% 39% 52% 52% 

Appalachian Plateau 54% 38% 42% 42% 56% 56% 

Source: Simpson and Weammert 2009

8 It is important to remember that such pollutant-removal estimates are based on average 

9 conditions, and are being used in the Chesapeake Bay Model. All buffers do not have the same 

10 efficiency for pollutant reduction (Speiran et al. 1998). The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

11 (USDA) Agricultural Research Service Southwest Watershed Research Laboratory developed 

12 the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM), for researchers and natural resource 

13 agencies to help quantify the water quality benefits of riparian buffers under varying site 

14 conditions. REMM requires weather data, pollutant input information, riparian soils, vegetation, 

15 and litter information and is calibrated only for the Coastal Plain in Georgia, but it would be 

16 useful in areas with similar conditions where the required input parameters are available. 

17 2.2.4 Maintaining Aquatic Habitat 

18 Stream biota, including bacteria, algae, macrophytes, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish, 

19 amphibians, retiles, and mammals, all require a hospitable aquatic environment to live, 

20 reproduce, interact, and thrive. The riparian area plays a crucial role in maintaining a range of 

21 suitable habitats and conditions within the channel for a diverse and self-sustaining cycle of 

22 aquatic life. Good quality terrestrial habitat is essential for maintaining water quality and natural 

23 flows in the stream channel. 

24 As discussed earlier in this section, a riparian area usually includes the streambank, floodplain, 

25 and some portion of the transitional upland area. Natural features within such areas add structural 

26 variety and might include wetlands, natural levees, oxbow lakes, outcrops, and other landforms. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-12 

1 Diversity of riparian features usually results in corresponding diversity in soils, vegetation, and 

2 biota—important attributes of a healthy terrestrial habitat. 

3 A few important aquatic habitat functions are described below. 

4 • Maintaining diverse channel structure—Diverse channel structure provides diverse 

5 natural habitat for aquatic biota. Most important is the delivery of water to the channel 

6 that creates a stable, natural range of flows. Such flows determine the erosion, transport, 

7 and deposition patterns of sediment and create the thalweg (low-flow channel), pools and 

8 riffles, bars, natural levees, bars, and floodplains. 

9 • Contributing wood debris to the channel—Large, woody debris that falls into the channel 

10 creates additional habitat diversity for fish and other aquatic biota, especially in smaller 

11 streams. They often create a damming effect that traps sediment and create scour holes 

12 and function as fish habitat.

13 • Provides allochthonous input of organic matter—Energy sources that drive metabolic 

14 activity in a stream comes from either autochthonous sources (within the stream channel 

15 via algae and aquatic plant photosynthesis) or allochthonous sources (outside the stream 

16 channel). In smaller, shaded headwater streams, there is little aquatic primary production 

17 because of lower light levels. Here, allochthonous input of woody material, leaves, and 

18 other organic matter is critical for the base of the food chain. Bacteria and fungi break the 

19 material down, and their microbial biomass becomes food for shredding invertebrates. 

20 Organic particles are subsequently transported to provide energy for downstream 

21 organisms.

22 • Maintaining stream temperature—Water temperature determines the range and viability 

23 of aquatic species. Some species, e.g., trout, require cold water temperatures. Other 

24 species, such as smallmouth bass, tolerate warmer temperatures. Riparian vegetation that 

25 covers the channel reduces solar radiation and keeps water temperatures cooler. Baseflow 

26 (from groundwater inflow) also helps keep water temperatures cool.

27 2.2.5 Aesthetic Value 

28 Besides water quality and habitat benefits, riparian areas can add value to property providing 

29 seasonal changes, such as shade in summer, flowers and birds in spring, and color in fall (Baird 

30 and Wetmore 2003). A study in 2006 in Missouri found that residents are willing to pay to live in 

31 an area with community owned and accessible buffers, and are willing to pay even more to live 

32 adjacent to these areas (Qiu 2006). That pattern is consistent with other studies (Patterson and 

33 Boyle 2005; Netusil 2006) 

34 2.3 Riparian Area from the Longitudinal Perspective

35 Up to this point, the focus of this section has been on smaller, headwater streams because they 

36 usually dominate the landscape. Understanding how streams and their natural riparian areas 

37 change as they move longitudinally is critical for planning and designing riparian protection and 

38 restoration activities within the watershed as a whole. Discussed below are concepts from the 

39 longitudinal perspective. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-13 

1 2.3.1 Longitudinal Zones and Stream Order 

2 As a mainstem stream moves through its watershed, it drains an increasing amount of land area. 

3 Correspondingly, the stream adjusts width, depth, velocity, slope, sediment load, and sediment 

4 debris size to create a continuous gradient of physical conditions (Leopold et al. 1964). Schumm 

5 (1977) divides this gradient into three zones to group and portray the major changes that occur 

6 (Figure 2.43). In Zone 1 (headwater zone) the stream is characterized by cooler water 

7 temperatures, smaller channel width, greater slope, and higher flow velocity and erosion relative 

8 to downstream zones. Zone 2 (transfer zone) receives sediment from Zone 1 as channel slope 

9 decreases, flow velocity lessens, and larger particles settle out. Also in Zone 2 the channel begins 

10 to widen and become more meandering while flow volume increases because of the increased 

11 drainage area. The last zone, Zone 3 (depositional zone), is characterized by a flat valley, large 

12 meanders, and silty sediment. There, the channel is large and deep to accommodate the drainage 

13 of the entire watershed. 

14 The mainstem stream is continuously fed by a network of feeder streams. Strahler (1957) 

15 proposed a classification system to identify the position of all streams in a watershed network. 

16 Small streams with no tributaries are first-order streams (Figure 2.5-4). When two first-order 

17 streams flow together, they become a second-order stream. The confluence to two second-order 

18 streams creates a third-order stream, and so on. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-14 

1 

Source: FISRWG 1998
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-15 

1 

2 Figure 2.4.5-3. Changes to the channel in three zones. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-16 

1 

Source: FISRWG 1998

2 Figure 2.5. Strahler’s Stream Classification.

3 2.3.2 Longitudinal View of Ecological Functions and Processes 

4 In addition to physical changes, ecological functions and processes within the stream corridor 

5 also change as water moves through its watershed. Vannote et al. (1980) proposed a conceptual 

6 model, the River Continuum Concept to describe such changes. The concepts include the 

7 following: 

8 • First- to third-order streams in natural forested ecosystems are fully or partially shaded. 

9 Because of limited light, stream biota depend on allochthonous materials (e.g., terrestrial 

10 vegetation) as their energy source. Cold or cool water species thrive because of shading 

11 and groundwater inflow dominates the channel flow. The floodplain is usually small or 

12 nonexistent, flood-tolerant vegetation is reduced, and upland species dominate up to the 

13 streambank. 

14 • Fourth- to sixth-order streams have wider channels, which decrease riparian shading and 

15 result in an increase of water temperatures and aquatic plant photosynthesis. Energy 

16 sources begin shifting to autochthonous material and organic matter flowing from 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-17 

1 upstream. Flooding is more frequent, which increases the size and importance of the 

2 floodplain. Consequently, riparian area soils and vegetative communities are more 

3 diverse and complex. 

4 • Seventh- and higher order streams have biota that rely on primary production for energy, 

5 but the rain of organic particles from upstream becomes increasing important as loads of 

6 silt and clay increases turbidity and decreases light penetration for photosynthesis. The 

7 flatter terrain results in broad floodplains with bottom hardwoods, marshlands, and other 

8 vegetative communities adapted to the depositional zone of the stream. 

9 

10 Figure 5-4. Strahler’s Stream Classification
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-18 

1 2.4 Planning and Management Implications 

2 2.4.1 Importance of Lower Order Streams 

3 Lower order streams dominate the landscape in terms of numbers and stream mileage. It is 

4 estimated that 75 percent of streams in the United States are first- and second-order streams and 

5 90 percent are first-, second-, or third-order streams (FISRWG 1998; Leopold et al. 1964). 

6 Therefore, meeting the goal of 70 percent forested riparian buffer coverage in the Chesapeake 

7 Bay watershed requires managers to focus primarily on restoring buffers of lower order streams. 

8 The relatively small scale of headwater streams also increases the magnitude of influence the 

9 riparian area has on them (Sweeney and Blaine 2007). A forest canopy, for example, can easily 

10 extend across small streams and keep stream temperature cool. Large, woody debris adds 

11 proportionally more structure to the channel, and allochthonous materials are distributed 

12 throughout the channel and support life in virtually all microhabitats. 

13 Because a small stream’s watershed is also smaller in size, a forest buffer of even modest 

14 proportions can effectively regulate the lateral flow of water and filter a commensurate volume 

15 of sediments, phosphorus, and other pollutants. Groundwater flow is usually shallower and 

16 therefore more likely to pass within the root zone of trees as it travels downslope. That increases 

17 the opportunity for Nnitrogen uptake before groundwater flow reaches the channel (Craig et al. 

18 2008). Finally, individual pollutant sources and opportunities to manage stormwater runoff in 

19 upland areas can be more easily identified and controlled in a smaller watershed. 

20 2.4.2 Increased Focus on the Buffer/Stream Interface 

21 Sweeney and Blaine (2007) point out that buffers have been historically viewed almost 

22 exclusively in terms of their barrier and filter functions; specifically, their ability to filter out 

23 upland sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants before they reach the channel. Such a focus on 

24 the upland/buffer interface resulted in a general acceptance of grass buffers as a reasonable 

25 alternative to forested buffers because some studies show similar pollutant removal efficiencies. 

26 For cultural, sociological, budgetary, and other reasons, grass buffers were even sometimes 

27 promoted as the preferred choice for riparian vegetation. 

28 In the past decade, however, grass buffers were found to be only about 68 percent as effective as 

29 forest buffers in reducing total nitrogen (TN) (Todd 2002). But perhaps more significant, the 

30 positive effects that riparian forest buffers have on stream systems have been more fully explored 

31 and documented. Sweeney (1992, 1993) reinforced the idea that stream processes, functions, and 

32 biota were developed in concert with riparian forests rather than riparian grasslands and the 

33 absence of trees creates considerable stress on the natural aquatic ecosystem. For example, a 

34 study of forested and deforested small streams in the Piedmont region demonstrated that 

35 deforestation caused significant channel narrowing which, in turn, reduced stream habitat and 

36 processing of organic matter and nutrients (Sweeney et al. 2004). Importantly, the study also 

37 determined that a forested stream ecosystem had 2 to 10 times more uptake of Nnitrogen than a 

38 grass ecosystem. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-19 

1 Restoring and protecting physical, chemical, and biological stream processes and functions 

2 directly influence processes and functions in higher order streams. Examples include the 

3 following: 

4 • Large, woody debris that drifts downstream and adds habitat diversity 

5 • Processed organic matter and nutrients for greater diversity of invertebrate functional 

6 groups and aquatic plants 

7 • Sediment that provides structure to the channel 

8 USEPA (2006) reports that 42 percent of all small stream mileage in the United States is in poor 

9 condition. Some of these results are undoubtedly because of poorly functioning riparian areas. 

10 Improving this statistic is where riparian buffers can exert their greatest influence (FISRWG 

11 1998). 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-20 

1 3 Restoring and Reestablishing Riparian Forest Buffers 

Implementation Measure: Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged and 

destroyed riparian systems, especially in areas where the systems will serve a significant 

[nonpoint source] pollution-abatement function as well as the suite of valuable ecosystems 

services riparian buffers provide.

2 3.1 Introduction 

3 The previous chapter examined the key benefits provided by natural riparian areas. Namely, 

4 • Regulating the lateral movement of water to the stream 

5 • Filtering out sediment pollution before it reaches the stream 

6 • Filtering out nutrient pollution before it reaches the stream 

7 • Maintaining aquatic habitat in the stream channel 

8 Successful restoration and reestablishment of buffers in the Chesapeake Bay area require that 

9 landowners, managers, public agencies, and other responsible parties assess ecological functions 

10 provided by existing riparian soils and vegetation and then make the best adjustments and 

11 improvements possible given cost, funding, and other practical constraints. In many cases, 

12 restoration will include planting seedlings and eventually reestablishing fully functioning 

13 riparian forest. 

14 The Chesapeake Bay is at approximately 60 percent of its goal of 70 percent of streams having 

15 riparian forest buffers. That means that restoring or reestablishing riparian forests is required to 

16 meet this goal. Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia have proposed in 

17 their tributary strategies to restore some 50,000 miles of riparian forest buffers to help reach 

18 water quality goals for major rivers that drain into the bay (Greiner and Vogt 2009). 

19 3.1.1 Organization of this Chapter 

20 This chapter is organized to cover the basic steps for undertaking a successful riparian forest 

21 buffer restoration project. 

22 • Analyzing existing conditions and identifying potential problems at the site level 

23 (Section 3.2). 

24 • Connectivity and determining the appropriate buffer width (Section 3.3) 

25 • Selecting, planting, and protecting tree seedling (Section 3.4). 

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged 

and destroyed riparian systems, especially in areas where the systems will serve a significant 

[nonpoint source] pollution-abatement function as well as the suite of valuable ecosystems services 

riparian buffers provide 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-21 

1 Much of the information presented in the sections 3.2 and 3.4 are based on the Maryland 

2 Department of Natural Resources Forest Service Manual, Riparian Forest Buffer Design and 

3 Maintenance (2005). For further details about methods and procedures described, see that 

4 manual. 

5 Sections 3.5 and 3.6 wrap up the chapter by discussing costs of riparian buffer restoration and 

6 present information on potential sources of funding. 

7 3.2 Analyzing Existing Conditions and Identifying Potential Problems 

8 Every riparian forest buffer has a unique set of conditions that managers must understand before 

9 developing a restoration plan. How those conditions link to ecological functions and benefits is 

10 an important to success. Three key areas that need to be addressed are (1) hydrology, (2) soils, 

11 and (3) existing vegetation. In addition, special characteristics and potential problems associated 

12 with converting a previous land use to a forest buffer should be considered. 

13 3.2.1 Hydrology 

14 Riparian areas are driven by hydrology (NRC, 2002). As discussed in Section 2, precipitation 

15 can take several different paths as it moves downslope across a riparian area to the stream 

16 channel. Basically, it can infiltrate the soil and move as groundwater flow or enter the channel 

17 directly as surface runoff. Identifying pathways of water flow through the site provides clues on 

18 how well beneficial functions in the riparian area are operating. Ideal site hydrological conditions 

19 include: 

20 • Local groundwater originating from adjacent upland takes a relatively shallow path 

21 through the soil and comes into contact with the root zone of buffer vegetation. That 

22 contact increases the likelihood that Nnitrogen will be taken up by vegetation, 

23 immobilized by microorganisms, or undergo denitrification by bacteria. 

24 • Runoff water originating from the uplands is not allowed to concentrate, channelize, and 

25 convey directly to the stream and bypass riparian vegetation and groundwater recharge 

26 areas. Gently sloping vegetative landscapes are preferred because they promote sheetflow 

27 and naturally reduce runoff velocity. These attributes increase the residence time of 

28 surface runoff and increase the likelihood of infiltration. Lower slopes also tend to reduce 

29 the velocity of groundwater flow and increase its contact time with buffer vegetation 

30 roots and other processes that remove or immobilize Nnitrogen. 

31 Hydrologic analysis at the site should include an evaluation on how well the above conditions 

32 are met. 

33 3.2.2 Soils 

34 Success in regulating the lateral flow of water, filtering sediment and nutrient pollution, and 

35 maintaining important processes and functions in the stream itself ultimately depends on riparian 

36 soils and the organisms that reside in them. Importantly, soils change as one moves laterally 

37 across the riparian area. Soils in the floodplain contain finer textured sediments deposited from 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-22 

1 flood waters that occur 2 out of 3 years under natural conditions and often more frequently if 

2 watershed imperviousness is a factor. Soils at a higher elevation in the riparian area can include 

3 some flooding deposits but are generally coarser and more like soils found in upland areas. 

4 Features within the riparian area such as natural levees and wetlands have their own unique soil 

5 characteristics, however. Soil complexity is a good thing because different attributes affect the 

6 occurrence and efficiency of ecological functions as well as supporting a diverse vegetative 

7 community (FISRWG 1998). Some important soil characteristics to assess include the following: 

8 • Soil composition and texture—Soils are basically composed of various inorganic mineral 

9 particles that can be categorized by size (sand, loam, or clay) and organic matter (in 

10 various stages of decomposition). Soils that promote infiltration and transmission of 

11 water need to have a high porosity, such as coarse-textured sandy/loamy soils held 

12 together with organic matter as opposed to fine-textured clayey soils.

13 • Soil moisture—The ability of the upper layer of soil to hold water by surface tension in 

14 fine pores is very important to the growth and survival of vegetation. Loamy/clayey soils 

15 have the best water-holding properties. Sandy soils are the most porous and do not have 

16 much capacity to hold water.

17 • Soil compaction—Many cultural activities, especially in urban areas, can compact natural 

18 soils and reduce infiltration and water-holding capacity as well as killing root systems. 

19 About 50 percent pore space is ideal (MDNR FS 2005).

20 • Wetland soils—Wetlands in riparian areas typically occur where the water table is at or 

21 near the surface. Soils are hydric, meaning they are saturated during all or portions of the 

22 growing season and develop anaerobic conditions. Only plants adapted to these 

23 conditions can survive in wetlands. Saturated areas are also important areas for 

24 denitrification, a bacterial process that removes nitrate from groundwater before it 

25 reaches the stream channel and should be identified and protected.

26 The Pennsylvania Stream ReLEAF Forest Buffer Toolkit, as well as section 2 of the Maryland 

27 DNR Riparian Forest Buffer Design and Maintenance guide, and section 4 of the Chesapeake 

28 Bay Riparian Handbook: a Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers

29 (Palone and Todd 1997) contain contains some guidance on soil evaluation. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-23 

1 

2 3.2.3 Riparian Vegetation 

3 Soil properties, topography, shading, seed stock, water availability, and other factors determine 

4 the density and distribution of vegetative species within a riparian area. Similar to soil, riparian 

5 vegetation also performs several ecological functions that help regulate the lateral movement of 

6 water to the channel and the timing and volume of streamflow. Plants also play in important role 

7 in filtering, storing, and processing pollutants and lessening their effect on stream quality. 

8 Restoring vegetative structure, especially reestablishing trees, is often the most visible aspect of 

9 a riparian restoration project. 

Targeting the Placement of a Buffer in a Landscape

While riparian forest buffers provide 

several other important benefits, 

targeting restoration for maximum 

pollutant removal benefits is a good 

way to identify areas that do not 

already have a buffer and maximize 

limited funds to meet water quality 

goals. In 2008, the Chesapeake Bay 

Forestry Workgroup developed a 

scientifically-based scheme to identify 

areas in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed where full performance of 

riparian forest buffers might be 

expected. This scheme is in the form 

of a targeting matrix which captures 

the variables that influence the 

efficiency of nutrient removal in a 

buffer, namely hydrology (specifically 

depth to water table), slope, land use, 

and source nutrient loading. 

Each of the attributes are weighted 

according to importance and then 

scored, with a higher score given to 

conditions that would result in more 

pollutant removal (such as a shorter 

depth to water table). The scores are 

analyzed in GIS to create a map like 

the one in the figure here. For more 

information on this matrix, including 

an explanation of why the attributes 

listed here will result in the successful 

placement of riparian forest buffers in 

areas of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, visit http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/FWG_11-18-08_Handout_3_9152.pdf 

and http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/FWG_11-18-08_Presentation_1_9152.pdf.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-24 

1 Different attributes affect the occurrence and efficiency of ecological functions. Important 

2 characteristics that managers need to assess and then maintain or restore include the following: 

3 • Trees adjacent to the stream—The importance of trees to stream ecology is discussed in 

4 Section 2 of this chapter. The annual cycle of growth and senescence of trees provides 

5 organic material to the stream, which serves as the base of the food chain in headwater 

6 streams. Streamside trees also add large, woody material to the channel, which provides 

7 important habitat functions for a variety of aquatic biota. Additionally, the root systems 

8 of streamside trees help bind bank sediments and reduce the potential for erosion. 

9 • Horizontal complexity—A riparian area with diverse population of vegetation is generally 

10 a reflection of a diversity of soils, drainage conditions, flooding patterns, and other 

11 conditions across the area. A mix of grasses, shrubs, and trees provide varying levels of 

12 sediment, nutrient, and pollutant removal efficiencies (FISRWG 1998). Complex 

13 vegetation habitat also typically results in a wider variety of wildlife. 

14 • Edge habitat—Two distinct habitats within a riparian forest area are edge habitat and 

15 interior habitat. The edge habitat is the area of transition between an upland ecosystem 

16 and the interior forest. Compared to interior habitat, edge habitat, by virtue of its position, 

17 receives higher and more fluctuating levels of solar and wind energy, precipitation, and 

18 water and materials flowing from the adjacent land use. Therefore, it functions as the first 

19 line of defense for regulating runoff and filtering pollutants. Flora and fauna that inhabit 

20 edge habitat are species that can tolerate more intense and fluctuating conditions. 

21 • Interior habitat—Interior habitat is a more stable environment, sheltered from conditions 

22 endured by edge vegetation. In general, more sensitive and rare species of plants and 

23 animals are in interior habitat, well away from edgy influences. Therefore, if protecting 

24 sensitive or rare species is an objective of riparian forest buffer restoration, managers 

25 must ensure that there is adequate interior habitat in the buffer. 

26 • Vertical complexity—Birds and other tree-dwelling wildlife depend on a variety of layers 

27 of vegetation to thrive and reproduce. A vertically complex area also reflects a diversity 

28 of age composition and indicates a successful pattern of succession and new growth. 

29 3.2.4 Special Characteristics and Potential Problems Associated with a 

30 Previous Land Use 

31 If all or a portion of the riparian area being restored was used for some other purpose (e.g., 

32 cropland, pastureland, lawns, parkland), there might be special characteristics or potential 

33 problems that should be assessed. As described in Riparian Forest Buffer Design and 

34 Maintenance (2005), those could include the following: 

35 • Compacted soils—Soil compaction is often a problem in developed areas. Compacted 

36 soil restricts the movement of water into the ground and inhibits root penetration. It is 

37 often a problem in urban and suburban soils because of vehicle or foot traffic, playing 

38 areas, or other use. Compacted soils in pastureland might be due to cow paths or other 

39 animal or equipment traffic. Usually soil compaction is not a problem in agricultural 

40 lands; however, there might be a compacted layer of soil below the plow zone. If 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-25 

1 compaction presents a problem for tree rooting, a moderate amount of discing or tilling 

2 can be employed to loosen the soil.

3 • Fill material or other problem soils—Fill material, especially in suburban and urban 

4 areas, might have been imported and placed on the site. Fill can contain any variety of 

5 material not amenable for growth of native trees and vegetation. Conditions could include 

6 low infertility, high sand content, high clay content, low organic matter content, 

7 excessive rocks, and low microfauna content. Soil testing that includes composition and 

8 pore analysis, pH, and organic and nutrient content can help determine soil limitations 

9 and what amendments might be needed for healthy growth. Depending on the results, 

10 amendments might include fertilizers, composted manure, peat moss, mulch, water11 absorbent gel, decompaction agents, or mycorrhizal root dip. 

12 • Noxious or invasive weeds—Weeds can and will outcompete and kill young trees. 

13 Present and future generations (i.e., seed bank) of noxious or evasive weeds might reside 

14 at the site. Weed seeds are very hardy and can lay dormant in the soil for years waiting 

15 for favorable conditions to germinate. Controlling noxious and invasive weeds should 

16 occur before tree planting through a mowing or herbicide program. In some cases, it is 

17 prudent to even delay planting for a year to get more complete control of weed 

18 populations. When converting cropland to riparian forest buffer, establishing a cover crop 

19 is a convenient weed control method.

20 • Animal damage—A variety of animals can damage tree seedlings by rubbing or 

21 trampling them or by feeding on leafs, stems, bark, or roots. Managers need to make 

22 plans to keep them away from planted areas. 

23 • Human damage—Riparian buffers are sometime damaged by well-meaning actions by 

24 residents. Mowing, clearing, and other landscaping improvements can limit ecological 

25 functions. Public education and creating an awareness of the buffer value and purpose 

26 will help limit this problem. 

27 3.3 Buffer Width and Connectivity 

28 Two important dimensional characteristics of riparian buffers are: 

29 • Width—The lateral measure of buffer vegetation on either side of the stream. 

30 • Connectivity—The measure of how continuous the buffer is both laterally and 

31 longitudinally. Gaps or breaks in the buffer serve to lessen connectivity (Figure 3.5-1). 

32 In general, ecological functions are enhanced when buffers are wide and connected rather than 

33 narrow and full of gaps. For example, wider contiguous buffers create more space and a wider 

34 diversity of soils and vegetation to filter out sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants from upland 

35 sources before they reach the stream. Gaps in the buffer decrease buffer continuity and increase 

36 the chance of upland runoff concentrating and shooting through the gap to the stream. Gaps also 

37 discourage the movement of wildlife along the stream corridor. For those and other reasons, 

38 buffer-restoration objectives typically include making the buffer as wide and as connected as 

39 possible. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-26 

1 Width is a controversial aspect of buffer design and protection. There is much variation in buffer 

2 width recommendations in state and federal guidelines as well as peer reviewed literature. 

3 Factors that influence ideal buffer widths are site specific and related to soil type, watershed 

4 hydrology, and subsurface biochemistry of the target site. For further discussion on the scientific 

5 data related width and pollutant removal, see Mayer 2005 and Okay 2007. Todd (2002) points 

6 out that a clearly defined relationship does not exist between buffer efficiency and width that can 

7 be applied to the Chesapeake Bay region but concludes that the potential risk for failure of a 

8 buffer to remove excess nutrients before they reach the stream clearly increases with decreasing 

9 buffer width. 

10 

Source: FISRWG 1998

11 Figure 3.5-1. Connectivity within a landscape. 

12 Typically, a riparian buffer should follow a “three-zone” design, illustrated in figure 3.5-2. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-27 

1 

2 Source: Welsch 1991

3 Figure 3.5-2. A typical 3-zone buffer design. 

4 The first zone next to the stream should be 15 feet wide and consist of mature tree cover, which 

5 protects streambanks and contributes organic matter to the stream. Immediately adjacent to the 

6 first zone is the The second zone, which has a minimum width of 60 feet and consists of trees 

7 and shrubs. The primary purpose of the second zone is to , which capture and transform 

8 nutrients, sediments and other pollutantschemicals from surface runoff and shallow 

9 groundwater.upland areas. Zone three should be approximately 25 feet wide and contain natural 

10 grasses. That zone is an important area for the spreading, filtrations, and infiltration of surface 

11 water. 

12 More about the benefits of this design is in the USDA booklet titled Riparian Forest Buffers: 

13 Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources at 

14 http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/n_resource/riparianforests/. 

15 Following those guidelines, the minimum buffer width should be 100 feet for maximum 

16 pollutant removal benefits. That is consistent with riparian buffer ordinances in Virginia, 

17 Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Baird and Wetmore 2003; MD CAC 2010; CWA PA 2009). 

18 However, riparian forest buffers should be as wide as possible to get maximum habitat benefits. 

19 3.4 Establishing Riparian Vegetation 

20 Choosing the species of trees to populate a riparian forest buffer requires matching growing 

21 requirements with site conditions and planning objectives. In general, managers should strive to 

22 create species patterns that mimic reference conditions in the area. 

23 Forest conditions, and corresponding ecological functions, develop more quickly with a high 

24 density of trees. If the rapid creation of a canopy for shading out weeds or providing cover and 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-28 

1 shade to a stream is the objective, high-density planting is recommended (e.g., 500 trees per 

2 acre). However, thinning back to 100 to 150 trees per acres will eventually be needed to create a 

3 healthy, self-sustaining riparian forest buffer (MDNR FS 2005). 

4 The Stroud Water Research Center recommends planting at least 8 to 10 species when restoring 

5 a riparian area. In all cases, species must match the environmental characteristics of the site and 

6 plans made to protect seedlings against weeds and animals as needed. 

7 3.4.1 Natural Regeneration 

8 Natural regeneration is the least expensive option for establishing a riparian forest buffer. This 

9 option eliminates the need (and costs) for selecting and planting trees. Key attributes for success 

10 are the availability of trees to function as a seed source and quality, non-compacted soils that 

11 promote good seed contact. To achieve that latter attribute, some site preparation work might be 

12 necessary. 

13 Common tree species that generate windborne seeds that travel reasonably far distances include 

14 poplar, ash, pine, sycamore, birch, sweetgum, and maple. Seeding by heavier seed species (e.g., 

15 oaks and hickories) require trees that are fairly close by, preferably upslope. If conditions are 

16 favorable, a viable stand of native trees often develops relatively quickly. 

17 Initial germination might yield thousands of seedlings per acre. Therefore, thinning the buffer at 

18 some point might be appropriate to create a healthier, more diverse population of trees. 

19 Further information iscan be found in Chapter 3 of the MDNR FS Riparian Forest Buffer Design 

20 and Maintenance Guide 

21 (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/download/rfb_design&maintenance.pdf). 

22 3.4.2 Planting Trees 

23 Planting results in more control of the location, density, and species on the site. It also speeds up 

24 the restoration process. However, it can be considerably more expensive than natural 

25 regeneration. Seeds, seedlings, or more mature trees can be planted on the site, depending the 

26 budget and objects of the planting. 

27 • Direct seeding—Seed can be directly sown in the soil and aided by raking or discing, 

28 depending on the density of the seeds. Because of potential predation by squirrels, birds, 

29 and other animals, a fairly large number seeds is required. If germination is successful, 

30 dense stands can develop, which might need to be eventually thinned. 

31 • Seedling planting—Seedlings can be planted by hand or using a planting machine. Unlike 

32 direct seeding, managers can tightly control tree location, pattern, and density. In addition 

33 to a good selection of seedling species available from nurseries, planting seedlings is 

34 usually the most cost-effective method of establishing trees in a riparian forest buffer. 

35 Care must be taken, however, to not damage or dry out seedlings during the plant 

36 process. Managers generally choose to plant seedlings in rows because such a 

37 configuration is easiest to design, install, and maintain. It also generates a full canopy 

38 closure more rapidly than other configurations. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-29 

1 • Tree Planting—In some cases, managers might want to plant more mature trees at the 

2 site. Digging planting holes is more costly, but it avoids trampling high-traffic areas. 

3 

4 

5 Additional information iscan be found in the Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf ToolKit 

6 (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/StreamReleaf/Forestbufft

7 ool/default.htm) and Chapter 3 of the MDNR FS Riparian Forest Buffer Design and 

8 Maintenance Guide 

9 (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/download/rfb_design&maintenance.pdf). 

Species Selection and Density

Choosing the species of trees to populate in the riparian forest buffer requires matching growing 

requirements with site conditions and planning objectives. In general, managers should strive to create 

species patterns that mimic reference conditions in the area. Some sources of information on the best 

species to plant in the Chesapeake Bay area include the following: 

• Chesapeake Bay Alliance (http://www.alliancechesbay.org/project.cfm?vid=158) 

• University of Maryland (http://www.riparianbuffers.umd.edu/fact/FS725.html) 

• Virginia Department of Forestry (http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/rfb/rfb-common-plants.htm) 

• Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf ToolKit: 

(http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/StreamReleaf/Forestbufftool/

default.htm) 

Forest conditions develop more quickly with a high density of trees. If the rapid creation of a canopy for 

shading out weeds or providing cover and shade to a stream is the restoration manager’s objective, 

high-density planting is recommended (e.g., 500 trees per acre). However, thinning back to 100 to 150 

trees per acres will eventually be needed to create a healthy, self-sustaining riparian forest buffer.

Species Selection and Density

Choosing the species of trees to populate in the riparian forest buffer requires matching growing 

requirements with site conditions and planning objectives. In general, managers should strive to create 

species patterns that mimic reference conditions in the area. Some sources of information on the best 

species to plant in the Chesapeake Bay area include the following: 

• Chesapeake Bay Alliance (http://www.alliancechesbay.org/project.cfm?vid=158) 

• University of Maryland (http://www.riparianbuffers.umd.edu/fact/FS725.html) 

• Virginia Department of Forestry (http://www.dof.virginia.gov/mgt/rfb/rfb-common-plants.htm) 

• Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf ToolKit: 

(http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/StreamReleaf/Forestbufftool/

default.htm) 

Forest conditions develop more quickly with a high density of trees. If the rapid creation of a canopy for 

shading out weeds or providing cover and shade to a stream is the restoration manager’s objective, 

high-density planting is recommended (e.g., 500 trees per acre). However, thinning back to 100 to 150 

trees per acres will eventually be needed to create a healthy, self-sustaining riparian forest buffer.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-30 

1 3.4.3 Protecting Seedlings 

2 Young seedlings are susceptible to competition from weeds and animal damage. Protecting the 

3 investment is an important part of riparian forest buffer management. 

4 Many species of grasses and weeds can out-compete tree seedlings for light, water, nutrients, and 

5 growing space. Fortunately, riparian forest buffer managers have several options to protect the 

6 planting investment until they get a foothold. 

7 • Hand clearing—Pulling and cutting weeds species by hand is an option for small riparian 

8 areas. It is labor intensive, however. Some invasive species require the removal of entire 

9 root systems. 

10 • Mowing—Periodic mowing around seedlings helps keep competing weeds low to the 

11 ground and prevents weed seed heads from maturing. A disadvantage of mowing is that it 

12 interferes with the natural establishment of native vegetation. Consequently, mowing 

13 should be curtailed when trees mature to the point weed competition is no longer a factor. 

14 • Mats, collars, and mulch—Physical barriers for weed growth can be very effective in 

15 preventing weed competition around young trees. Some mats and tree collar products can 

16 be treated with a selective herbicide for added protection. Mulch can also provide a 

17 physical barrier to protect seedlings from weeds, but it too can be expensive and must be 

18 replenished. 

19 • Tree shelters—Tree shelters are designed to 

20 protect young trees from weeds and wildlife. 

21 Sweeney et al. (2002) found that using shelters 

22 yields a survival rate four times higher than 

23 seedlings without shelters. In addition, sheltered 

24 trees have 19 times better vertical growth. Tubes 

25 that are ventilated, lighter in color, and designed to 

26 let in more light tend to work best. 

27 In addition to weeds, several animal species can harm seedlings above and below the ground. 

28 Manager can use several techniques to discourage or prevent their access to young trees. 

29 • Fencing—Fencing can be used to limit access to 

30 the riparian forest buffer by livestock, deer, and 

31 other larger animals. It can be electric or woven 

32 wire. To be effective, deer fencing needs to be 

33 well-designed and around 8 feet tall. Gates might 

34 need to be built in for human access. Additional 

35 information on livestock exclusion fencing is in 

36 the Agriculture chapter. 

37 • Mowing—Mowing destroys tall weed habitat that 

38 rodents prefer. The last mowing of the season 

39 should be in September or October to reduce overwinter habitat for voles and other 

40 rodents. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-31 

1 • Tree shelters—Shelters are a physical barrier for browsing deer. They also keep voles 

2 from seedling roots provided that the tube is pushed into the soil a few inches. 

3 3.4.4 Reinforcement Planting 

4 Reinforcement plantings might be necessary if some portion of original seedlings die. Before 

5 undertaking such an action, however, riparian managers should investigate why they did not 

6 survive or how they were damaged and then adjust planting methods and follow-up care 

7 accordingly. In some cases, a single factor might be the cause of tree mortality; in other 

8 instances, a combination of factors might be in play. 

9 3.5 Cost 

10 Costing is, of course, a key part of the planning process. The Maryland Cooperative Extension 

11 Service estimates that a typical forest buffer costs between $218–$729 per acre to plant and 

12 maintain (Tjaden and Weber 1998). However, costs vary widely and depend on the size and type 

13 of buffer. Managers must make choices at each step in the development process; from site14 preparation alternatives, to planting methods, to seedling protection approaches, and follow-up 

15 maintenance. There is also a cost in taking the land out of crop production, if the landowner or a 

16 renter is farming the land. The National Agroforestry Center developed an Excel-based tool 

17 called Buffer$ (http://www.unl.edu/nac/buffer$.htm) to help landowners analyze cost benefits of 

18 buffers compared to traditional crops. 

19 The following resources are available for helping landowners determine the cost of establishing a 

20 riparian buffer on property: 

21 • Klapproth and Johnson. 2009. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest 

22 Buffers: Resources for Virginia Landowners. 

23 • Maryland Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet 774. When a Landowner Adopts a Riparian 

24 Buffer—Benefits and Costs (http://www.riparianbuffers.umd.edu/PDFs/FS774.pdf). 

25 • North Carolina State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 2003. Cost and Benefits 

26 of Best Management Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Upper and Middle Coastal 

27 Plain (http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/Ag%20621.pdf). 

28 • USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. 1997 Conservation 

29 Reserve Program practice cost and flat rate payment estimates for Virginia, March 1997. 

30 3.6 Sources of Funding 

31 To help offset the cost of restoring or reestablishing a riparian buffer, several programs are 

32 available to farmers and other landowners. Most of the programs include technical assistance for 

33 planning buffer systems as well as cost-sharing dollars for installing buffers. Some of the sources 

34 available in the Chesapeake Bay area are listed below. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-32 

1 3.6.1 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

2 CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners administered by USDA’s Farm Service 

3 Agency (FSA). Through CRP, landowners can receive annual rental payments and cost-share 

4 assistance to establish long-term, resource-conserving covers on eligible farmland. The 

5 Commodity Credit Corporation makes annual rental payments according to the agriculture rental 

6 value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant’s 

7 costs in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in CRP contracts for 10 

8 to 15 years. Technical support is provided by USDA’s NRCS; USDA’s Cooperative State 

9 Research, Education, and Extension Service; state forestry agencies; local soil and water 

10 conservation districts; and, in some cases, the private sector. 

11 In return for establishing long-term, resource-conserving covers, FSA provides annual rental 

12 payments to participants. FSA bases rental rates on the relative productivity of the soils within 

13 each county and the average dry land cash rent or cash rent equivalent. FSA provides cost-share 

14 assistance to participants who establish approved cover on eligible cropland. The cost-share 

15 assistance can be no more than 50 percent of the participant’s cost to establish approved 

16 practices. FSA offers financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the soil rental rate for riparian 

17 buffers. An additional 10 percent may be added to the soil rental rate for land within EPA18 designated wellhead protection areas. A per-acre payment rate may also be added for 

19 maintenance of eligible practices. FSA also offers other enhancements, including an up-front 

20 signing incentive payment (CRP-SIP) up to $100 per acre for eligible participants who enroll 

21 certain practices and a practice incentive payment (CRP-PIP) equal to 40 percent of the eligible 

22 installation costs for eligible participants who enroll certain practices. 

23 For more information, visit www.fsa.usda.gov. 

24 3.6.2 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

25 CREP is a voluntary land retirement program that helps agricultural producers protect 

26 environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground 

27 and surface water. The program is a partnership among producers; tribal, state, and federal 

28 governments; and, in some cases, private groups. CREP is a component of the country’s largest 

29 private-lands environmental improvement program—the CRP. Like CRP, CREP is administered 

30 by USDA’s FSA. By combining CRP resources with state, tribal, and private programs, CREP 

31 provides farmers and ranchers with a sound financial package for conserving and enhancing the 

32 natural resources of farms. 

33 CREP allows states to target combined federal and state funds toward high-priority resources or 

34 environmental issues. Geographic areas or land types and specific conservation practices, 

35 including streamside buffers, can be designated for enrollment. Land eligible for enrollment 

36 includes cropland and marginal pasture land. To qualify for the federal funds, a state must work 

37 with the FSA and the NRCS to develop a comprehensive plan as part of its proposal. Contracts 

38 as part of a CREP can range from 10 to 15 years. Participating landowners receive cost-share 

39 funding for specific management practices. 

40 A federal annual rental rate, including an FSA state committee-determined maintenance 

41 incentive payment, is offered, plus cost-share of up to 50 percent of the eligible costs to install 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-33 

1 the practice. Further, the program generally offers a sign-up incentive for participants to install 

2 specific practices. 

3 Sometimes, additional state incentives can apply. One example is in Pennsylvania. If landowners 

4 install a riparian buffer that is at least 50 feet wide, they will receive 50 percent cost-share from 

5 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection through the Pennsylvania Association 

6 of Conservation Districts. 

7 For more information, visit www.fsa.usda.gov. 

8 3.6.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 

9 The EQIP program is a voluntary conservation cost-share program. Administered by NRCS, it 

10 makes technical, financial, and educational assistance available to farmers and ranchers to help 

11 them install or implement structural and management practices on eligible agricultural land. 

12 Contracts can range from 1 to 10 years. Persons engaged in livestock or agricultural production 

13 and owners of nonindustrial private forestland are eligible for the program. Eligible land includes 

14 cropland, rangeland, pastureland, private nonindustrial forestland, and other farm or ranch lands. 

15 EQIP provides payments up to 75 percent of the incurred costs and income foregone of certain 

16 conservation practices and activities. However, certain historically underserved producers 

17 (limited resource farmers/ranchers, beginning farmers/ranchers, socially disadvantaged 

18 producers) might be eligible for increased cost-share payments. 

19 For more information on EQIP, visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip. 

20 3.6.4 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 

21 The WHIP program is an NRCS-administered program that provides technical assistance and 

22 cost-share funds to farmers, ranchers, and others wanting to enhance fish and wildlife habitat on 

23 agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and tribal land. Contracts can range from 1 to 

24 10 years. Similar to EQIP, WHIP provides payments up to 75 percent of the incurred costs to 

25 install conservation practices for permanent priority fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, WHIP 

26 will pay up to 90 percent for long-term (15 years or more) agreements to protect and restore 

27 essential plant and animal habitat. However, certain historically underserved producers (limited 

28 resource farmers/ranchers, beginning farmers/ranchers, socially disadvantaged producers) might 

29 be eligible for increased cost-share payments. 

30 For more information on WHIP, visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip. 

31 3.6.5 Conservation Security Program (CSP) 

32 CSP is administered by NRCS. It is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical 

33 assistance to promote the conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and 

34 animal life, and other conservation purposes on tribal and private working lands. Working lands 

35 include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested 

36 land that is an incidental part of an agriculture operation. To be eligible, the land must be 

37 privately owned or tribal land, the applicant must be in compliance with highly erodible and 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-34 

1 wetland provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985, have an active interest in the agricultural 

2 operation, and have control of the land for the life of the contract, and the applicant must share in 

3 the risk of producing any crop or livestock and be entitled to a share in the crop or livestock 

4 marketed from the operation. Payments can include an annual stewardship component for the 

5 existing base level conservation treatment; an annual existing practice component for the 

6 maintenance of existing conservation practices, an enhancement component for exceptional 

7 conservation effort and additional conservation practices or activities that provide increased 

8 resource benefits beyond the prescribed level, and/or a one-time new practice component for 

9 additional needed practices. 

10 For more information on CSP, visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/

11 CSP is only available only in certain watersheds. NRCS has provided a workbook landowners 

12 can use to determine program eligibility. The workbook can be accessed at: 

13 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/CSP_2008/2008_pdfs/SAW2008.pdf

14 3.6.6 Virginia’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) 

15 LIP is a grant-based, voluntary, cost-share program administered by the Virginia Department of 

16 Game and Inland Fisheries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funds it. LIP pays for 75 percent 

17 of the total project cost to landowners who are willing to install and maintain stream restoration 

18 and riparian buffer projects on their property for at least 10 years. The Department of Game and 

19 Inland Fisheries also provides engineering assistance and acquires any regulatory permits 

20 required to implement projects. Eligible participants include private landowners including farms; 

21 corporations; residents; hunting clubs; nonprofits; and other nongovernmental organizations; 

22 individuals that own land along a river, creek, or stream within selected watersheds with rare 

23 wildlife species; and landowners who are willing to protect their restoration project with at least 

24 a 35-foot vegetated buffer. 

25 For more information on Virginia’s LIP, visit http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/lip/

26 3.6.7 Maryland’s Buffer Incentive Program (BIP) 

27 Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers a BIP to help private 

28 landowners establish and maintain streamside forested buffers in the Chesapeake Bay area. The 

29 program provides a one-time incentive payment of $300 per acre for areas planted with buffers, 

30 up to $15,000. To be eligible, the private landowner must have between 1 and 50 acres of either 

31 cropland, pastureland, or open or bare ground on early successional vegetation. The property 

32 must be within 300 feet of a stream, river, pond, or nontidal wetland; be within 300 feet plus 4 4 

33 feet for every 1 percent slope for slopes averaging greater than 6 percent; or be within the 100--

34 year floodplain. 

35 For more information on Maryland’s BIP, visit www.dnr.state.md.us. 

36 For more information on all cost-share programs, contact your local FSA or soil and 

37 conservation district. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-35 

1 4 Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas 

Implementation Measure: Protect from adverse effects riparian areas that are serving a 

significant [nonpoint source]-abatement function and maintain this function while protecting the 

other existing functions of these riparian areas.

2 4.1 Background 

3 The current rate of loss of riparian forests in the

4 Chesapeake Bay is unknown. The long-term 

5 goal Chesapeake Bay goal of having riparian 

6 forests on 70 percent of all streambanks and 

7 shorelines in the Chesapeake Bay not only 

8 requires the restoration of buffers, but also 

9 strong protections for existing buffers to 

10 maintain that goal. Existing riparian buffers as 

11 well as restored riparian buffers that have been 

12 established for several years must be protected 

13 and maintained to keep them functioning as 

14 desired. 

15 The previous chapter discussed the restoration and reestablishment of riparian forest buffers.A 

16 portion of the riparian forest buffers that exist came about through both mandatory and voluntary 

17 action by private landowners, including farmers and forestland owners as well as private citizens. 

18 The USDA, state and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations often provide assistance. The 

19 level and type of technical assistance, incentives, and program support vary by jurisdiction. In 

20 addition to privately owned land, some land is publicly owned. Both private and public 

21 landowners need to develop a long-term maintenance plan for their riparian buffers. This chapter 

22 provides information on recommended long-term maintenance activities and methods, as well as 

23 ways jurisdictions can use to protect existing riparian buffers. 

24 4.2 Long-term Maintenance 

25 Existing riparian buffers, including those that have been 

26 restored, require long-term maintenance to maintain

27 their desired functions, especially in terms of filtering 

28 phosphorus, Nnitrogen, and sediments from upland 

29 areas and preventing those pollutants from entering the 

30 Chesapeake Bay. Maintenance is done in several ways, 

31 as described in the following pages. 

As described in earlier sections, one 

of the most important functions of a 

riparian buffer is to protect water 

quality by filtering nonpoint source 

pollution coming from adjacent land. 

While that is an important function, 

riparian buffer managers should not 

alter riparian areas to improve their 

water quality function at the expense 

of other functions.

IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Protect from adverse effects riparian areas that are serving a 

significant [nonpoint source]-abatement function and maintain 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-36 

1 4.2.1 Watershed Evaluation 

2 On a broad scale (at the state or county level), the first step in determining long-term 

3 maintenance of riparian buffers is to determine the extent of riparian buffers in the watershed and 

4 how well they are functioning. Riparian buffers that are functioning well should be maintained 

5 and protected. Those buffers that are not functioning well might need some maintenance or 

6 might need more significant restoration (see Chapter 3). To implement proper management 

7 practices in riparian buffer areas and ensure an area is functioning properly, the capability and 

8 potential of a riparian buffer must be understood (USDI 1998). The functioning condition of 

9 riparian buffers is a result of interactions of geology, soil, water, and vegetation. Riparian buffers

10 are functioning properly when there is adequate structure present to provide the desired benefits 

11 applicable to a particular area (USDI 1998). See Chapter 2 and 3 for examples of benefits. In 

12 addition, when determining whether a riparian buffer is functioning properly, the condition of the 

13 entire watershed is important. Riparian Area Management—Process for Assessing Proper 

14 Functioning Condition (USDI 1998) provides more information on how to assess the functioning 

15 condition of riparian buffers. 

16 Some good sources of information on how to properly assess riparian buffers are the following: 

17 • Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management (USDA FS 

18 1987) 

19 • Riparian Assessment Using the NRCS Riparian Assessment Method (USDA NRCS 2004) 

20 • Development of Methodologies to Evaluate the Health of Riparian and Wetland Areas

21 (Hansen et al. 2000) 

22 Evaluate the extent, size, soils, plantings, habitat, and hydrology of existing riparian buffers, as 

23 discussed in the following paragraphs. 

24 Extent of Riparian Buffers in the Watershed 

25 Some maps already exist that show riparian 

26 buffer areas in the Chesapeake Bay. 

27 Pennsylvania State University mapped the 

28 extent and change in riparian forest buffers 

29 for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed 

30 (Day and Crew 2005) using the 1992 

31 National Land Cover Dataset and the 

32 University of Maryland’s MA-RESAC 

33 2001 data set. They found that during the 

34 1990s, the extent of riparian forest buffers 

35 increased between 18,800 to 28,500 kilometers (Claggett et al. 2010). The extent of riparian 

36 buffers can be determined using tools such as geographic information systems, remote sensing, 

37 and hydrologic modeling. Satellite images and high-resolution aerial photography can help in the 

38 evaluation of each riparian area. One example of this type of approach is a study performed by 

39 the Center for Land Use Education and Research at the University of Connecticut. For the study 

40 researchers evaluated land cover and land cover change within riparian corridors in Connecticut 

41 between 1986 and 2006 (http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/riparian_buffer2/index.htm). 

An example of a riparian area evaluation on the 

watershed scale is that of Johnson County, Indiana 

(Letsinger 2004). In that study, the author 

assessed the current status of buffers (width and 

type) in the watershed. She digitally mapped 

existing buffers on an aerial photograph base and 

used multiple field surveys to ground truth the 

remote-sensing methods. Next she used a 

numerical model to simulate hydraulic routing. She 

used the model to identify all riparian areas, 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-37 

1 The Riparian Buffer Mapper (RBMapper) software developed by GDA Corp with support from 

2 the Chesapeake Bay Program, USGS, and USDA FS is a tool that might be helpful for buffer 

3 delineation. The program outputs a land cover map of riparian buffers and a text report with land 

4 cover statistics. 

5 On-site methods might also be needed, such as performing various types of field surveys that 

6 look at geomorphology, hydrology, habitat, wildlife, soils, plant inventories, and so forth. A 

7 good approach would be to use a combination of remote and on-site methods to evaluate the 

8 streambanks in the watershed in terms of channel geometry, land use, soil types, and vegetation. 

9 The targeting matrix proposed by the Chesapeake Bay Program Forestry Workgroup and 

10 described in Section 3.3 might also be 

11 useful in helping to identify areas 

12 where riparian buffers are most likely 

13 to exist. 

14 Some sources of maps, satellite 

15 imagery, and land cover data in the 

16 Chesapeake Bay watershed include 

17 • RBMapper 

18 (http://gdacorp.web5.hubspot.c

19 om/rb-mapper/) 

20 • Chesapeake Bay Program 

21 (www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.

22 aspx?menuitem=16825) 

23 • USGS (http://www.usgs.gov/

24 pubprod/) 

25 • Mid-Atlantic Regional Earth 

26 Science Applications Center 

27 (MA-RESAC) 

28 (www.geog.umd.edu/resac/) 

29 Size of the Riparian Buffer 

30 It is important to evaluate the size 

31 (length, width) of each existing riparian 

32 buffer area to determine whether it is 

33 adequate to protect the Chesapeake Bay from nonpoint source pollution, or serve other functions 

34 such as providing wildlife habitat, stabilizing streambanks, or protecting the fish population. 

35 Typically, longer and wider buffers are better at filtering and removing pollutants and provide 

36 better wildlife and aquatic habitat, as described earlier in this document. 

37 Plantings

38 In order to manage existing areas so that they are effective long into the future, managers should 

39 determine the variations in riparian communities in a watershed and whether they are appropriate 

40 on the basis of factors such as soil type, hydrology, and land use. The species that exist in the 

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 2005. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-38 

1 riparian buffer need to be examined to determine whether they are appropriate for the desired 

2 effects of the buffer (such as wildlife and aquatic habitat) and whether they are tolerant. Native 

3 vegetation is typically better capable of withstanding local water, climate, soil, and pest 

4 conditions.

5 Riparian buffer managers should consider the following:

6 •Climate change could bring about changes in temperature and rainfall amounts that could 

7 affect vegetation’s growth and survivability and could increase the types or amount of 

8 invasive species.

9 •Keep an eye on riparian areas for plant die off and act quickly to repair any damage or 

10 replant additional vegetation.

11 •Vegetation in the riparian forest buffer should be long-living and tolerant to different types 

12 of meteorologic and hydrologic conditions.

13 •Remove certain species that are not appropriate to the area or plant new vegetation.

14 •Favor species that have strong crowns and are thinning an overgrown riparian buffer to give

15 stronger trees more room to grow (Axelson 2010).

16 •Pick botanical generalists with a wider range of habitat adaptability.

17 •Choose plants that have multiple values, such as erosion control, nesting habitat, food 

18 sources (nuts and fruit), and filtering capability.

19 More information on managing species is found in Section 4.2.3.

20 Habitat 

21 As described in Chapters 2 and 3, riparian buffers can serve as habitats to support many types of 

22 wildlife. Habitat should be evaluated to determine whether it is adequate to support the desired 

23 wildlife species, such as providing enough food and shelter. Evaluate the amount of large woody 

24 debris in the stream, which comes from the riparian buffer, and whether it is adequate to provide 

25 food and shelter for aquatic animals. Examples of both terrestrial and aquatic habitat assessments 

26 are found here: 

27 • Maryland Department of Natural Resources (http://www.dnr.md.gov/streams/pubs/

28 ea03-4phi.pdf) 

29 • Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

30 (http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/wqs/headwaters/PHWHManual_2009.pdf) 

31 • The Nature Conservancy Active River Area 

32 (http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/files/active_river_area.pdf) 

33 Hydrologic Extremes of Channel Events 

34 Riparian buffers frequently interact with the water flowing in streams. Hydrologic and 

35 geomorphic conditions help maintain many of the functional aspects of a riparian area. Such 

36 controls are important for such functions as the chemical characteristics of water, habitat 

37 maintenance, and water storage and transport. To ensure that riparian buffers maintain their 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-39 

1 functions, managers must understand existing and future hydrogeomorphic conditions and 

2 consider them when developing management plans. It is important to understand the natural flow 

3 patterns (frequency, magnitude, duration) associated with each riparian buffer, especially where 

4 flow regimes have been modified (NRC 2002). Channel incision and widening from certain land 

5 use practices can curtail overbank flows. Information on historical conditions from overbank 

6 flood events is useful to know whether healthy riparian communities are possible and whether 

7 incision and widening is reversible (NRC 2002). 

8 As mentioned earlier, climate change creates uncertainty for riparian areas in the Chesapeake 

9 Bay. In the upcoming years, plant species might experience a change in their growth rates and be 

10 exposed to higher average temperatures and changes in typical rainfall (Sprague et al. 2006). 

11 Because of that, hydrologic regimes are likely to change. Streams might experience more 

12 frequent effects of severe floods, droughts, and hurricanes. The risk of hydrologic extremes 

13 should be determined for different areas of the watershed. Assess how the stream channel will 

14 function ecologically under extreme low-flow or high-flow conditions, This is especially 

15 important for the survival and movement of aquatic species.Areas that have a similar threat 

16 should be evaluated to see if they are being managed consistently. It is important to inspect the 

17 condition of a riparian buffer after a significant metrological or hydrological event occurs to 

18 determine if any maintenance is needed. 

19 Some sources of information on hydrology include the following: 

20 • Stream flow data—USGS 

21 • Wetlands maps of hydric soils and principals of geomorphic evolution—Rosgen, Simon 

22 and Hupp models 

23 4.2.2 Land Use 

24 Land use directly affects the characteristics of runoff through a riparian buffer. Effectiveness will 

25 depend on the conditions of the upland land cover where the runoff originates (i.e., urban, 

26 suburban, pervious, impervious, agricultural, tilled, no till) (NRC, 2002). Therefore, practices in 

27 these upland land uses that contribute to riparian degradation must be addressed if riparian areas 

28 are to be improved. 

29 Agriculture runoff (high in nutrients, bacteria, and TSS) will be different from urban runoff (high 

30 in nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons, temperature, oxygen-demanding substances, 

31 and trash and debris) (USEPA 1996). Forested land has unique factors that managers should 

32 consider in terms of maintaining and protecting existing riparian areas. For example, timber 

33 harvesting must be managed so it does not increase water and sediment yields and lead to stream 

34 channel destabilization and loss of aquatic habitat. The forest landowner should also not decrease 

35 woody, in-stream cover. Doing so could destabilize streambanks, reduce shading, increase water 

36 temperatures, reduce inputs of fine litter to the waterbody, and reduce the diversity of plants and 

37 animals in the area. From a landscape perspective, managing a greater proportion of the riparian 

38 area for uneven-aged, mixed stands of longer-lived species suitable to the site can help protect 

39 riparian functions and values. The agriculture, forestry, and urban chapters of this document 

40 provide detailed information on managing different land uses to prevent and reduce nonpoint 

41 source pollution from entering the Chesapeake Bay. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-40 

1 4.2.3 Managing PlantsSpecies

2 The species planted in riparian buffers need to be maintained so that the areas retain their desired 

3 functions. Consider the planting, harvesting, pruning, and nurturing protocols required to protect 

4 the riparian species from degradation. You might need to deal with new plants, invasive species 

5 control, wildlife damage issues, and disease issues. A landowner can contact the local NRCS 

6 office or a nursery for assistance. 

7 Plantings

8 To manage existing areas so that they are effective long into the future, managers should 

9 determine the variations in riparian communities in a watershed and whether they are appropriate 

10 on the basis of factors such as soil type, hydrology, and land use. The species that exist in the 

11 riparian buffer need to be examined to determine whether they are appropriate for the desired 

12 effects of the buffer (such as wildlife and aquatic habitat) and whether they are tolerant. Native 

13 vegetation is typically better capable of withstanding local water, climate, soil, and pest 

14 conditions.

15 Riparian buffer managers should consider the following:

16 • Climate change could bring about changes in temperature and rainfall amounts that could 

17 affect vegetation’s growth and survivability and could increase the types or amount of 

18 invasive species.

19 • Keep an eye on riparian areas for plant die off and act quickly to repair any damage or 

20 replant additional vegetation.

21 • Vegetation in the riparian forest buffer should be long-living and tolerant to different 

22 types of meteorologic and hydrologic conditions.

23 • Remove certain species that are not appropriate to the area or plant new vegetation.

24 • Favor species that have strong crowns and are thinning an overgrown riparian buffer to 

25 give stronger trees more room to grow (Axelson 2010).

26 • Pick botanical generalists with a wider range of habitat adaptability.

27 • Choose plants that have multiple values, such as erosion control, nesting habitat, food 

28 sources (nuts and fruit), and filtering capability.

29 Weed Control 

30 Riparian buffers should be managed over the long-term to ensure that native vegetation is being 

31 established/ maintained along the waterways. As mentioned in Chapter 3, weeds and invasive 

32 species can overtake a riparian area, causing damage to other species by competing for resources. 

33 Techniques to remove weeds, such as mowing, and hand clearing, are important to consider 

34 using for long-term maintenance of a riparian buffer. For details on those techniques, see 

35 Chapter 3. 

36 Some good resources for identifying weeds and invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay are 

37 • USDA NRCS (http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver) 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-41 

1 • Native plant societies 

2 • Virginia (www.vnps.org/) 

3 • Maryland (www.mdflora.org/) 

4 • District of Columbia (www.botsoc.org/) 

5 • Pennsylvania (www.pawildflower.org/) 

6 Preventative management, however, is the best method of weed control. This includes things like 

7 not disposing of plant clippings in riparian areas, not planting invasive species nearby, and 

8 removing problem plants as soon as they are spotted. 

9 Note: When considering weed removal, when mechanized clearing is employed in an aquatic 

10 area, a permit may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Clean Water 

11 Act section 404. 

12 Pruning, Harvesting, and Nurturing 

13 In an existing riparian forest buffer, riparian buffer managers should maintain the diversity of 

14 species and a multistoried structure to provide valuable food and habitat for wildlife. It is good 

15 protocol to check the conditions of any plants in the buffer periodically, especially after 

16 significant storm events, and consider planting additional species if needed to maintain the 

17 buffer’s integrity. Check the area for damaged, diseased, or dying trees and shrubs that might 

18 need to be pruned or removed and replaced (contact NRCS, a cooperative extension, or local 

19 nursery for assistance). Check for fallen or leaning trees that might need to be removed (although 

20 fallen trees might provide valuable habitat). 

21 Check during drought conditions, and water plants if necessary. Some trees might need to be 

22 harvested to remove nutrients and chemicals stored in their stems (Schultz et al. 1997) and to 

23 allow stronger trees to grow. However, managers must take care not to overharvest because that 

24 could be disruptive to the existing plant and animal communities and could lead to increased 

25 streambank erosion (USEPA 2005). 

26 Below are sources of additional information on pruning, harvesting, and nurturing protocols. 

27 • USDA FSA (http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver) 

28 • Maryland DNR Forest Service (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Forests/) 

29 • Virginia Forest Service (http://www.vaforestservice.com/Forest_Management.aspx) 

30 • Pennsylvania DNR (http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/trees.html) 

31 • Weeds Gone Wild (http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/) 

32 If the riparian forest buffer is part of an ongoing forestry operation, some limited harvest in 

33 accordance with BMPs for water quality (and associated guidelines for streamside management 

34 zones) may be allowed in the buffer, but workers should minimize land disturbance. Burning and 

35 pesticide and fertilizer use might also be restricted. For more information, see the section on 

36 forestry. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-42 

1 Agricultural land that has forested riparian buffers should be addressed using these same 

2 principles for selective harvest and could be subsequently reforested or used for other 

3 agricultural pursuits. For more information, see the chapter on agriculture. 

4 Fencing 

5 Fencing, in some cases, can be an effective means of protecting riparian vegetation. Fences can 

6 be used to keep out or control livestock movement and grazing and to direct human activities 

7 into other areas. Fences serve to delineate land uses and prevent human activity from 

8 encroaching on the riparian zone. Many different fencing options exist, and it is important to 

9 identify the specific management requirements so that the location and design of fencing and 

10 gates, is appropriate and effective. Fencing needs to be inspected regularly for damage caused by 

11 weather, wildlife, or vandalism, and repaired if needed. Additional information on livestock 

12 exclusion fencing is in the Agriculture chapter.

13 Erosion and Sediment Control 

14 Riparian buffers should be inspected annually and after significant rainfall events for signs of 

15 erosion. Bare areas should be replanted, and additional soil might need to be added. In addition, 

16 over time or after a significant rainfall event, sediment that is trapped in the riparian can build up

17 and bury groundcover. Sediment can also build up at the edge of a buffer and block water flow. 

18 In those cases, the sediment should be removed, and some vegetation might need to be replanted. 

19 If it becomes an ongoing problem, the adjacent area might need better management practices 

20 installed. 

21 4.3 Protection 

22 Local government commitments are important to prevent or require mitigation for clearing 

23 riparian forests during development, stormwater management, or transportation system 

24 construction. Permitting, licensing, certification, and nonregulatory approaches should be used 

25 where appropriate to protect riparian areas. Local governments should warn landowners of the 

26 potential Clean Water Act section 404 permit implications of modifying a riparian area. 

27 Federal, state, nonprofit, and private programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory, exist to 

28 protect riparian functions. Creating ordinances and zoning to protect existing riparian areas is 

29 likely to be less expensive than establishing new areas or restoring degraded ones (Mayer et al. 

30 2005). It haswas been recommended by a federal interagency report that states should “Limit or 

31 eliminate development within riparian areas, using a similar approach such as Maryland’s 

32 Critical Areas legislation and Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act” and “create 

33 incentives to ensure that restored buffers remain intact” (Greiner and Vogt 2009). 

34 4.3.1 Acquisition 

35 The vast majority of land within the Chesapeake Bay watershed is held by private landowners. 

36 However, a government agency, nonprofit organization, or private citizen can purchase land 

37 where riparian areas exist as a means of protecting them from future degradation. Millions of 

38 acres of habitat in the 64,000-square-mile Chesapeake watershed are already protected by 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-43 

1 federal, state, and local government programs and private organizations such as The Nature 

2 Conservancy, The Natural Lands Trust, and other land trusts (Greiner and Vogt 2009). 

3 Fee Simple Acquisition 

4 A local government or conservation group can do a fee simple acquisition, which gives it the full 

5 ownership of riparian land and provides the greatest amount of control over the use and 

6 maintenance of a property. This type of ownership is most desirable if the resources on the land 

7 are highly sensitive, and protection of the resources cannot be reasonably guaranteed using other 

8 approaches for conservation. 

9 Conservation Easement 

10 An alternative to buying riparian land is to purchase the property owner’s right to use that 

11 riparian land for specific purposes by purchasing a conservation easement. A conservation 

12 easement is a written legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or a local 

13 government that permanently restricts some landowner rights to the use of a property to protect 

14 its conservation value. 

15 Some easement transactions offer tax benefits. A landowner who donates an easement or sells it 

16 for less than fair market value (for example, to a land trust) could be entitled to a federal income 

17 tax deduction. Such land must be used exclusively for conservation purposes. Another option is 

18 donation or a bargain sale of an easement by a landowner to a land trust. The easement is legally 

19 transferred but at no cost or at below-market value to the easement holder. That allows the 

20 landowner to qualify for a tax-deductible charitable donation. 

21 4.3.2 Zoning and Protective Ordinances 

22 A state often looks to local governments to administer the regulations or incentives necessary to 

23 encourage private landowners to protect riparian areas. Often, local governments used land use 

24 ordinances for that purpose. Land use ordinances define land use restrictions and plans. Zoning is 

25 one of the most common types of land use ordinances. Zoning that protects riparian buffers 

26 might be part of an existing natural resource protection ordinance, stormwater ordinance or 

27 floodplain ordinance in a state. Managers should review such regulations for their adequacy in 

28 protecting riparian areas. An overlay zoning ordinance pertaining to riparian buffer protection is 

29 appropriate in a municipality that already has a zoning ordinance in place. For a municipality that 

30 does not have zoning ordinances in place, a separate, freestanding ordinance might be necessary 

31 to protect riparian buffers. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-44 

1 A stream buffer ordinance can be used to establish minimal acceptable requirements for buffer 

2 design to protect streams and waterbodies in and around the Chesapeake Bay and to provide for 

3 the environmentally sound use of the jurisdiction’s land resources. To see examples of 

4 ordinances that can be used to protect natural resources, see www.stormwatercenter.net. The 

5 stream buffer ordinance is an 

6 example of a model ordinance 

7 that can be used to guide future 

8 growth while safeguarding 

9 local natural resources. The 

10 intent is to provide language 

11 and ideas which communities 

12 and stormwater managers can 

13 incorporate when constructing 

14 an ordinance for their area. By 

15 examining the example 

16 provided, community decision 

17 makers should find the 

18 language to craft an ordinance 

19 that is appropriate for their 

20 conditions. A strong buffer 

21 ordinance is one step in 

22 preserving stream buffers. 

23 Another example of a riparian 

24 buffer ordinance is the 

25 Riparian Buffer Conservation Zone Model Ordinance, which was prepared in 2005 by the 

26 Passaic River Coalition and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 

27 Watershed Management, at http://www.marsh28 friends.org/marsh/pdf/ordinance/StreamBufferOrdinance.pdf. 

29 

The Stormwater Center (http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ModelOrdinances/

buffer_model_ordinance.htm) includes a template and sample ordinances, including one from 

Baltimore County, Maryland. Some of the major sections of a stream buffer ordinance are 

• The intent of the ordinance 

• Examples of what type of land buffers are applied to (i.e., forest, agriculture) 

• Plan requirements (i.e., maps, surveyed streams and forest buffers, limits of a 100-year 

floodplain, mapped hydric soils, slopes measures, summary of species of vegetation) 

• Design standards for forest buffer (i.e., width, slope) 

• Management and maintenance of buffers (i.e., limitations on alteration of natural conditions, 

maintenance of roads, bridges, paths, utilities, stormwater management) 

• Enforcement procedures (i.e., checking for violations, civil or criminal penalties) 

• Waivers/Variance (i.e., ordinance applies to all development after effective date) 

• Conflict with other regulations (i.e., more restrictive regulation will apply) 

An example of a nonprofit agency that obtained a conservation 

easement in the Chesapeake Bay is the Conservation Fund 

(http://www.conservationfund.org/chesapeake_bay_initiative). 

The Conservation Fund launched an ambitious program that 

seeks to protect 100,000 acres of high-priority land and water 

within the watershed by 2010. Three miles of historic Chester 

River shoreline, 600 acres of unique Delmarva Bays, a 90-acre 

waterfowl sanctuary, and important habitat for bald eagle and 

endangered fox squirrel are now preserved forever under the 

5,200-acre Chino Farms conservation easement—the largest 

in Maryland’s history. The fund, collaborating with the 

landowner, Maryland DNR, Queen Anne County, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, ensured the protection of more than 8 

square miles of critical riparian habitat and wetlands. This 

easement keeps Chino Farms in agricultural production while 

conserving valuable natural resources in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. 

An example of a nonprofit agency that obtained a conservation 

easement in the Chesapeake Bay is the Conservation Fund 

(http://www.conservationfund.org/chesapeake_bay_initiative). 

The Conservation Fund launched an ambitious program that 

seeks to protect 100,000 acres of high-priority land and water 

within the watershed by 2010. Three miles of historic Chester 

River shoreline, 600 acres of unique Delmarva Bays, a 90-acre 

waterfowl sanctuary, and important habitat for bald eagle and 

endangered fox squirrel are now preserved forever under the 

5,200-acre Chino Farms conservation easement—the largest 

in Maryland’s history. The fund, collaborating with the 

landowner, Maryland DNR, Queen Anne County, and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, ensured the protection of more than 8 

square miles of critical riparian habitat and wetlands. This 

easement keeps Chino Farms in agricultural production while 

conserving valuable natural resources in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-45 

1 In some cases, through the municipal planning code, municipalities can take a regulatory or 

2 incentive-based approach to protect riparian areas in new developments. The degree of riparian 

3 area protection is likely to vary with the approach. Best results occur when a municipality 

4 identifies riparian areas to protect early in the planning stage of a new development. Intervention 

5 during early planning stages often promotes goodwill efforts from the developer. Amenities such 

6 as greenways or trails along stream corridors that result from municipal intervention can benefit 

7 the developer and protect the water resource because such green spaces can enhance the 

8 desirability of property in a new development. 

9 Developers can be awarded increased building densities for developments that conserve natural 

10 areas, such as riparian corridors. Conversely, municipalities can employ density penalties to 

11 encourage conservation of natural areas. A jurisdiction could establish a minimum and maximum 

12 density and permit the higher density to a developer that plans for natural areas and open space 

13 techniques while lowering the allowable density for developments that do not incorporate 

14 preservation of natural areas. 

15 

16 In some states, like Pennsylvania, a riparian buffer can be used as a stormwater credit, which is a 

17 technique that developers can use to reduce their stormwater management costs (Alliance for the 

18 Chesapeake Bay 2004). A stormwater credit for a stream buffer would be given when runoff 

19 from upland areas is treated by a grass or wooded buffer. Such techniques reduce runoff 

20 volumes, which helps to avoid the construction of costly stormwater management facilities. 

21 4.3.3 Water Quality Standards 

22 A state can use its water quality standards to protect existing riparian areas. For example, North 

23 Carolina has the Sediment Pollution Control Act, under which it declares that for forestry 

24 operations, a streamside management zone (SMZ) (i.e., buffer) must be established and 

25 maintained along the margins of intermittent and perennial streams and perennial waterbodies. 

The Stormwater Center (http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ModelOrdinances/

buffer_model_ordinance.htm) includes a template and sample ordinances, including one from 

Baltimore County, Maryland. Some of the major sections of a stream buffer ordinance are 

• The intent of the ordinance 

• Examples of what type of land buffers are applied to (i.e., forest, agriculture) 

• Plan requirements (i.e., maps, surveyed streams and forest buffers, limits of a 100-year 

floodplain, mapped hydric soils, slopes measures, summary of species of vegetation) 

• Design standards for forest buffer (i.e., width, slope) 

• Management and maintenance of buffers (i.e., limitations on alteration of natural conditions, 

maintenance of roads, bridges, paths, utilities, stormwater management) 

• Enforcement procedures (i.e., checking for violations, civil or criminal penalties) 

• Waivers/Variance (i.e., ordinance applies to all development after effective date) 

• Conflict with other regulations (i.e., more restrictive regulation will apply) 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-46 

1 The SMZ must be of sufficient width to confine within the SMZ visible sediment resulting from 

2 accelerated erosion (NCDENR 1999). 

3 In Maryland’s water quality standards, it is the policy that riparian forest buffers adjacent to 

4 certain waters must be retained when possible to maintain water temperature to protect salmonid 

5 fish. Maryland and Virginia have water quality standards that allow certain waters to be listed as 

6 exceptional state waters, which receive certain protections from antidegradation. In such cases, 

7 landowners of riparian areas are notified (MDE 2009; VDEQ 2009). 

8 4.3.4 Regulation and Enforcement 

9 Individual local governments create and adopt development regulations to help retain riparian 

10 forest buffers in urbanizing areas. In Virginia, many local buffer ordinances (Section 4.3.2) were 

11 developed as part of implementing the Chesapeake Bay Act (VDCR 2010). In Maryland, an 

12 evaluation of the Maryland Critical Area Program found a lower rate of loss of resource lands 

13 (Hillyer 2003). Also in Maryland, the Forest Conservation Act requires conservation of forests 

14 and mitigation of forest loss within a hierarchy that recommends that riparian forests be the 

15 highest priority for protection (MDNR FS 1991). 

16 4.3.5 Education and Training 

17 Activities that encroach on buffers are 

18 often not done purposefully but are 

19 done because of ignorance. Education 

20 and outreach are important tools for 

21 promoting an understanding of the 

22 importance of riparian areas in 

23 maintaining water quality and 

24 protecting habitat and other valuable 

25 functions that they perform (USEPA 

26 2005). Communities should work to 

27 make buffers more visible to the 

28 public and publicize the buffer’s 

29 purpose and value to adjacent property 

30 owners. That can be accomplished in 

31 many ways, as recommended by EPA 

32 and the Center for Watershed 

33 Protection, including 

34 • Marking buffer boundaries with permanent signs that describe allowable uses 

35 • Educating property owners about buffer benefits and uses via newsletters, pamphlets, 

36 meetings, and such and encourage a stewardship ethic 

37 • Teaching courses in restoration techniques for landowners 

38 • Ensuring that when property is sold, the new owners receive information about allowable 

39 uses and limits of the buffer 

Baltimore County Public Schools have an annual Forest 

Buffer Restoration Project and Forest Buffer 

Maintenance Project where every high school in 

Baltimore is invited to participate. In the spring of 2008, 

almost 900 high school students from 18 Baltimore 

County Schools took part in the restoration effort and 

planted over 700 native trees and shrubs in conjunction 

with the Chesapeake Bay Trust, Baltimore County 

Forestry Board, and Baltimore County Department of 

Recreation and Parks and either take place on school 

land or at another designated location (does not give 

specifics). During the Forest Buffer Maintenance Project 

students will map the planting areas to show where the 

trees and shrubs were planted, complete a 

survival/mortality count, and perform maintenance on the 

plantings such as pruning and staking. These activities 

are taught in the Forestry Unit of the High School 

Environmental Science Curriculum. Outdoor Science has 

two maintenance kits with equipment and instructions 

that can be used to perform the necessary tasks. 

Baltimore County Public Schools have an annual Forest 

Buffer Restoration Project and Forest Buffer 

Maintenance Project where every high school in 

Baltimore is invited to participate. In the spring of 2008, 

almost 900 high school students from 18 Baltimore 

County Schools took part in the restoration effort and 

planted over 700 native trees and shrubs in conjunction 

with the Chesapeake Bay Trust, Baltimore County 

Forestry Board, and Baltimore County Department of 

Recreation and Parks and either take place on school 

land or at another designated location (does not give 

specifics). During the Forest Buffer Maintenance Project 

students will map the planting areas to show where the 

trees and shrubs were planted, complete a 

survival/mortality count, and perform maintenance on the 

plantings such as pruning and staking. These activities 

are taught in the Forestry Unit of the High School 

Environmental Science Curriculum. Outdoor Science has 

two maintenance kits with equipment and instructions 

that can be used to perform the necessary tasks. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-47 

1 • Conducting annual buffer walks to assess buffer health and check for encroachment 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-48 

1 5 References 

2 Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1996. Riparian Forest Buffers. Public Policy Program White 

3 paper, January 1996. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Annapolis, MD.

4 Axelson, G. 2010. Trees Fit for the Future. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer. January-February 

5 2010. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN.

6 Baird A., and D. Wetmore. 2003. Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Guidance 

7 Manual. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 

8 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2005. <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=16825>. 

9 Accessed February 2010.

10 Claggett, P.R., J.A. Okay, and S.V. Stehman. 2010. Monitoring Regional Riparian Forest Cover 

11 Change: The Necessity of a Priori Knowledge on the Locations of Change. To be published 

12 in JAWRA, April 2010. 

13 CWA PA (Clean Water Action Pennsylvania (CWA PA). 2009. Buffers 100: Taking a Positive 

14 Trend Statewide. Clean Water Action Pennsylvania,CWA PA. Philadelphia, PA. 

15 Craig, L. S., M. A. Palmer, D. C. Richardson, S. Filoso, E. S. Bernhardt, B. P. Bledsoe, M. W. 

16 Doyle, P. M. Groffman, B. A. Hassett, S. S. Kaushal, P. M. Mayer, S. M. Smith, and P. R. 

17 Wilcock, 2008. Stream Restoration Strategies for Reducing River Nitrogen Loads. 

18 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(10):529–-538 

19 Curkendall, J.,ennifer and S.ally Clagget. 2004. Riparian Forest Buffer Technical Support 

20 Document. U.S. United States Forest Service, Chesapeake Bay Program. March 2004.

21 Day, R.L., and R.C. Crew. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest and Wetland Buffer 

22 Inventory: Final Report. Pennsylvania State University, Land Analysis Laboratory. 

23 FISRWG (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group). 1998. Stream Corridor 

24 Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 

25 Working Group. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN-0-

26 934213-59-3. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.

27 Gold, A.J., and P.M. Groffman. 1995. Groundwater nitrate removal in riparian buffer 

28 zones.Groundwater Nitrate Removal in Riparian Buffer Zones. Pages 63-65. In Clean 

29 Water, Clean Environment - 21st Century. Volume II: Nutrients. Proceedings of a 

30 conference March 5-8, 1995. Kansas City, MO.Mo. American Society of Agricultural 

31 Engineers, St. Joseph, MIMich. 254 pages. 

32 Hillyer, S.aunders C. 2003. An Evaluation of the Maryland Critical Area Program Effects on 

33 Conservation of Resource Lands and Patterns of Development. The Abell Foundation, 

34 Baltimore, MDMaryland. December 2003. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-49 

1 Klapproth, J.C., and J.E. Johnson. 2009. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest 

2 Buffers: Benefits to Communities and Landowners. Virginia Cooperative Extension, 

3 Blacksburg, VA. 

4 Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W.H. 

5 Freeman and Company,: San Francisco, CA. 

6 Letsinger, S.L. 2004. Evaluation of Riparian Buffer Zones using GIS and Remote Sensing to 

7 Target Watershed Restoration Efforts. Indiana University. 

8 <http://igs.indiana.edu/Survey/projects/riparianBuffers/index.cfm>. Accessed January, 

9 2010. 

10 Mayer, P., S.K. Reynolds, Jr., and T.J. Canfield. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, 

11 and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. 

12 EPA/600/R-05/118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

13 MD CAC (Maryland Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bay). 

14 2010. Preserving Our Precious Natural Resources. 

15 <http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/preserving.html>. Accessed February 2010. 

16 MDNR FS (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service). 1991. The Maryland 

17 Forest Conservation Act (Natural Resources Article, Section 5-1601 through 5-1613. 

18 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest Service, Annapolis, MD. 

19 MDNR FS (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Forest Service). 2005. Riparian Forest 

20 Buffer Design and Maintenance. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest 

21 Service, Annapolis, MD. 

22 MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2009. Maryland Water Quality Standards. 

23 Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.08.02. Maryland Department of the 

24 Environment, Baltimore, MD.

25 NRC (National Research Council).), 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for 

26 Management. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

27 NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 1999. 

28 Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA), as amended through 1999. North 

29 Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4. North Carolina Division of Land 

30 Resources, Raleigh, NC.

31 Netusil, N. 2006. Economic Valuation of riparian corridors and upland wildlife habitat in an 

32 urban watershed.Economic Valuation of Riparian Corridors and Upland Wildlife Habitat in 

33 an Urban Watershed. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education. 134:39-45.

34 Okay, J.A. 2007. Appropriate Riparian Forest Buffer Widths and Functions for Chesapeake Bay 

35 Program Tracking. jokay@chesapeakebay.net. Forestry Work Group (FWG) Document 

36 41307. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-50 

1 Palone, R.S., and A.H. Todd, eds. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for 

2 Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. NA-TP-02-97. U.S. Department of 

3 Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, PA.

4 Patterson , R.W., and. & K. J. Boyle. 2005. Costs & Benefits of Riparian Forest Management: A 

5 Literature Review. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. Paul, MN. 

6 Qiu, Zeyuan, T.ony Prato, and G.erry Boehm., 2006. Economic valuation of riparian buffer and 

7 open space in a suburban watershed. Economic Valuation of Riparian Buffer and Open 

8 Space in a Suburban Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association

9 (JAWRA) 42(6):1583-1596. 

10 Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection. 

11 Silver Spring, MD. 

12 Schultz, R.C., P.H. Wray, J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, C.A. Rodrigues, and A. Kuehl. 1997. 

13 Stewards of our Streams: Buffer Strip Design, Establishment, and Maintenance. Iowa State 

14 University, Department of Forestry, Ames, IA. 

15 Simpson, T.W., and S.E. Weammert. 2009. Riparian Forest Buffer Practice (Agriculture) and 

16 Riparian Grass Buffer Practice: Definition and Nutrient and Sediment Reduction 

17 Efficiencies for use in Calibration of the Phase 5.0 of the Chesapeake Bay Program 

18 Watershed Model. University of Maryland, Mid-Atlantic Water Program, College Park, 

19 MDCity, ST. 

20 Schumm, S.A. 1977. The Fuvial System. John Wiley and Sons,. New York, NY. 

21 Speiran, G.K., P.A. Hamilton, P.A., and M.D. Woodside., M.D., 1998, Natural Processes for 

22 Managing Nitrate in Ground water Discharged to Chesapeake Bay and Other Surface 

23 Waters—More than Forested Buffers. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 178-97. U.S. 

24 Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

25 Sprague, E., D. Burke, S. Claggett, and A. Todd. 2006. The State of Chesapeake Forests. The 

26 Conservation Fund,. Arlington, VA. 

27 Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical 

28 Union Transactions 38: 913–-920. 

29 Sweeney, B.W. 1992. Streamside forests and the physical, chemical, and trophic characterisitics 

30 of piedmont streams in eastern North America. Water Science and Technology 26:2653–-

31 2673. 

32 Sweeney, B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate 

33 communitiesStreamside Vegetation on Macroinvertebrate Communities of White Clay 

34 Creek in Eastern North America. In Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 

35 Philadelphia 144: 291–340. 

36 Sweeney, B.W. 2002. Streamside forestsForests and the physical, chemicalPhysical, Chemical, 

37 and trophic characteristicsTrophic Characteristics of Piedmont Streams in Eastern North 

38 America. Water Science and Technology 26: 2653–-2673. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-51 

1 Sweeney, B.W. and Blaine, J.G 2007. Resurrecting the inIn-stream sideSide of riparian 

2 forests.Riparian Forests. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 136:17–

3 -27. 

4 Sweeney, B.W., S.J. Czapka, and L.C.A. Petrow. 2007. How Planting Method, Weed 

5 Abatement, and Herbivory Affect Afforestation Success. South. J. Appl. For. 31(2) 2007. 

6 Sweeney, B.W., S.J. Czapka, and T. Yerkes. 2002. Riparian Forest Restoration: Increasing 

7 Success by Reducing Plant Competition and Herbivory. Restor. Ecol. 10(2):392– 400. 

8 Sweeney, B.W., T.L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, L.J. Standley, W.C. 

9 Hesslon, and R.J. Horwitz. 2004. Riparian Deforestation, Stream Narrowing, and Loss of 

10 Stream Ecosystem Services. PNAS 101(39) 2004. 

11 Tjaden, R.L., and G.M. Weber. 1998a. Riparian Buffer Management: An Introduction to the 

12 Riparian Forest Buffer. Fact Sheet 724. Maryland Cooperative Extension, University of 

13 Maryland, College Park, MD. 

14 Todd, Albert. 2002. Nutrient Load Removal Efficiencies for Riparian Buffers and Wetland 

15 Restoration. U.S. Department of AgricultureSDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State 

16 and Private Forestry, Annapolis, MD, on behalf of the Forestry Work Group. 

17 USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for 

18 Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. Technical Reference 1737-9. U.S. Department of 

19 the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO. 

20 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide 

21 to Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-843-B-96-001. U.S. Environmental 

22 Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

23 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to 

24 Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source 

25 Pollution. EPA 841-B-05-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

26 Washington, DC. 

27 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Wadeable streams assessment: A 

28 collaborative survey of the nation’s streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

29 publication EPA 841-B-06-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

30 Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river 

31 continuum concept.The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

32 Aquatic Sciences 37: 130–- 137. 

33 VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality). 2009. 9 VAC 25-260 Virginia Water 

34 Quality Standards with Amendments Effective August 20, 2009. Statutory Authority § 62.1-

35 44.15 3a of the Code of Virginia. Virginia State Water Control Board. 

36 VDCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). 2010. A Virginia Priority...A 

37 Local Option. <http://dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/ordinanc.shtml>. Accessed February 

38 2010. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-52 

1 Vought, LB. MJ Dahl, CL Pedersen and JO Lacoursiere. 1994. Nutrient Retention in Riparian 

2 Ecotones. Ambio 23 (6): 343–-348. 

3 Welsch, David. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers—Function and Design for Protection and 

4 Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-07-91. U.S.nited States Department of 

5 Agriculture Forest Service,. Radnor, PA. 

6 Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their Forest: A Historical Geography. Cambridge University 

7 Press, Cambridge, UK.