3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-1



## Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 1

5. 

### Contents 2 1 Introduction.....................................

......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3 1.1 Why Riparian Buffers? ..........................

......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4 1.2 Who is This Document For?......................

..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5 1.3 What Does this Document Cover?.................

................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 6 2 Background.......................................

....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7 2.1 Definition of Riparian Areas...................

........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 8 2.1.1 Organization of this Section.................

.................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 9 2.2 Benefits of Natural Riparian Areas.............

.................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 10 2.2.1 Regulating the Movement of Water to the Strea m Error! Bookmark not defined. 11 2.2.2 Filtering Sediment Pollution.................

................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 12 2.2.3 Filtering Nutrient Pollution.................

................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 13 2.2.4 Maintaining Aquatic Habitat..................

................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 14 2.2.5 Aesthetic Value..............................

........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 15 2.3 Riparian Area from the Longitudinal Perspective

.......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 16 2.3.1 Longitudinal Zones and Stream Order..........

......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 17 2.3.2 Longitudinal View of Ecological Functions and Processes Error! Bookmark not defined. 18 2.4 Planning and Management Implications...........

.............. Error! Bookmark not defined. 19 2.4.1 Importance of Lower Order Streams ............

......... Error! Bookmark not defined. 20 2.4.2 Increased Focus on the Buffer/Stream Interfac e.... Error! Bookmark not defined. 21 3 Restoring and Reestablishing Riparian Forest Buff ers............ Error! Bookmark not defined. 22 3.1 Introduction...................................

.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 23 3.1.1 Organization of this Chapter.................

................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 24 3.2 Analyzing Existing Conditions and Identifying P otential Problems Error! Bookmark not defined. 25 3.2.1 Hydrology ....................................

.......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 26 3.2.2 Soils........................................

................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 27 3.2.3 Riparian Vegetation ..........................

..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 28 3.2.4 Special Characteristics and Potential Problem s Associated with a Previous 29 Land Use ...........................................

..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 30 3.3 Buffer Width and Connectivity..................

..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 313/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-2 3.4 Establishing Riparian Vegetation ...............

.................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1 3.4.1 Natural Regeneration .........................

.................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2 3.4.2 Planting Trees ...............................

......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3 3.4.3 Protecting Seedlings.........................

...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4 3.4.4 Reinforcement Planting .......................

.................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 5 3.5 Cost ...........................................

...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 6 3.6 Sources of Funding .............................

............................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 7 3.6.1 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) ...........

....... Error! Bookmark not defined. 8 3.6.2 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) Error! Bookmark not defined. 9 3.6.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQI P) Error! Bookmark not defined. 10 3.6.4 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) ...

.... Error! Bookmark not defined. 11 3.6.5 Conservation Security Program (CSP) ..........

........ Error! Bookmark not defined. 12 3.6.6 Virginia’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP).

... Error! Bookmark not defined. 13 3.6.7 Maryland’s Buffer Incentive Program (BIP) ....

..... Error! Bookmark not defined. 14 4 Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas .....

.................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 15 4.1 Background.....................................

................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 16 4.2 Long-term Maintenance..........................

........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 17 4.2.1 Watershed Evaluation .........................

................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 18 4.2.2 Land Use .....................................

........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 19 4.2.3 Managing Plants.............................................

............................................... Species Error! Bookmark not defined. 20 4.3 Protection .....................................

................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 21 4.3.1 Acquisition..................................

........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 22 4.3.2 Zoning and Protective Ordinances.............

............ Error! Bookmark not defined. 23 4.3.3 Water Quality Standards......................

.................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 24 4.3.4 Regulation and Enforcement...................

............... Error! Bookmark not defined. 25 4.3.5 Education and Training.......................

................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 26 5 References.......................................

......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 27
283/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-3 

## 1 Introduction 1 

### 1.1 Why Riparian Buffers? 2 A riparian area is defined as 3 A vegetated ecosystem along a waterbody through whi ch energy, materials, and 4 water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are 5 subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent waterbody. These 6 systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combin ation of those two 7 landforms. They will sometimes, but not in all case s, have all the characteristics 8 necessary for them to be also classified as wetland s (USEPA 2005). 9 In other words, riparian areas are the areas betwee n 10 uplands and adjacent waterbodies that encompass the 11 floodplain and a portion of the adjacent upslope ar ea from 12 a waterbody (Tjaden and Weber 1998). They act as na tural 13 filters of nonpoint source pollutants, including se diment, 14 nutrients, pathogens, and metals, to waterbodies su ch as 15 rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The ter m 16 riparian buffer

is used to distinguish a specific area to be 17 managed within a riparian area or, in some cases, i t might 18 include the entire area. Riparian buffers can signi ficantly 19 aid in reducing pollution contributions to the Ches apeake 20 Bay, including nitrogen (N) , phosphorus (P) , and 21 sediments. They also contribute to the protection o f 22 streams and streambanks and provide habitat for a 23 multitude of species. For those reasons, EPA consid ers the 24 protection and restoration of riparian buffers to b e a critical 25 element of the Chesapeake Bay Program. 26 Riparian Buffer Goal for F orthe Chesapeake Bay: Forest buffers should exist on 27 at least 70 percent of all shorelines and streamban ks in the watershed (Curkendall 28 and Clagget 2004). 29 Riparian forested buffers in particular have long b een recognized as a vital part of the 30 Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. In 2003, the Chesapeake E xecutive Council adopted the above 31 riparian buffer goal for the Bay. EPA reiterates th is goal in this guidance. 32 Approximately 60 percent of the bay’s riparian area s are forested. To reach the long-term goal of 33 70 percent coverage in the entire watershed, the Ch esapeake Bay Program and its partners will 34 need to restore at least 30,000 miles of riparian b uffers and conserve all riparian areas that are 35 forested. The following two implementation measures for riparian buffers are intended to enable 36 the 70 percent goal to be met. 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-4 Implementation Measures for ForRiparian Buffers 1
1. Promote the restoration of the preexisting function s in damaged and destroyed riparian 2 systems, especially in areas where the systems will serve a significant [ nonpoint source ] 3 pollution-abatement function as well as the suite o f valuable ecosystems services riparian 4 buffers provide. 5 2. Protect from adverse effects riparian areas that ar e serving a significant [ nonpoint source ] 6 pollution-abatement function and maintain this func tion while protecting the other 7 existing functions of these riparian areas. 8 As explained above, those these two measures are intended to enable the Chesapeake Bay to meet 9 the 70 percent goal that was established by the Che sapeake Executive Council in 2003. 10
The These measures are in line with past EPA guidance, as we ll those made in the National 11 Research Council report Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Manage ment in 2002 12 (NRC 2002)

. 13



### 1.2 Who is This Document For? 14 This chapter of this guidance is written for a broa d audience and should be useful for those 15 involved in watershed planning, including conservat ion districts, local municipalities and land 16 use managers, TMDL developers, conservation trusts, and natural resource contracts specialists. 17



### 1.3 What Does this Document Cover? 18 This chapter has three main sections. 19

• Section 2 describes the benefits of buffers, includ ing pollutant-removal efficiency and 20 factors that affect it. 21

• Section 3 outlines recommendations for the restorat ion of forested buffers in the 22 Chesapeake Bay and includes site selection, plantin g, and short-term maintenance of 23 newly restored sites. 24

• Section 4 discusses strategies for the long-term ma intenance and the protection of 25 existing forested riparian areas. Such areas must f irst be identified and assessed before 26 they can be properly maintained and protected. 273/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-5 

## 2 Background 1 

### 2.1 Definition of Riparian Areas 2
The word riparian is derived from its Latin origin, ripa , which means bank of a stream . In 3 modern use, however, a riparian area extends latera lly for some distance from the stream channel 4 that usually includes the floodplain and some trans itional upland area. Both soils and vegetation 5 in riparian areas are usually distinctly different from the surrounding uplands and typically 6 support a diverse and unique population of animals as compared to uplands. 7 As described in section 1.1, riparian areas are ine xtricably linked to the stream itself. 8 Disturbances that affect the riparian area affect t he stream and vice versa. Stream corridor is a 9 term used to describe the combined riparian/stream ecosystem (FISRWG 1998). 10 As previously mentioned, the term riparian buffer is used to distinguish a specific area adjacent 11 to the stream within a riparian area or, in some ca ses, it might include the entire area (see Figure 12 2.1 . Buffer boundaries can be mapped and, with proper legal authority, specific rules can be 13 applied to protect and manage the buffer. In most c ases, the primary purpose of designating a 14 riparian buffer is to physically protect the streamfrom encroachment, pollution, and other types 15 of cultural disturbances. Ideally, a network of buffers along a stream can act as a natural right-of16 way, allowing the stream to move through the landsc ape buffered from direct influences of 17 development in the watershed. 18

19 Figure 2.1. Relationship between uplands, riparian areas, riparian buffers, and the stream channel. 20 Stream corridors in the Chesapeake Bay region evolv ed within temperate, forested watersheds 21 (Williams 1989). Thus, system structure, functions, and biota in the corridor all developed within 22 a range of natural conditions associated with fores t ecosystems. For that reason, management 23 plans aimed at restoring streams to more natural st ate typically focus on restoring and protecting 24 riparian forest buffers. 253/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-6 

### 2.1.1 Organization of this Section 1 Section 2.2 examines key benefits of natural ripari an areas. Such key benefits are as follows: 2

• Regulating the lateral movement of water to the str eam 3

• Filtering out sediment pollution before it reaches the stream 4

• Filtering out nutrient pollution before it reaches the stream 5

• Maintaining aquatic habitat in the stream channel 6

• Providing aesthetic value to property 7

Section 2.3 examines the stream corridor in the lon gitudinal view and discusses how ecological 8 structures and functions change from headwaters to mouth. Key concepts include: 9

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

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

• Riparian buffers exert their greatest influence on headwater streams. 12 Section 2.4 wraps up the section by providing an ov erview of three key planning and 13 management implications for landowners and others r esponsible for forested riparian buffer 14 restoration. 15

• The importance of lower order streams 16

• Increased focus on the buffer/stream interface 17


### 2.2 Benefits of Natural Riparian Areas 18 There are literally hundreds of benefits associated with forested riparian areas. Some of these 19 benefits can be replicated with technology such as reservoirs (flood control) and treatment plants 20 (pollutant removal). However, none of these single function replacement technologies provide 21 the multiple simultaneous functions of riparian are as. 22 The following subsections discuss a few of the mostimportant of these many benefits. In 23 general, benefits can be categorized into one or mo re of six broad ecological functions (FISRWG 24 1998) (Figure 2.2 5-1 ): 25

• Barrier

and Filter

—The ability to stop or limit penetration of water, materials, energy, 26 and organisms into, through, or along the stream co rridor 27

• Habitat

—The spatial structure of the riparian area and str eam, which allows organisms to 28 live, feed, and reproduce 29

• Conduit

—The ability of the corridor to serve as a flow pat hway for water, materials, 30 energy, and organisms 31

• Source and Sink— The net movement of water, materials, energy, and o rganisms in or out 32 of the buffer 333/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-7 

### 2.2.1 Regulating the Movement of Water to the Strea m 1 A key benefit of riparian areas is regulating the p athway, timing, and intensity of water moving 2 laterally from the landscape into the stream. In na tural, forested areas, approximately 40 percent 3 of falling precipitation is returned to the atmosph ere (evaporates or is transpired by plants) and 4 about 50 percent infiltrates the soil and enters th e groundwater system. Usually only 10 percent 5 or less runs downslope as surface runoff (FISRWG 19 98). 6 The volume and rate of streamflow is dependent on t he pathways precipitation takes as it moves 7 to the channel. Streamflow itself can be divided in to two basic components: 8

• Stormflow —the precipitation that runs off the landscape as s urface runoff or shallow 9 subsurface flow and quickly enters the channel 10

• Baseflow —the precipitation that percolates down to the grou ndwater system and moves 11 slowly into the channel 12

13 Source: FISRWG 1998 Figure 2.2 5-1 . Critical ecosystem functions. 14
A stream’s baseflow is particularly important becau se it sustains flow during periods of dry 15 weather. During intense storms, the stormflow compo nent might cause stream levels to rise to 163/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-8 bankfull elevation and spill into the hydrologic fl oodplain. In natural conditions, that type of 1 flooding can be expected to occur in about 2 of eve ry 3 years. Flooding is important because it 2 reconnects the floodplain to the stream and provide s habitat conditions critical for the 3 reproductive cycle of some species of fish, insects , amphibians, and reptiles. 4 When a watershed is developed, the components of th e hydrologic cycle often change. As 5 discussed in chapter 3, Usuallythe land surface usually becomes more impervious and 6 compacted. Such a condition increases the volume an d rate of surface runoff at the expense of 7 other parts of the water cycle, especially the frac tion that infiltrates the soil (Schueler 1995) 8 (Figure 5- 2 .3 ). A reduction of groundwater recharge can lower th e water table and potentially 9 reduce baseflow in the channel. Correspondingly, su rface runoff increases create more intense 10 stormflow in the channel, more frequent flooding, h igher water temperatures, more pollution, 11 and streambank erosion and other changes to channel structure because of increased flow energy 12 and sediment loads. 13

14 Source: FISRWG 19983/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-9 Figure 5- 2. 3. The relationship between impervious cover and surf ace runoff. 1
Therefore, an important benefit of forested riparia n area is that it help keeps the hydrologic cycle 2 and streamflow in a more natural balance by dissipa ting surface runoff energy and supporting 3 groundwater recharge. Specifically, 4

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

• Groundwater recharge sites add precipitation to the groundwater system and helps 6 maintain maintains the water table and baseflow in the channel. 7

• Natural floodplains are maintained, which can tempo rarily store floodwaters and help 8 reduce flood impacts downstream. 9

• It helps regulate streamflow energy and maintain th e natural structure of the channel and 10 banks. 11 To maintain natural hydrology, the stormwater runof f moving through the riparian area should 12 not be allowed to concentrate, channelize, and conv ey directly to the stream. 13

14

15


### 2.2.2 Filtering Sediment Pollution 16 Erosion, transport, and deposition of various-sized soil particles from the watershed into the 17 stream channel are natural processes that shape the landscape over time. Sediment sources in a 18 developed watershed can include construction sites, agricultural fields, overgrazed pastureland, 19 washed out roads, slopes devoid of vegetation, and other places where soil is exposed. All these 20 sources have the potential to increase sediment loa ding to the stream and cause a variety of 21 negative in-stream effects, such as : 22

• Destroying beneficial channel structures such as po ol and riffles 23

• Damaging gills of fish and aquatic insects 24

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

• Interfering with fish spawning habitat and egg and larval survival 26 The rate of infiltration depends on soil porosity , a term used to describe the percentage of total s oil volume taken up by spaces between soil particles. N atural riparian forest buffer sites usually have high infiltration rates because soils are loosely p acked 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 cla y 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 s oil volume taken up by spaces between soil particles. N atural riparian forest buffer sites usually have high infiltration rates because soils are loosely p acked 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 cla y particles have low porosity because pores are small or nonexistent (impervious).3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-10 • Reducing light penetration and interfering with alg ae and aquatic plant photosynthesis 1 Riparian areas help regulate the amount and size of sediment that reaches the stream from upland 2 sources through filtering mechanisms closely relate d to the overland movement of stormwater 3 runoff. Assuming that sediment-laden runoff moving through the riparian area is not allowed to 4 concentrate, channelize, and convey directly to the stream, sediment will be deposited as riparian 5 vegetation slows runoff and it infiltrates the soil . In general, runoff in the form of diffuse sheet 6 flow moving across thicker herbaceous vegetation fu nctions best for filtering sediment. 7 Streambanks are also an important potential source of sediment, especially when increased 8 watershed imperviousness causes more frequent and s tronger stream flow rates. Root systems of 9 riparian vegetation immediately adjacent to the str eam help bind sediments, which help reduce 10 bank erosion. Additionally, overhanging branches of streambank vegetation can deflect and 11 dissipate flow energy. 12


### 2.2.3 Filtering Nutrient Pollution 13
N Nitrogen and P p hosphorus are two nutrients essential for algae and other aqu atic plants to 14 grow. When present in excessive amounts, however, t hey can trigger algal blooms, nuisance 15 levels of plant growth, and overall degradation of a stream. Sources of nonpoint nutrient 16 pollution in developed watersheds include lawn and agricultural fertilizers, animal wastes, and 17 septic systems. Because of different chemical prope rties, the potential pathways to a stream of 18 the two nutrients differ, however. Correspondingly, the filtering mechanisms for phosphorus and 19 N nitrogen within riparian areas also differ. 20 Phosphorus has a strong tendency to sorb to soil particles and organic matter. Therefore, it is 21 usually moved across the landscape attached to sedi ment that is carried in surface runoff. 22 Consequently, the conditions and mechanisms that se rve to filter out sediments in riparian areas 23 serve to filter out phosphorus. As sediment settles from runoff and water infiltrates the soil, the 24 attached phosphorus can either remain in the soil o r be taken up by riparian vegetation. 25
N itrogen , on the other hand, does not sorb strongly to sedi ment. While N nitrogen in particulate 26 form can be physically filtered out similar to sedi ments, the dissolved inorganic N nitrogen form 27 can infiltrate the soil, move with groundwater, and potentially enter the channel with shallow 28 subsurface flow or baseflow. 29 Bacteria residing in riparian soils play an importa nt role in filtering N nitrogen through a process 30 called denitrification . That process reduces nitrate to nitrite and then to N nitrogen gas, which 31 then returns to the atmosphere. The basic requireme nts for denitrification are anaerobic 32 conditions or restricted oxygen availability (satur ated soil conditions), a good supply of nitrate 33 and organic materia l , and warm conditions (above 50 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]). Other 34 microorganisms and biota in the soil take up N nitrogen , as do plants if the aquifer is within the 35 root zone. 36 The Mid-Atlantic Water Program (MAWP) at the Univer sity of Maryland (UMD) led a project 37 in 2006–2007 to review and refine definition and ef fectiveness estimates for best management 38 practices (BMPs) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, i ncluding grassed and forested riparian 39 buffers in agricultural areas. The objective was to develop estimates that reflect the average 403/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-11 operational condition representative of the entire watershed to better reflect monitored data in 1 modeling scenarios and watershed plans. Table 2. 5- 1 summarizes the nutrient and sediment 2 reduction efficiencies for forest and grass buffers at different locations on the basis of the 3 literature review performed for this study. As indi cated by the results, forest buffers are better at 4 reducing N nitrogen loads to the Chesapeake Bay; however, forest and g rass buffers are the same 5 in their ability to reduce phosphorus and sediment loads. These efficiencies take into account 6 other BMPs that might be in place upland from or ad jacent to the riparian buffer. 7

Table 2. 5- 1. Average nutrient and sediment reduction efficien cy 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% 4 0% 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 It is important to remember that such pollutant-rem oval estimates are based on average 8 conditions, and are being used in the Chesapeake Ba y Model. All buffers do not have the same 9 efficiency for pollutant reduction (Speiran et al. 1998). The U.S. Department of Agriculture 10 (USDA) Agricultural Research Service Southwest Wate rshed Research Laboratory developed 11 the Riparian Ecosystem Management Model (REMM), for researchers and natural resource 12 agencies to help quantify the water quality benefit s of riparian buffers under varying site 13 conditions. REMM requires weather data, pollutant i nput information, riparian soils, vegetation, 14 and litter information and is calibrated only for t he Coastal Plain in Georgia, but it would be 15 useful in areas with similar conditions where the r equired input parameters are available. 16


### 2.2.4 Maintaining Aquatic Habitat 17 Stream biota, including bacteria, algae, macrophyte s, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish, 18 amphibians, retiles, and mammals, all require a hos pitable aquatic environment to live, 19 reproduce, interact, and thrive. The riparian area plays a crucial role in maintaining a range of 20 suitable habitats and conditions within the channel for a diverse and self-sustaining cycle of 21 aquatic life. Good quality terrestrial habitat is e ssential for maintaining water quality and natural 22 flows in the stream channel. 23 As discussed earlier in this section, a riparian ar ea usually includes the streambank, floodplain, 24 and some portion of the transitional upland area. N atural features within such areas add structural 25 variety and might include wetlands, natural levees, oxbow lakes, outcrops, and other landforms. 263/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-12 Diversity of riparian features usually results in c orresponding diversity in soils, vegetation, and 1 biota—important attributes of a healthy terrestrial habitat. 2 A few important aquatic habitat functions are descr ibed below. 3

• Maintaining diverse channel structure —Diverse channel structure provides diverse 4 natural habitat for aquatic biota. Most important i s the delivery of water to the channel 5 that creates a stable, natural range of flows. Such flows determine the erosion, transport, 6 and deposition patterns of sediment and create the thalweg (low-flow channel), pools and 7 riffles, bars, natural levees, bars, and floodplain s. 8

• Contributing wood debris to the channel—Large, woody debris that falls into the channel 9 creates additional habitat diversity for fish and o ther aquatic biota, especially in smaller 10 streams. They often create a damming effect that tr aps sediment and create scour holes 11 and function as fish habitat. 12

• Provides allochthonous input of organic matter —Energy sources that drive metabolic 13 activity in a stream comes from either autochthonou s sources (within the stream channel 14 via algae and aquatic plant photosynthesis) or allo chthonous sources (outside the stream 15 channel). In smaller, shaded headwater streams, the re is little aquatic primary production 16 because of lower light levels. Here, allochthonous input of woody material, leaves, and 17 other organic matter is critical for the base of th e food chain. Bacteria and fungi break the 18 material down, and their microbial biomass becomes food for shredding invertebrates. 19 Organic particles are subsequently transported to p rovide energy for downstream 20 organisms. 21

• Maintaining stream temperature —Water temperature determines the range and viabili ty 22 of aquatic species. Some species, e.g., trout, requ ire cold water temperatures. Other 23 species, such as smallmouth bass, tolerate warmer t emperatures. Riparian vegetation that 24 covers the channel reduces solar radiation and keep s water temperatures cooler. Baseflow 25 (from groundwater inflow) also helps keep water tem peratures cool. 26



### 2.2.5 Aesthetic Value 27 Besides water quality and habitat benefits, riparia n areas can add value to property providing 28 seasonal changes, such as shade in summer, flowers and birds in spring, and color in fall (Baird 29 and Wetmore 2003). A study in 2006 in Missouri foun d that residents are willing to pay to live in 30 an area with community owned and accessible buffers , and are willing to pay even more to live 31 adjacent to these areas (Qiu 2006). That pattern is consistent with other studies (Patterson and 32 Boyle 2005; Netusil 2006) 33


### 2.3 Riparian Area from the Longitudinal Perspective 34 Up to this point, the focus of this section has bee n on smaller, headwater streams because they 35 usually dominate the landscape. Understanding how s treams and their natural riparian areas 36 change as they move longitudinally is critical for planning and designing riparian protection and 37 restoration activities within the watershed as a wh ole. Discussed below are concepts from the 38 longitudinal perspective. 393/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-13 

### 2.3.1 Longitudinal Zones and Stream Order 1 As a mainstem stream moves through its watershed, i t drains an increasing amount of land area. 2 Correspondingly, the stream adjusts width, depth, v elocity, slope, sediment load, and sediment 3 debris size to create a continuous gradient of phys ical conditions (Leopold et al. 1964). Schumm 4 (1977) divides this gradient into three zones to gr oup and portray the major changes that occur 5 (Figure 2. 4 3 ). In Zone 1 (headwater zone) the stream is charact erized by cooler water 6 temperatures, smaller channel width, greater slope, and higher flow velocity and erosion relative 7 to downstream zones. Zone 2 (transfer zone) receive s sediment from Zone 1 as channel slope 8 decreases, flow velocity lessens, and larger partic les settle out. Also in Zone 2 the channel begins 9 to widen and become more meandering while flow volu me increases because of the increased 10 drainage area. The last zone, Zone 3 (depositional zone), is characterized by a flat valley, large 11 meanders, and silty sediment. There, the channel is large and deep to accommodate the drainage 12 of the entire watershed. 13 The mainstem stream is continuously fed by a network of feeder streams. Strahler (1957) 14 proposed a classification system to identify the po sition of all streams in a watershed network. 15 Small streams with no tributaries are first-order s treams (Figure 2. 5 -4 ). When two first-order 16 streams flow together, they become a second-order s tream. The confluence to two second-order 17 streams creates a third-order stream, and so on. 183/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-14 1 Source: FISRWG 19983/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-15 1 Figure 2.4. 5-3. Changes to the channel in three zones. 23/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-16 1 Source: FISRWG 1998 Figure 2.5. Strahler’s Stream Classification. 2



### 2.3.2 Longitudinal View of Ecological Functions and Processes 3 In addition to physical changes, ecological functio ns and processes within the stream corridor 4 also change as water moves through its watershed. V annote et al. (1980) proposed a conceptual 5 model, the River Continuum Concept to describe such changes. The concepts include the 6 following: 7

• First- to third-order streams in natural forested ecosystems are fully or partia lly shaded. 8 Because of limited light, stream biota depend on al lochthonous materials (e.g., terrestrial 9 vegetation) as their energy source. Cold or cool wa ter species thrive because of shading 10 and groundwater inflow dominates the channel flow. The floodplain is usually small or 11 nonexistent, flood-tolerant vegetation is reduced, and upland species dominate up to the 12 streambank. 13

• Fourth- to sixth-order streams have wider channels, which decrease riparian shadi ng and 14 result in an increase of water temperatures and aqu atic plant photosynthesis. Energy 15 sources begin shifting to autochthonous material an d organic matter flowing from 163/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-17 upstream. Flooding is more frequent, which increase s the size and importance of the 1 floodplain. Consequently, riparian area soils and v egetative communities are more 2 diverse and complex. 3

• Seventh- and higher order streams have biota that rely on primary production for ene rgy, 4 but the rain of organic particles from upstream bec omes increasing important as loads of 5 silt and clay increases turbidity and decreases lig ht penetration for photosynthesis. The 6 flatter terrain results in broad floodplains with b ottom hardwoods, marshlands, and other 7 vegetative communities adapted to the depositional zone of the stream. 8

9 Figure 5-4. Strahler’s Stream Classification 103/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-18 

### 2.4 Planning and Management Implications 1


### 2.4.1 Importance of Lower Order Streams 2 Lower order streams dominate the landscape in terms of numbers and stream mileage. It is 3 estimated that 75 percent of streams in the United States are first- and second-order streams and 4 90 percent are first-, second-, or third-order stre ams (FISRWG 1998; Leopold et al. 1964). 5 Therefore, meeting the goal of 70 percent forested riparian buffer coverage in the Chesapeake 6 Bay watershed requires managers to focus primarily on restoring buffers of lower order streams. 7 The relatively small scale of headwater streams als o increases the magnitude of influence the 8 riparian area has on them (Sweeney and Blaine 2007) . A forest canopy, for example, can easily 9 extend across small streams and keep stream tempera ture cool. Large, woody debris adds 10 proportionally more structure to the channel, and a llochthonous materials are distributed 11 throughout the channel and support life in virtuall y all microhabitats. 12
Because a small stream’s watershed is also smaller in size, a forest buffer of even modest 13 proportions can effectively regulate the lateral fl ow of water and filter a commensurate volume 14 of sediments, phosphorus, and other pollutants. Gro undwater flow is usually shallower and 15 therefore more likely to pass within the root zone of trees as it travels downslope. That increases 16 the opportunity for N nitrogen uptake before groundwater flow reaches the channel (Craig et al. 17 2008). Finally, individual pollutant sources and op portunities to manage stormwater runoff in 18 upland areas can be more easily identified and controlled in a smaller watershed. 19



### 2.4.2 Increased Focus on the Buffer/Stream Interfac e 20 Sweeney and Blaine (2007) point out that buffers ha ve been historically viewed almost 21 exclusively in terms of their barrier and filter fu nctions; specifically, their ability to filter out 22 upland sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants be fore they reach the channel. Such a focus on 23 the upland/buffer interface resulted in a general a cceptance of grass buffers as a reasonable 24 alternative to forested buffers because some studie s show similar pollutant removal efficiencies. 25 For cultural, sociological, budgetary, and other re asons, grass buffers were even sometimes 26 promoted as the preferred choice for riparian veget ation. 27 In the past decade, however, grass buffers were fou nd to be only about 68 percent as effective as 28 forest buffers in reducing total nitrogen ( TN) ( Todd 2002). But perhaps more significant, the 29 positive effects that riparian forest buffers have on stream systems have been more fully explored 30 and documented. Sweeney (1992, 1993) reinforced the idea that stream processes, functions, and 31 biota were developed in concert with riparian fores ts rather than riparian grasslands and the 32 absence of trees creates considerable stress on the natural aquatic ecosystem. For example, a 33 study of forested and deforested small streams in t he Piedmont region demonstrated that 34 deforestation caused significant channel narrowing which, in turn, reduced stream habitat and 35 processing of organic matter and nutrients (Sweeneyet al. 2004). Importantly, the study also 36 determined that a forested stream ecosystem had 2 t o 10 times more uptake of N nitrogen than a 37 grass ecosystem. 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-19 Restoring and protecting physical, chemical, and bi ological stream processes and functions 1 directly influence processes and functions in highe r order streams. Examples include the 2 following: 3

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

• Processed organic matter and nutrients for greater diversity of invertebrate functional 5 groups and aquatic plants 6

• Sediment that provides structure to the channel 7 USEPA (2006) reports that 42 percent of all small s tream mileage in the United States is in poor 8 condition. Some of these results are undoubtedly be cause of poorly functioning riparian areas. 9 Improving this statistic is where riparian buffers can exert their greatest influence (FISRWG 10 1998). 113/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-20 

## 3 Restoring and Reestablishing Riparian Forest Buff ers 1

Implementation Measure: Promote the restoration of the preexisting functio ns in damaged and destroyed riparian systems, especially in areas whe re the systems will serve a significant [nonpoint source] pollution-abatement function as w ell as the suite of valuable ecosystems services riparian buffers provide.



### 3.1 Introduction 2 The previous chapter examined the key benefits prov ided by natural riparian areas. Namely, 3

• Regulating the lateral movement of water to the str eam 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

Successful restoration and reestablishment of buffe rs in the Chesapeake Bay area require that 8 landowners, managers, public agencies, and other re sponsible parties assess ecological functions 9 provided by existing riparian soils and vegetation and then make the best adjustments and 10 improvements possible given cost, funding, and othe r practical constraints. In many cases, 11 restoration will include planting seedlings and eve ntually reestablishing fully functioning 12 riparian forest. 13 The Chesapeake Bay is at approximately 60 percent o f its goal of 70 percent of streams having 14 riparian forest buffers. That means that restoring or reestablishing riparian forests is required to 15 meet this goal. Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, a nd the District of Columbia have proposed in 16 their tributary strategies to restore some 50,000 m iles of riparian forest buffers to help reach 17 water quality goals for major rivers that drain int o the bay (Greiner and Vogt 2009). 18


### 3.1.1 Organization of this Chapter 19 This chapter is organized to cover the basic steps for undertaking a successful riparian forest 20 buffer restoration project. 21

• Analyzing existing conditions and identifying poten tial problems at the site level 22 (Section 3.2). 23

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

• Selecting, planting, and protecting tree seedling ( Section 3.4). 25 IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE: Promote the restoration of the preexisting functio ns in damaged

and destroyed riparian systems, especially in areas where the systems will serve a significant [nonpoint source] pollution-abatement function as w ell as the suite of valuable ecosystems services riparian buffers provide3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-21 Much of the information presented in the sections 3 .2 and 3.4 are based on the Maryland 1 Department of Natural Resources Forest Service Manu al, Riparian Forest Buffer Design and 2 Maintenance (2005). For further details about methods and proc edures described, see that 3 manual. 4 Sections 3.5 and 3.6 wrap up the chapter by discuss ing costs of riparian buffer restoration and 5 present information on potential sources of funding

. 6


### 3.2 Analyzing Existing Conditions and Identifying P otential Problems 7 Every riparian forest buffer has a unique set of co nditions that managers must understand before 8 developing a restoration plan. How those conditions link to ecological functions and benefits is 9 an important to success. Three key areas that need to be addressed are (1) hydrology, (2) soils, 10 and (3) existing vegetation. In addition, special c haracteristics and potential problems associated 11 with converting a previous land use to a forest buf fer should be considered. 12


### 3.2.1 Hydrology 13 Riparian areas are driven by hydrology (NRC
, 2002). As discussed in Section 2, precipitation 14 can take several different paths as it moves downsl ope across a riparian area to the stream 15 channel. Basically, it can infiltrate the soil and move as groundwater flow or enter the channel 16 directly as surface runoff. Identifying pathways of water flow through the site provides clues on 17 how well beneficial functions in the riparian area are operating. Ideal site hydrological conditions 18 include: 19

• Local groundwater originating from adjacent upland takes a relatively shallow path 20 through the soil and comes into contact with the ro ot zone of buffer vegetation. That 21 contact increases the likelihood that N nitrogen will be taken up by vegetation, 22 immobilized by microorganisms, or undergo denitrifi cation by bacteria. 23

• Runoff water originating from the uplands is not al lowed to concentrate, channelize, and 24 convey directly to the stream and bypass riparian v egetation and groundwater recharge 25 areas. Gently sloping vegetative landscapes are pre ferred because they promote sheetflow 26 and naturally reduce runoff velocity. These attribu tes increase the residence time of 27 surface runoff and increase the likelihood of infil tration. Lower slopes also tend to reduce 28 the velocity of groundwater flow and increase its c ontact time with buffer vegetation 29 roots and other processes that remove or immobilize N nitrogen

. 30 Hydrologic analysis at the site should include an e valuation on how well the above conditions 31 are met. 32



### 3.2.2 Soils 33 Success in regulating the lateral flow of water, fi ltering sediment and nutrient pollution, and 34 maintaining important processes and functions in th e stream itself ultimately depends on riparian 35 soils and the organisms that reside in them. Import antly, soils change as one moves laterally 36 across the riparian area. Soils in the floodplain c ontain finer textured sediments deposited from 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-22 flood waters that occur 2 out of 3 years under natu ral conditions and often more frequently if 1 watershed imperviousness is a factor. Soils at a hi gher elevation in the riparian area can include 2 some flooding deposits but are generally coarser an d more like soils found in upland areas. 3 Features within the riparian area such as natural l evees and wetlands have their own unique soil 4 characteristics, however. Soil complexity is a good thing because different attributes affect the 5 occurrence and efficiency of ecological functions a s well as supporting a diverse vegetative 6 community (FISRWG 1998). Some important soil charac teristics to assess include the following: 7

• Soil composition and texture —Soils are basically composed of various inorganic mineral 8 particles that can be categorized by size (sand, lo am, or clay) and organic matter (in 9 various stages of decomposition). Soils that promot e infiltration and transmission of 10 water need to have a high porosity, such as coarse- textured sandy/loamy soils held 11 together with organic matter as opposed to fine-tex tured clayey soils. 12

• Soil moisture —The ability of the upper layer of soil to hold wat er by surface tension in 13 fine pores is very important to the growth and surv ival of vegetation. Loamy/clayey soils 14 have the best water-holding properties. Sandy soils are the most porous and do not have 15 much capacity to hold water. 16

• Soil compaction —Many cultural activities, especially in urban area s, can compact natural 17 soils and reduce infiltration and water-holding cap acity as well as killing root systems. 18 About 50 percent pore space is ideal (MDNR FS 2005)

. 19

• Wetland soils —Wetlands in riparian areas typically occur where t he water table is at or 20 near the surface. Soils are hydric, meaning they ar e saturated during all or portions of the 21 growing season and develop anaerobic conditions. On ly plants adapted to these 22 conditions can survive in wetlands. Saturated areas are also important areas for 23 denitrification, a bacterial process that removes n itrate from groundwater before it 24 reaches the stream channel and should be identified and protected. 25 The Pennsylvania Stream ReLEAF Forest Buffer Toolki t , as well as section 2 of the Maryland 26 DNR Riparian Forest Buffer Design and Maintenance guide , and section 4 of the Chesapeake 27 Bay Riparian Handbook: a Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers 28 (Palone and Todd 1997) contain contains some guidance on soil evaluation. 293/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-23 1


### 3.2.3 Riparian Vegetation 2 Soil properties, topography, shading, seed stock, w ater availability, and other factors determine 3 the density and distribution of vegetative species within a riparian area. Similar to soil, riparian 4 vegetation also performs several ecological functio ns that help regulate the lateral movement of 5 water to the channel and the timing and volume of s treamflow. Plants also play in important role 6 in filtering, storing, and processing pollutants an d lessening their effect on stream quality. 7 Restoring vegetative structure, especially reestabl ishing trees, is often the most visible aspect of 8 a riparian restoration project. 9 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/p ubs/calendar/FWG_11-18-08_Handout_3_9152.pdf and http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/calendar/ FWG_11-18-08_Presentation_1_9152.pdf.3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-24 Different attributes affect the occurrence and effi ciency of ecological functions. Important 1 characteristics that managers need to assess and th en maintain or restore include the following: 2

• Trees adjacent to the stream —The importance of trees to stream ecology is discu ssed in 3 Section 2 of this chapter . The annual cycle of growth and senescence of tree s provides 4 organic material to the stream, which serves as the base of the food chain in headwater 5 streams. Streamside trees also add large, woody mat erial to the channel, which provides 6 important habitat functions for a variety of aquati c biota. Additionally, the root systems 7 of streamside trees help bind bank sediments and re duce the potential for erosion. 8

• Horizontal complexity —A riparian area with diverse population of vegetat ion is generally 9 a reflection of a diversity of soils, drainage cond itions, flooding patterns, and other 10 conditions across the area. A mix of grasses, shrub s, and trees provide varying levels of 11 sediment, nutrient, and pollutant removal efficienc ies (FISRWG 1998). Complex 12 vegetation habitat also typically results in a wide r variety of wildlife. 13

• Edge habitat —Two distinct habitats within a riparian forest are a are edge habitat and 14 interior habitat. The edge habitat is the area of transition between an upland ecosystem 15 and the interior forest. Compared to interior habit at, edge habitat, by virtue of its position, 16 receives higher and more fluctuating levels of sola r and wind energy, precipitation, and 17 water and materials flowing from the adjacent land use. Therefore, it functions as the first 18 line of defense for regulating runoff and filtering pollutants. Flora and fauna that inhabit 19 edge habitat are species that can tolerate more int ense and fluctuating conditions. 20

• Interior habitat —Interior habitat is a more stable environment, she ltered from conditions 21 endured by edge vegetation. In general, more sensit ive and rare species of plants and 22 animals are in interior habitat, well away from edgy influences. Therefore, if protecting 23 sensitive or rare species is an objective of ripari an forest buffer restoration, managers 24 must ensure that there is adequate interior habitatin the buffer. 25

• Vertical complexity —Birds and other tree-dwelling wildlife depend on a variety of layers 26 of vegetation to thrive and reproduce. A vertically complex area also reflects a diversity 27 of age composition and indicates a successful patte rn of succession and new growth. 28


### 3.2.4 Special Characteristics and Potential Problem s Associated with a 29 

### Previous Land Use 30 If all or a portion of the riparian area being rest ored was used for some other purpose (e.g., 31 cropland, pastureland, lawns, parkland), there migh t be special characteristics or potential 32 problems that should be assessed. As described in Riparian Forest Buffer Design and 33 Maintenance (2005), those could include the following: 34

• Compacted soils —Soil compaction is often a problem in developed ar eas. Compacted 35 soil restricts the movement of water into the groun d and inhibits root penetration. It is 36 often a problem in urban and suburban soils because of vehicle or foot traffic, playing 37 areas, or other use. Compacted soils in pastureland might be due to cow paths or other 38 animal or equipment traffic. Usually soil compactio n is not a problem in agricultural 39 lands; however, there might be a compacted layer of soil below the plow zone. If 403/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-25 compaction presents a problem for tree rooting, a m oderate amount of discing or tilling 1 can be employed to loosen the soil. 2

• Fill material or other problem soils —Fill material, especially in suburban and urban 3 areas, might have been imported and placed on the s ite. Fill can contain any variety of 4 material not amenable for growth of native trees an d vegetation. Conditions could include 5 low infertility, high sand content, high clay conte nt, low organic matter content, 6 excessive rocks, and low microfauna content. Soil t esting that includes composition and 7 pore analysis, pH, and organic and nutrient contentcan help determine soil limitations 8 and what amendments might be needed for healthy gro wth. Depending on the results, 9 amendments might include fertilizers, composted man ure, peat moss, mulch, water10 absorbent gel, decompaction agents, or mycorrhizal root dip. 11

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

. 12 Present and future generations (i.e., seed bank) of noxious or evasive weeds might reside 13 at the site. Weed seeds are very hardy and can lay dormant in the soil for years waiting 14 for favorable conditions to germinate. Controlling noxious and invasive weeds should 15 occur before tree planting through a mowing or herb icide program. In some cases, it is 16 prudent to even delay planting for a year to get mo re complete control of weed 17 populations. When converting cropland to riparian f orest buffer, establishing a cover crop 18 is a convenient weed control method. 19

• Animal damage —A variety of animals can damage tree seedlings by rubbing or 20 trampling them or by feeding on leafs, stems, bark, or roots. Managers need to make 21 plans to keep them away from planted areas. 22

• Human damage —Riparian buffers are sometime damaged by well-mean ing actions by 23 residents. Mowing, clearing, and other landscaping improvements can limit ecological 24 functions. Public education and creating an awarene ss of the buffer value and purpose 25 will help limit this problem. 26


### 3.3 Buffer Width and Connectivity 27 Two important dimensional characteristics of ripari an buffers are: 28

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

• Connectivity —The measure of how continuous the buffer is both l aterally and 30 longitudinally. Gaps or breaks in the buffer serve to lessen connectivity (Figure 3. 5- 1). 31 In general, ecological functions are enhanced when buffers are wide and connected rather than 32 narrow and full of gaps. For example, wider contigu ous buffers create more space and a wider 33 diversity of soils and vegetation to filter out sed iment, nutrients, and other pollutants from upland 34 sources before they reach the stream. Gaps in the b uffer decrease buffer continuity and increase 35 the chance of upland runoff concentrating and shoot ing through the gap to the stream. Gaps also 36 discourage the movement of wildlife along the strea m corridor. For those and other reasons, 37 buffer-restoration objectives typically include mak ing the buffer as wide and as connected as 38 possible. 393/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-26 Width is a controversial aspect of buffer design an d protection. There is much variation in buffer 1 width recommendations in state and federal guidelin es as well as peer reviewed literature. 2 Factors that influence ideal buffer widths are site specific and related to soil type, watershed 3 hydrology, and subsurface biochemistry of the targe t site. For further discussion on the scientific 4 data related width and pollutant removal, see Mayer 2005 and Okay 2007. Todd (2002) points 5 out that a clearly defined relationship does not ex ist between buffer efficiency and width that can 6 be applied to the Chesapeake Bay region but conclud es that the potential risk for failure of a 7 buffer to remove excess nutrients before they reach the stream clearly increases with decreasing 8 buffer width. 9

10 Source: FISRWG 1998 Figure 3. 5- 1. Connectivity within a landscape. 11 Typically, a riparian buffer should follow a “ three-zone ” design, illustrated in figure 3. 5- 2. 123/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-27 1 Source: Welsch 1991 2

Figure 3. 5- 2. A typical 3-zone buffer design. 3

The first zone next to the stream should be 15 feet wide and consist of mature tree cover, which 4 protects streambanks and contributes organic matter to the stream. Immediately adjacent to the 5 first zone is the The second zone , which has a minimum width of 60 feet and consists of tre es 6 and shrubs . The primary purpose of the second zone is to
, which capture and transform 7 nutrients , sediments and other pollutants chemicals from surface runoff and shallow 8 groundwater. upland areas. Zone three should be approximately 25 feet wide an d contain natural 9 grasses. That zone is an important area for the spr eading, filtrations, and infiltration of surface 10 water. 11 More about the benefits of this design is in the US DA booklet titled Riparian Forest Buffers: 12 Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources at 13 http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/n_resource/ripari anforests/

. 14 Following those guidelines, the minimum buffer widt h should be 100 feet for maximum 15 pollutant removal benefits. That is consistent with riparian buffer ordinances in Virginia, 16 Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Baird and Wetmore 2003; MD CAC 2010; CWA PA 2009). 17 However, riparian forest buffers should be as wide as possible to get maximum habitat benefits. 18


### 3.4 Establishing Riparian Vegetation 19 Choosing the species of trees to populate a riparia n forest buffer requires matching growing 20 requirements with site conditions and planning obje ctives. In general, managers should strive to 21 create species patterns that mimic reference condit ions in the area. 22 Forest conditions, and corresponding ecological fun ctions, develop more quickly with a high 23 density of trees. If the rapid creation of a canopyfor shading out weeds or providing cover and 243/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-28 shade to a stream is the objective, high-density pl anting is recommended (e.g., 500 trees per 1 acre). However, thinning back to 100 to 150 trees p er acres will eventually be needed to create a 2 healthy, self-sustaining riparian forest buffer (MD NR FS 2005). 3 The Stroud Water Research Center recommends plantin g at least 8 to 10 species when restoring 4 a riparian area. In all cases, species must match t he environmental characteristics of the site and 5 plans made to protect seedlings against weeds and a nimals as needed. 6


### 3.4.1 Natural Regeneration 7 Natural regeneration is the least expensive option for establishing a riparian forest buffer. This 8 option eliminates the need (and costs) for selectin g and planting trees. Key attributes for success 9 are the availability of trees to function as a seed source and quality, non-compacted soils that 10 promote good seed contact. To achieve that latter a ttribute, some site preparation work might be 11 necessary. 12 Common tree species that generate windborne seeds t hat travel reasonably far distances include 13 poplar, ash, pine, sycamore, birch, sweetgum, and m aple. Seeding by heavier seed species (e.g., 14 oaks and hickories) require trees that are fairly c lose by, preferably upslope. If conditions are 15 favorable, a viable stand of native trees often dev elops relatively quickly. 16 Initial germination might yield thousands of seedli ngs per acre. Therefore, thinning the buffer at 17 some point might be appropriate to create a healthi er, more diverse population of trees. 18
Further information is can be found in Chapter 3 of the MDNR FS Riparian Forest Buffer Design 19 and Maintenance Guide 20 ( http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/download/rfb_des ign&maintenance.pdf ). 21


### 3.4.2 Planting Trees 22 Planting results in more control of the location, d ensity, and species on the site. It also speeds up 23 the restoration process. However, it can be conside rably more expensive than natural 24 regeneration. Seeds, seedlings, or more mature tree s can be planted on the site, depending the 25 budget and objects of the planting. 26

• Direct seeding —Seed can be directly sown in the soil and aided byraking or discing, 27 depending on the density of the seeds. Because of p otential predation by squirrels, birds, 28 and other animals, a fairly large number seeds is r equired. If germination is successful, 29 dense stands can develop, which might need to be ev entually thinned. 30

• Seedling planting —Seedlings can be planted by hand or using a planti ng machine. Unlike 31 direct seeding, managers can tightly control tree l ocation, pattern, and density. In addition 32 to a good selection of seedling species available f rom nurseries, planting seedlings is 33 usually the most cost-effective method of establish ing trees in a riparian forest buffer. 34 Care must be taken, however, to not damage or dry o ut seedlings during the plant 35 process. Managers generally choose to plant seedlin gs in rows because such a 36 configuration is easiest to design, install, and ma intain. It also generates a full canopy 37 closure more rapidly than other configurations. 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-29 • Tree Planting —In some cases, managers might want to plant more m ature trees at the 1 site. Digging planting holes is more costly, but itavoids trampling high-traffic areas. 2

3

4

Additional information is can be found in the Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf ToolKit 5 ( http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc /Subjects/StreamReleaf/Forestbufft 6 ool/default.htm) and Chapter 3 of the MDNR FS Riparian Forest Buffer Design and 7 Maintenance Guide 8 ( http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/download/rfb_des ign&maintenance.pdf ). 9 Species Selection and Density Choosing the species of trees to populate in the ri parian forest buffer requires matching growing requirements with site conditions and planning obje ctives. In general, managers should strive to creat e 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-plan ts.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 tre es 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 ri parian forest buffer requires matching growing requirements with site conditions and planning obje ctives. In general, managers should strive to creat e 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-plan ts.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 tre es 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.3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-30 

### 3.4.3 Protecting Seedlings 1 Young seedlings are susceptible to competition fromweeds and animal damage. Protecting the 2 investment is an important part of riparian forest buffer management. 3 Many species of grasses and weeds can out-compete tree seedlings for light, water, nutrients, and 4 growing space. Fortunately, riparian forest buffer managers have several options to protect the 5 planting investment until they get a foothold. 6

• Hand clearing —Pulling and cutting weeds species by hand is an op tion for small riparian 7 areas. It is labor intensive, however. Some invasiv e species require the removal of entire 8 root systems. 9

• Mowing —Periodic mowing around seedlings helps keep compet ing weeds low to the 10 ground and prevents weed seed heads from maturing. A disadvantage of mowing is that it 11 interferes with the natural establishment of native vegetation. Consequently, mowing 12 should be curtailed when trees mature to the point weed competition is no longer a factor. 13

• Mats, collars, and mulch —Physical barriers for weed growth can be very effe ctive in 14 preventing weed competition around young trees. Som e mats and tree collar products can 15 be treated with a selective herbicide for added pro tection. Mulch can also provide a 16 physical barrier to protect seedlings from weeds, b ut it too can be expensive and must be 17 replenished. 18

• Tree shelters —Tree shelters are designed to 19 protect young trees from weeds and wildlife. 20 Sweeney et al. (2002) found that using shelters 21 yields a survival rate four times higher than 22 seedlings without shelters. In addition, sheltered 23 trees have 19 times better vertical growth. Tubes 24 that are ventilated, lighter in color, and designed to 25 let in more light tend to work best. 26 In addition to weeds, several animal species can harm seedlings above and below the ground. 27 Manager can use several techniques to discourage or prevent their access to young trees. 28

• Fencing —Fencing can be used to limit access to 29 the riparian forest buffer by livestock, deer, and 30 other larger animals. It can be electric or woven 31 wire. To be effective, deer fencing needs to be 32 well-designed and around 8 feet tall. Gates might 33 need to be built in for human access. Additional 34 information on livestock exclusion fencing is in 35 the Agriculture chapter. 36

• Mowing —Mowing destroys tall weed habitat that 37 rodents prefer. The last mowing of the season 38 should be in September or October to reduce overwin ter habitat for voles and other 39 rodents. 403/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-31 • Tree shelters —Shelters are a physical barrier for browsing deer. They also keep voles 1 from seedling roots provided that the tube is pushe d into the soil a few inches. 2


### 3.4.4 Reinforcement Planting 3 Reinforcement plantings might be necessary if some portion of original seedlings die. Before 4 undertaking such an action, however, riparian manag ers should investigate why they did not 5 survive or how they were damaged and then adjust pl anting methods and follow-up care 6 accordingly. In some cases, a single factor might b e the cause of tree mortality; in other 7 instances, a combination of factors might be in pla y. 8



### 3.5 Cost 9 Costing is, of course, a key part of the planning p rocess. The Maryland Cooperative Extension 10 Service estimates that a typical forest buffer cost s between $218–$729 per acre to plant and 11 maintain (Tjaden and Weber 1998). However, costs vary widely and depend on the size and type 12 of buffer. Managers must make choices at each step in the development process; from site13 preparation alternatives, to planting methods, to s eedling protection approaches, and follow-up 14 maintenance. There is also a cost in taking the lan d out of crop production, if the landowner or a 15 renter is farming the land. The National Agroforestry Center developed an Excel-based tool 16 called Buffer$ ( http://www.unl.edu/nac/buffer$.htm ) to help landowners analyze cost benefits of 17 buffers compared to traditional crops. 18 The following resources are available for helping l andowners determine the cost of establishing a 19 riparian buffer on property: 20

• Klapproth and Johnson. 2009. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest 21 Buffers: Resources for Virginia Landowners

. 22

• Maryland Cooperative Extension. Fact Sheet 774. When a Landowner Adopts a Riparian 23 Buffer—Benefits and Costs ( http://www.riparianbuffers.umd.edu/PDFs/FS774.pdf ). 24

• North Carolina State University, Cooperative Extens ion Service. 2003. Cost and Benefits 25 of Best Management Practices to Control Nitrogen in the Upper and Middle Coastal 26 Plain ( http://www.neuse.ncsu.edu/Ag%20621.pdf ). 27

• USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS ). 1997. 1997 Conservation 28 Reserve Program practice cost and flat rate paymentestimates for Virginia, March 1997. 29


### 3.6 Sources of Funding 30 To help offset the cost of restoring or reestablish ing a riparian buffer, several programs are 31 available to farmers and other landowners. Most of the programs include technical assistance for 32 planning buffer systems as well as cost-sharing dol lars for installing buffers. Some of the sources 33 available in the Chesapeake Bay area are listed bel ow. 343/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-32 

### 3.6.1 Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 1 CRP is a voluntary program for agricultural landown ers administered by USDA’s Farm Service 2 Agency (FSA). Through CRP, landowners can receive a nnual rental payments and cost-share 3 assistance to establish long-term, resource-conserv ing covers on eligible farmland. The 4 Commodity Credit Corporation makes annual rental pa yments according to the agriculture rental 5 value of the land, and it provides cost-share assis tance for up to 50 percent of the participant’s 6 costs in establishing approved conservation practic es. Participants enroll in CRP contracts for 10 7 to 15 years. Technical support is provided by USDA’ s NRCS; USDA’s Cooperative State 8 Research, Education, and Extension Service; state f orestry agencies; local soil and water 9 conservation districts; and, in some cases, the pri vate sector. 10 In return for establishing long-term, resource-cons erving covers, FSA provides annual rental 11 payments to participants. FSA bases rental rates on the relative productivity of the soils within 12 each county and the average dry land cash rent or c ash rent equivalent. FSA provides cost-share 13 assistance to participants who establish approved c over on eligible cropland. The cost-share 14 assistance can be no more than 50 percent of the participant’s cost to establish approved 15 practices. FSA offers financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the soil rental rate for riparian 16 buffers. An additional 10 percent may be added to t he soil rental rate for land within EPA17 designated wellhead protection areas. A per-acre pa yment rate may also be added for 18 maintenance of eligible practices. FSA also offers other enhancements, including an up-front 19 signing incentive payment (CRP-SIP) up to $100 per acre for eligible participants who enroll 20 certain practices and a practice incentive payment (CRP-PIP) equal to 40 percent of the eligible 21 installation costs for eligible participants who en roll certain practices. 22 For more information, visit www.fsa.usda.gov

. 23


### 3.6.2 The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 24 CREP is a voluntary land retirement program that he lps agricultural producers protect 25 environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, r estore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground 26 and surface water. The program is a partnership amo ng producers; tribal, state, and federal 27 governments; and, in some cases, private groups. CR EP is a component of the country’s largest 28 private-lands environmental improvement program—the CRP. Like CRP, CREP is administered 29 by USDA’s FSA. By combining CRP resources with stat e, tribal, and private programs, CREP 30 provides farmers and ranchers with a sound financia l package for conserving and enhancing the 31 natural resources of farms. 32 CREP allows states to target combined federal and s tate funds toward high-priority resources or 33 environmental issues. Geographic areas or land type s and specific conservation practices, 34 including streamside buffers, can be designated forenrollment. Land eligible for enrollment 35 includes cropland and marginal pasture land. To qua lify for the federal funds, a state must work 36 with the FSA and the NRCS to develop a comprehensiv e plan as part of its proposal. Contracts 37 as part of a CREP can range from 10 to 15 years. Participating landowners receive cost-share 38 funding for specific management practices. 39 A federal annual rental rate, including an FSA stat e committee-determined maintenance 40 incentive payment, is offered, plus cost-share of u p to 50 percent of the eligible costs to install 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-33 the practice. Further, the program generally offers a sign-up incentive for participants to install 1 specific practices. 2 Sometimes, additional state incentives can apply. O ne example is in Pennsylvania. If landowners 3 install a riparian buffer that is at least 50 feet wide, they will receive 50 percent cost-share from 4 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec tion through the Pennsylvania Association 5 of Conservation Districts. 6 For more information, visit www.fsa.usda.gov

. 7


### 3.6.3 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQI P) 8 The EQIP program is a voluntary conservation cost-s hare program. Administered by NRCS, it 9 makes technical, financial, and educational assista nce available to farmers and ranchers to help 10 them install or implement structural and managementpractices on eligible agricultural land. 11 Contracts can range from 1 to 10 years. Persons eng aged in livestock or agricultural production 12 and owners of nonindustrial private forestland are eligible for the program. Eligible land includes 13 cropland, rangeland, pastureland, private nonindustrial forestland, and other farm or ranch lands. 14 EQIP provides payments up to 75 percent of the incu rred costs and income foregone of certain 15 conservation practices and activities. However, cer tain historically underserved producers 16 (limited resource farmers/ranchers, beginning farme rs/ranchers, socially disadvantaged 17 producers) might be eligible for increased cost-sha re payments. 18 For more information on EQIP, visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip

. 19


### 3.6.4 Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 20 The WHIP program is an NRCS-administered program th at provides technical assistance and 21 cost-share funds to farmers, ranchers, and others w anting to enhance fish and wildlife habitat on 22 agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest lan d, and tribal land. Contracts can range from 1 to 23 10 years. Similar to EQIP, WHIP provides payments u p to 75 percent of the incurred costs to 24 install conservation practices for permanent priori ty fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, WHIP 25 will pay up to 90 percent for long-term (15 years o r more) agreements to protect and restore 26 essential plant and animal habitat. However, certai n historically underserved producers (limited 27 resource farmers/ranchers, beginning farmers/ranche rs, socially disadvantaged producers) might 28 be eligible for increased cost-share payments. 29 For more information on WHIP, visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip

. 30


### 3.6.5 Conservation Security Program (CSP) 31 CSP is administered by NRCS. It is a voluntary prog ram that provides financial and technical 32 assistance to promote the conservation and improvem ent of soil, water, air, energy, plant and 33 animal life, and other conservation purposes on tri bal and private working lands. Working lands 34 include cropland, grassland, prairie land, improved pasture, and range land, as well as forested 35 land that is an incidental part of an agriculture o peration. To be eligible, the land must be 36 privately owned or tribal land, the applicant must be in compliance with highly erodible and 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-34 wetland provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 , have an active interest in the agricultural 1 operation, and have control of the land for the lif e of the contract, and the applicant must share in 2 the risk of producing any crop or livestock and be entitled to a share in the crop or livestock 3 marketed from the operation. Payments can include a n annual stewardship component for the 4 existing base level conservation treatment; an annu al existing practice component for the 5 maintenance of existing conservation practices, an enhancement component for exceptional 6 conservation effort and additional conservation pra ctices or activities that provide increased 7 resource benefits beyond the prescribed level, and/ or a one-time new practice component for 8 additional needed practices. 9 For more information on CSP, visit http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/ 10
CSP is only available only in certain watersheds. NRCS has provided a workbook landowners 11 can use to determine program eligibility. The workb ook can be accessed at: 12 http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CSP/CSP_2008/2008 _pdfs/SAW2008.pdf 13


### 3.6.6 Virginia’s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) 14 LIP is a grant-based, voluntary, cost-share programadministered by the Virginia Department of 15 Game and Inland Fisheries. The U.S. Fish and Wildli fe Service funds it. LIP pays for 75 percent 16 of the total project cost to landowners who are wil ling to install and maintain stream restoration 17 and riparian buffer projects on their property for at least 10 years. The Department of Game and 18 Inland Fisheries also provides engineering assistan ce and acquires any regulatory permits 19 required to implement projects. Eligible participan ts include private landowners including farms; 20 corporations; residents; hunting clubs; nonprofits; and other nongovernmental organizations; 21 individuals that own land along a river, creek, or stream within selected watersheds with rare 22 wildlife species; and landowners who are willing to protect their restoration project with at least 23 a 35-foot vegetated buffer. 24 For more information on Virginia’s LIP, visit http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/habitat/lip/ 25


### 3.6.7 Maryland’s Buffer Incentive Program (BIP) 26 Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) ad ministers a BIP to help private 27 landowners establish and maintain streamside forest ed buffers in the Chesapeake Bay area. The 28 program provides a one-time incentive payment of $3 00 per acre for areas planted with buffers, 29 up to $15,000. To be eligible, the private landowne r must have between 1 and 50 acres of either 30 cropland, pastureland, or open or bare ground on early successional vegetation. The property 31 must be within 300 feet of a stream, river, pond, o r nontidal wetland; be within 300 feet plus 4 4 32 feet for every 1 percent slope for slopes averaging greater than 6 percent; or be within the 100

- - 33 year floodplain. 34 For more information on Maryland’s BIP, visit www.dnr.state.md.us

. 35 For more information on all cost-share programs, co ntact your local FSA or soil and 36 conservation district. 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-35 

## 4 Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas 1

Implementation Measure: Protect from adverse effects riparian areas that are serving a significant [nonpoint source]-abatement function an d maintain this function while protecting the other existing functions of these riparian areas.


### 4.1 Background 2 The current rate of loss of riparian forests in the 3 Chesapeake Bay is unknown. The long-term 4 goal Chesapeake Bay goal of having riparian 5 forests on 70 percent of all streambanks and 6 shorelines in the Chesapeake Bay not only 7 requires the restoration of buffers, but also 8 strong protections for existing buffers to 9 maintain that goal. Existing riparian buffers as 10 well as restored riparian buffers that have been 11 established for several years must be protected 12 and maintained to keep them functioning as 13 desired. 14 The previous chapter discussed the restoration and reestablishment of riparian forest buffers. A 15 portion of the riparian forestbuffers that exist c a me about through both mandatory and voluntary 16 action by private landowners, including farmers and for estland owners as well as private citizens. 17 The USDA, state and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations often provide assistance . The 18 level and type of technical assistance, incentives, and program support var yby jurisdiction. In 19 addition to privately owned land, some land is publicly owned. Both private and public 20 landowners need to develop a long

- term maintenance plan for their riparian buffers. This chapter 21 provides information on recommended long-term maint enance activities and methods , as well as 22 ways jurisdictions can use to protect existing riparian buffers. 23 

### 4.2 Long-term Maintenance 24 Existing riparian buffers, including those that hav e been 25 restored, require long-term maintenance to maintain 26 their desired functions, especially in terms of fil tering 27 phosphorus, N nitrogen , and sediments from upland 28 areas and preventing those pollutants from entering the 29 Chesapeake Bay. Maintenance is done in several ways
, 30 as described in the following pages. 31 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 a re serving a significant [nonpoint source]-abatement function an d maintain3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-36 

### 4.2.1 Watershed Evaluation 1 On a broad scale (at the state or county level), th e first step in determining long-term 2 maintenance of riparian buffers is to determine the extent of riparian buffers in the watershed and 3 how well they are functioning. Riparian buffers tha t are functioning well should be maintained 4 and protected. Those buffers that are not functioni ng well might need some maintenance or 5 might need more significant restoration (see Chapter 3). To im plement proper management 6 practices in riparian buffer areas and ensure an ar ea is functioning properly, the capability and 7 potential of a riparian buffer must be understood ( US DI 1998). The functioning condition of 8 riparian buffers is a result of interactions of geo logy, soil, water, and vegetation. Riparian buffers 9 are functioning properly when there is adequate structure present to provide the desired benefits 10 applicable to a particular area ( US DI 1998). See Chapter 2 and 3 for examples of benef its. In 11 addition, when determining whether a riparian buffe r is functioning properly, the condition of the 12 entire watershed is important. Riparian Area Management—Process for Assessing Pro per 13 Functioning Condition ( US DI 1998) provides more information on how to assess the functioning 14 condition of riparian buffers. 15 Some good sources of information on how to properlyassess riparian buffers are the following: 16

• Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Appli cations to Management (USDA FS 17 1987) 18

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

• Development of Methodologies to Evaluate the Health of Riparian and Wetland Areas 20 (Hansen et al. 2000) 21 Evaluate the extent, size, soils, plantings, habita t, and hydrology of existing riparian buffers, as 22 discussed in the following paragraphs. 23

Extent of Riparian Buffers in the Watershed 24 Some maps already exist that show riparian 25 buffer areas in the Chesapeake Bay. 26 Pennsylvania State University mapped the 27 extent and change in riparian forest buffers 28 for the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed 29 (Day and Crew 2005) using the 1992 30 National Land Cover Dataset and the 31 University of Maryland’s MA-RESAC 32 2001 data set. They found that during the 33 1990s, the extent of riparian forest buffers 34 increased between 18,800 to 28,500 kilometers (Clag gett et al. 2010). The extent of riparian 35 buffers can be determined using tools such as geogr aphic information systems, remote sensing, 36 and hydrologic modeling. Satellite images and high- resolution aerial photography can help in the 37 evaluation of each riparian area. One example of th is type of approach is a study performed by 38 the Center for Land Use Education and Research at t he University of Connecticut. For the study 39 researchers evaluated land cover and land cover cha nge within riparian corridors in Connecticut 40 between 1986 and 2006 ( http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/riparian_buffer2/in dex.htm ). 41 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,3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-37 The Riparian Buffer Mapper (RBMapper) software deve loped by GDA Corp with support from 1 the Chesapeake Bay Program, USGS, and USDA FS is a tool that might be helpful for buffer 2 delineation. The program outputs a land cover map o f riparian buffers and a text report with land 3 cover statistics. 4 On-site methods might also be needed, such as perfo rming various types of field surveys that 5 look at geomorphology, hydrology, habitat, wildlife , soils, plant inventories, and so forth. A 6 good approach would be to use a combination of remo te and on-site methods to evaluate the 7 streambanks in the watershed in terms of channel ge ometry, land use, soil types, and vegetation. 8 The targeting matrix proposed by the Chesapeake BayProgram Forestry Workgroup and 9 described in Section 3.3 might also be 10 useful in helping to identify areas 11 where riparian buffers are most likely 12 to exist. 13 Some sources of maps, satellite 14 imagery, and land cover data in the 15 Chesapeake Bay watershed include 16

• RBMapper 17 ( http://gdacorp.web5.hubspot.c 18 om/rb-mapper/ ) 19

• Chesapeake Bay Program 20 ( www.chesapeakebay.net/maps. 21 aspx?menuitem=16825 ) 22

• USGS ( http://www.usgs.gov/ 23 pubprod/ ) 24

• Mid-Atlantic Regional Earth 25 Science Applications Center 26 (MA-RESAC) 27 ( www.geog.umd.edu/resac/ ) 28

Size of the Riparian Buffer 29 It is important to evaluate the size 30 (length, width) of each existing riparian 31 buffer area to determine whether it is 32 adequate to protect the Chesapeake Bay from nonpoin t source pollution, or serve other functions 33 such as providing wildlife habitat, stabilizing str eambanks, or protecting the fish population. 34 Typically, longer and wider buffers are better at f iltering and removing pollutants and provide 35 better wildlife and aquatic habitat, as described e arlier in this document. 36

Pla ntings 37 In order to manage existing areas so that they are effective lo ng into the future, m anagers should 38 determine the variations in riparian communities in a watershed and whether they are appropriate 39 on the basis of factors such as soil type, hydrolog y, and land use

. The species that exist in the 40 Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 2005.3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-38 riparian buffer need to be examined to determine wh ether they are appropriate for the desired 1 effects of the buffer (such as wildlife and aquatic habitat) and whether they are tolerant. Native 2 vegetation is typi cally better capable of withstanding local water, c limate, soil, and pest 3 conditions

. 4 Riparian buffer managers should consider the follow ing: 5

• Climate change could bring about changes in tempera ture and rainfall amounts that could 6 affect vegetation’s growth and survivability and could increase the types or amount of 7 invasive species. 8

• Keep an eye on riparian areas for plant die off and act quickly to repair any damage or 9 replant additional vegetation. 10

• Vegetation in the riparian forest buffer should be long

- li ving and tolerant to different types 11 of meteorologic and hydrologic conditions. 12

• Remove certain species that are not appropriate to the area or plant new vegetation. 13

• Favor species that have strong crowns and are thinn ing an overgrown riparian buffer to give 14 stronger trees more room to grow (Axelson 2010). 15

• Pick botanical generalists with a wider range of ha bitat adaptability. 16

• Choose plants that have multiple values, such as er osion control, nesting habitat, food 17 sources (nuts and fruit), and filtering capabil ity. 18 More information on managing species is found in Section 4.2.3. 19

Habitat 20 As described in Chapters 2 and 3, riparian buffers can serve as habitats to support many types of 21 wildlife. Habitat should be evaluated to determine whether it is adequate to support the desired 22 wildlife species, such as providing enough food and shelter. Evaluate the amount of large woody 23 debris in the stream, which comes from the riparian buffer, and whether it is adequate to provide 24 food and shelter for aquatic animals. Examples of b oth terrestrial and aquatic habitat assessments 25
are found here: 26

• Maryland Department of Natural Resources ( http://www.dnr.md.gov/streams/pubs/ 27 ea03-4phi.pdf ) 28

• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 29 ( http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/wqs/headwaters/PHWHM anual_2009.pdf ) 30

• The Nature Conservancy Active River Area 31 ( http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/files/ active_river_area.pdf ) 32

Hydrologic Extremes of Channel Events 33 Riparian buffers frequently interact with the waterflowing in streams. Hydrologic and 34 geomorphic conditions help maintain many of the fun ctional aspects of a riparian area. Such 35 controls are important for such functions as the ch emical characteristics of water, habitat 36 maintenance, and water storage and transport. To en sure that riparian buffers maintain their 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-39 functions, managers must understand existing and fu ture hydrogeomorphic conditions and 1 consider them when developing management plans. It is important to understand the natural flow 2 patterns (frequency, magnitude, duration) associate d with each riparian buffer, especially where 3 flow regimes have been modified (NRC 2002). Channel incision and widening from certain land 4 use practices can curtail overbank flows. Informati on on historical conditions from overbank 5 flood events is useful to know whether healthy riparian communities are possible and whether 6 incision and widening is reversible (NRC 2002). 7 As mentioned earlier, climate change creates uncert ainty for riparian areas in the Chesapeake 8 Bay. In the upcoming years, plant species might exp erience a change in their growth rates and be 9 exposed to higher average temperatures and changes in typical rainfall (Sprague et al. 2006). 10 Because of that, hydrologic regimes are likely to c hange. Streams might experience more 11 frequent effects of severe floods, droughts, and hu rricanes. The risk of hydrologic extremes 12 should be determined for different areas of the wat ershed. Assess how the stream channel will 13 function ecologically under extreme low-flow or hig h-flow conditions, This is especially 14 important for the survival and movement of aquatic species. Areas that have a similar threat 15 should be evaluated to see if they are being manage d consistently. It is important to inspect the 16 condition of a riparian buffer after a significant metrological or hydrological event occurs to 17 determine if any maintenance is needed. 18 Some sources of information on hydrology include th e following: 19

• Stream flow data—USGS 20

• Wetlands maps of hydric soils and principals of geo morphic evolution—Rosgen, Simon 21 and Hupp models 22



### 4.2.2 Land Use 23 Land use directly affects the characteristics of ru noff through a riparian buffer. Effectiveness will 24 depend on the conditions of the upland land cover w here the runoff originates (i.e., urban, 25 suburban, pervious, impervious, agricultural, tille d, no till) (NRC
, 2002). Therefore, practices in 26 these upland land uses that contribute to riparian degradation must be addressed if riparian areas 27 are to be improved. 28 Agriculture runoff (high in nutrients, bacteria, an d TSS) will be different from urban runoff (high 29 in nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbon s, temperature, oxygen-demanding substances, 30 and trash and debris) (USEPA 1996). Forested land h as unique factors that managers should 31 consider in terms of maintaining and protecting exi sting riparian areas. For example, timber 32 harvesting must be managed so it does not increase water and sediment yields and lead to stream 33 channel destabilization and loss of aquatic habitat . The forest landowner should also not decrease 34 woody, in-stream cover. Doing so could destabilize streambanks, reduce shading, increase water 35 temperatures, reduce inputs of fine litter to the w aterbody, and reduce the diversity of plants and 36 animals in the area. From a landscape perspective, managing a greater proportion of the riparian 37 area for uneven-aged, mixed stands of longer-lived species suitable to the site can help protect 38 riparian functions and values. The agriculture, for estry, and urban chapters of this document 39 provide detailed information on managing different land uses to prevent and reduce nonpoint 40 source pollution from entering the Chesapeake Bay. 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-40 

### 4.2.3 Managing Plants Species 1 The species planted in riparian buffers need to be maintained so that the areas retain their desired 2 functions. Consider the planting, harvesting, pruni ng, and nurturing protocols required to protect 3 the riparian species from degradation. You might ne ed to deal with new plants, invasive species 4 control, wildlife damage issues, and disease issues . A landowner can contact the local NRCS 5 office or a nursery for assistance. 6

Plantings 7 To manage existing areas so that they are effective long into the future, managers should 8 determine the variations in riparian communities in a watershed and whether they are appropriate 9 on the basis of factors such as soil type, hydrolog y, and land use. The species that exist in the 10 riparian buffer need to be examined to determine wh ether they are appropriate for the desired 11 effects of the buffer (such as wildlife and aquatic habitat) and whether they are tolerant. Native 12 vegetation is typically better capable of withstand ing local water, climate, soil, and pest 13 conditions. 14 Riparian buffer managers should consider the follow ing: 15

• Climate change could bring about changes in tempera ture and rainfall amounts that could 16 affect vegetation’s growth and survivability and co uld increase the types or amount of 17 invasive species. 18

• Keep an eye on riparian areas for plant die off and act quickly to repair any damage or 19 replant additional vegetation. 20

• Vegetation in the riparian forest buffer should be long-living and tolerant to different 21 types of meteorologic and hydrologic conditions. 22

• Remove certain species that are not appropriate to the area or plant new vegetation. 23

• Favor species that have strong crowns and are thinn ing an overgrown riparian buffer to 24 give stronger trees more room to grow (Axelson 2010 ). 25

• Pick botanical generalists with a wider range of ha bitat adaptability. 26

• Choose plants that have multiple values, such as er osion control, nesting habitat, food 27 sources (nuts and fruit), and filtering capability. 28

Weed Control 29 Riparian buffers should be managed over the long-te rm to ensure that native vegetation is being 30 established/ maintained along the waterways. As mentioned in Chapter 3, weeds and invasive 31 species can overtake a riparian area, causing damag e to other species by competing for resources. 32 Techniques to remove weeds, such as mowing, and han d clearing, are important to consider 33 using for long-term maintenance of a riparian buffe r. For details on those techniques, see 34 Chapter 3. 35 Some good resources for identifying weeds and invas ive species in the Chesapeake Bay are 36

• USDA NRCS ( http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver ) 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-41 • Native plant societies 1

• Virginia ( www.vnps.org/ ) 2

• Maryland ( www.mdflora.org/ ) 3

• District of Columbia ( www.botsoc.org/ ) 4

• Pennsylvania ( www.pawildflower.org/ ) 5 Preventative management, however, is the best metho d of weed control. This includes things like 6 not disposing of plant clippings in riparian areas, not planting invasive species nearby, and 7 removing problem plants as soon as they are spotted

. 8 Note: When considering weed removal, when mechanize d clearing is employed in an aquatic 9 area, a permit may be required from the U.S. Army C orps of Engineers pursuant to Clean Water 10 Act section 404. 11

Pruning, Harvesting, and Nurturing 12 In an existing riparian forest buffer, riparian buf fer managers should maintain the diversity of 13 species and a multistoried structure to provide val uable food and habitat for wildlife. It is good 14 protocol to check the conditions of any plants in t he buffer periodically, especially after 15 significant storm events, and consider planting add itional species if needed to maintain the 16 buffer’s integrity. Check the area for damaged, dis eased, or dying trees and shrubs that might 17 need to be pruned or removed and replaced (contact NRCS, a cooperative extension, or local 18 nursery for assistance). Check for fallen or leanin g trees that might need to be removed (although 19 fallen trees might provide valuable habitat). 20 Check during drought conditions, and water plants i f necessary. Some trees might need to be 21 harvested to remove nutrients and chemicals stored in their stems (Schultz et al. 1997) and to 22 allow stronger trees to grow. However, managers mus t take care not to overharvest because that 23 could be disruptive to the existing plant and anima l communities and could lead to increased 24 streambank erosion (USEPA 2005). 25 Below are sources of additional information on prun ing, harvesting, and nurturing protocols. 26

• USDA FSA ( http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver ) 27

• Maryland DNR Forest Service ( http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Forests/ ) 28

• Virginia Forest Service ( http://www.vaforestservice.com/Forest_Management.as px ) 29

• Pennsylvania DNR ( http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/trees.html ) 30

• Weeds Gone Wild ( http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/ ) 31 If the riparian forest buffer is part of an ongoing forestry operation, some limited harvest in 32 accordance with BMPs for water quality (and associa ted guidelines for streamside management 33 zones) may be allowed in the buffer, but workers sh ould minimize land disturbance. Burning and 34 pesticide and fertilizer use might also be restrict ed. For more information, see the section on 35 forestry. 363/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-42 Agricultural land that has forested riparian buffer s should be addressed using these same 1 principles for selective harvest and could be subse quently reforested or used for other 2 agricultural pursuits. For more information, see th e chapter on agriculture. 3

Fencing 4 Fencing, in some cases, can be an effective means o f protecting riparian vegetation. Fences can 5 be used to keep out or control livestock movement a nd grazing and to direct human activities 6 into other areas. Fences serve to delineate land us es and prevent human activity from 7 encroaching on the riparian zone. Many different fe ncing options exist, and it is important to 8 identify the specific management requirements so th at the location and design of fencing and 9 gates, is appropriate and effective. Fencing needs to be inspected regularly for damage caused by 10 weather, wildlife, or vandalism, and repaired if ne eded. Additional information on livestock 11 exclusion fencing is in the Agriculture chapter. 12

Erosion and Sediment Control 13 Riparian buffers should be inspected annually and a fter significant rainfall events for signs of 14 erosion. Bare areas should be replanted, and additi onal soil might need to be added. In addition, 15 over time or after a significant rainfall event, se diment that is trapped in the riparian can build up 16 and bury groundcover. Sediment can also build up atthe edge of a buffer and block water flow. 17 In those cases, the sediment should be removed, and some vegetation might need to be replanted. 18 If it becomes an ongoing problem, the adjacent area might need better management practices 19 installed. 20



### 4.3 Protection 21 Local government commitments are important to preve nt or require mitigation for clearing 22 riparian forests during development, stormwater man agement, or transportation system 23 construction. Permitting, licensing, certification, and nonregulatory approaches should be used 24 where appropriate to protect riparian areas. Local governments should warn landowners of the 25 potential Clean Water Act section 404 permit implic ations of modifying a riparian area. 26 Federal, state, nonprofit, and private programs, bo th regulatory and nonregulatory, exist to 27 protect riparian functions. Creating ordinances and zoning to protect existing riparian areas is 28 likely to be less expensive than establishing new a reas or restoring degraded ones (Mayer et al. 29 2005). It has was been recommended by a federal interagency report t hat states should “Limit or 30 eliminate development within riparian areas, using a similar approach such as Maryland’s 31 Critical Areas legislation and Virginia’s Chesapeak e Bay Preservation Act” and “create 32 incentives to ensure that restored buffers remain i ntact” (Greiner and Vogt 2009). 33


### 4.3.1 Acquisition 34 The vast majority of land within the Chesapeake Baywatershed is held by private landowners. 35 However, a government agency, nonprofit organizatio n, or private citizen can purchase land 36 where riparian areas exist as a means of protecting them from future degradation. Millions of 37 acres of habitat in the 64,000-square-mile Chesapeake watershed are already protected by 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-43 federal, state, and local government programs and p rivate organizations such as The Nature 1 Conservancy, The Natural Lands Trust, and other lan d trusts (Greiner and Vogt 2009). 2

Fee Simple Acquisition 3 A local government or conservation group can do a f ee simple acquisition, which gives it the full 4 ownership of riparian land and provides the greates t amount of control over the use and 5 maintenance of a property. This type of ownership i s most desirable if the resources on the land 6 are highly sensitive, and protection of the resourc es cannot be reasonably guaranteed using other 7 approaches for conservation. 8

Conservation Easement 9 An alternative to buying riparian land is to purcha se the property owner’s right to use that 10 riparian land for specific purposes by purchasing a conservation easement. A conservation 11 easement is a written legal agreement between a lan downer and a land trust or a local 12 government that permanently restricts some landowne r rights to the use of a property to protect 13 its conservation value. 14
Some easement transactions offer tax benefits. A la ndowner who donates an easement or sells it 15 for less than fair market value (for example, to a land trust) could be entitled to a federal income 16 tax deduction. Such land must be used exclusively f or conservation purposes. Another option is 17 donation or a bargain sale of an easement by a land owner to a land trust. The easement is legally 18 transferred but at no cost or at below-market value to the easement holder. That allows the 19 landowner to qualify for a tax-deductible charitabl e donation. 20


### 4.3.2 Zoning and Protective Ordinances 21 A state often looks to local governments to adminis ter the regulations or incentives necessary to 22 encourage private landowners to protect riparian ar eas. Often, local governments used land use 23 ordinances for that purpose. Land use ordinances de fine land use restrictions and plans. Zoning is 24 one of the most common types of land use ordinances . Zoning that protects riparian buffers 25 might be part of an existing natural resource prote ction ordinance, stormwater ordinance or 26 floodplain ordinance in a state. Managers should re view such regulations for their adequacy in 27 protecting riparian areas. An overlay zoning ordina nce pertaining to riparian buffer protection is 28 appropriate in a municipality that already has a zo ning ordinance in place. For a municipality that 29 does not have zoning ordinances in place, a separat e, freestanding ordinance might be necessary 30 to protect riparian buffers. 313/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-44 A stream buffer ordinance can be used to establish minimal acceptable requirements for buffer 1 design to protect streams and waterbodies in and ar ound the Chesapeake Bay and to provide for 2 the environmentally sound use of the jurisdiction’s land resources. To see examples of 3 ordinances that can be used to protect natural reso urces, see www.stormwatercenter.net . The 4 stream buffer ordinance is an 5 example of a model ordinance 6 that can be used to guide future 7 growth while safeguarding 8 local natural resources. The 9 intent is to provide language 10 and ideas which communities 11 and stormwater managers can 12 incorporate when constructing 13 an ordinance for their area. By 14 examining the example 15 provided, community decision 16 makers should find the 17 language to craft an ordinance 18 that is appropriate for their 19 conditions. A strong buffer 20 ordinance is one step in 21 preserving stream buffers. 22 Another example of a riparian 23 buffer ordinance is the 24 Riparian Buffer Conservation Zone Model Ordinance, which was prepared in 2005 by the 25 Passaic River Coalition and New Jersey Department o f Environmental Protection, Division of 26 Watershed Management, at http://www.marsh27 friends.org/marsh/pdf/ordinance/StreamBufferOrdinan ce.pdf

. 28

29 The Stormwater Center ( http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ModelOrdinances/

buffer_model_ordinance.htm ) includes a template and sample ordinances, includ ing one from Baltimore County, Maryland. Some of the major secti ons 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 an d forest buffers, limits of a 100-year floodplain, mapped hydric soils, slopes measures, s ummary of species of vegetation)

• Design standards for forest buffer (i.e., width, s lope)

• Management and maintenance of buffers (i.e., limit ations on alteration of natural conditions, maintenance of roads, bridges, paths, utilities, st ormwater management)

• Enforcement procedures (i.e., checking for violati ons, civil or criminal penalties)

• Waivers/Variance (i.e., ordinance applies to all d evelopment after effective date)

• Conflict with other regulations (i.e., more restri ctive regulation will apply) An example of a nonprofit agency that obtained a co nservation easement in the Chesapeake Bay is the Conservation Fund ( http://www.conservationfund.org/chesapeake_bay_init iative ). The Conservation Fund launched an ambitious program that seeks to protect 100,000 acres of high-priority lan d and water within the watershed by 2010. Three miles of histor ic 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 u nder the 5,200-acre Chino Farms conservation easement—the la rgest 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 mor e than 8 square miles of critical riparian habitat and wetla nds. This easement keeps Chino Farms in agricultural producti on while conserving valuable natural resources in the Chesap eake Bay watershed. An example of a nonprofit agency that obtained a co nservation easement in the Chesapeake Bay is the Conservation Fund ( http://www.conservationfund.org/chesapeake_bay_init iative ). The Conservation Fund launched an ambitious program that seeks to protect 100,000 acres of high-priority lan d and water within the watershed by 2010. Three miles of histor ic 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 u nder the 5,200-acre Chino Farms conservation easement—the la rgest 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 mor e than 8 square miles of critical riparian habitat and wetla nds. This easement keeps Chino Farms in agricultural producti on while conserving valuable natural resources in the Chesap eake Bay watershed.3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-45 In some cases, through the municipal planning code, municipalities can take a regulatory or 1 incentive-based approach to protect riparian areas in new developments. The degree of riparian 2 area protection is likely to vary with the approach . Best results occur when a municipality 3 identifies riparian areas to protect early in the p lanning stage of a new development. Intervention 4 during early planning stages often promotes goodwil l efforts from the developer. Amenities such 5 as greenways or trails along stream corridors that result from municipal intervention can benefit 6 the developer and protect the water resource becaus e such green spaces can enhance the 7 desirability of property in a new development. 8 Developers can be awarded increased building densit ies for developments that conserve natural 9 areas, such as riparian corridors. Conversely, muni cipalities can employ density penalties to 10 encourage conservation of natural areas. A jurisdic tion could establish a minimum and maximum 11 density and permit the higher density to a develope r that plans for natural areas and open space 12 techniques while lowering the allowable density for developments that do not incorporate 13 preservation of natural areas. 14

15 In some states, like Pennsylvania, a riparian buffe r can be used as a stormwater credit, which is a 16 technique that developers can use to reduce their s tormwater management costs (Alliance for the 17 Chesapeake Bay 2004). A stormwater credit for a str eam buffer would be given when runoff 18 from upland areas is treated by a grass or wooded b uffer. Such techniques reduce runoff 19 volumes, which helps to avoid the construction of c ostly stormwater management facilities. 20


### 4.3.3 Water Quality Standards 21 A state can use its water quality standards to prot ect existing riparian areas. For example, North 22 Carolina has the Sediment Pollution Control Act, un der which it declares that for forestry 23 operations, a streamside management zone (SMZ) (i.e ., buffer) must be established and 24 maintained along the margins of intermittent and pe rennial streams and perennial waterbodies. 25 The Stormwater Center ( http://www.stormwatercenter.net/ModelOrdinances/

buffer_model_ordinance.htm ) includes a template and sample ordinances, includ ing one from Baltimore County, Maryland. Some of the major secti ons 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 an d forest buffers, limits of a 100-year floodplain, mapped hydric soils, slopes measures, s ummary of species of vegetation)

• Design standards for forest buffer (i.e., width, s lope)

• Management and maintenance of buffers (i.e., limit ations on alteration of natural conditions, maintenance of roads, bridges, paths, utilities, st ormwater management)

• Enforcement procedures (i.e., checking for violati ons, civil or criminal penalties)

• Waivers/Variance (i.e., ordinance applies to all d evelopment after effective date)

• Conflict with other regulations (i.e., more restri ctive regulation will apply)3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-46 The SMZ must be of sufficient width to confine with in the SMZ visible sediment resulting from 1 accelerated erosion (NCDENR 1999). 2 In Maryland’s water quality standards, it is the po licy that riparian forest buffers adjacent to 3 certain waters must be retained when possible to ma intain water temperature to protect salmonid 4 fish. Maryland and Virginia have water quality stan dards that allow certain waters to be listed as 5 exceptional state waters, which receive certain pro tections from antidegradation. In such cases, 6 landowners of riparian areas are notified (MDE 2009 ; VDEQ 2009). 7


### 4.3.4 Regulation and Enforcement 8 Individual local governments create and adopt devel opment regulations to help retain riparian 9 forest buffers in urbanizing areas. In Virginia, ma ny local buffer ordinances (Section 4.3.2) were 10 developed as part of implementing the Chesapeake Ba y Act (VDCR 2010). In Maryland, an 11 evaluation of the Maryland Critical Area Program fo und a lower rate of loss of resource lands 12 (Hillyer 2003). Also in Maryland, the Forest Conser vation Act requires conservation of forests 13 and mitigation of forest loss within a hierarchy th at recommends that riparian forests be the 14 highest priority for protection (MDNR FS 1991). 15


### 4.3.5 Education and Training 16
Activities that encroach on buffers are 17 often not done purposefully but are 18 done because of ignorance. Education 19 and outreach are important tools for 20 promoting an understanding of the 21 importance of riparian areas in 22 maintaining water quality and 23 protecting habitat and other valuable 24 functions that they perform (USEPA 25 2005). Communities should work to 26 make buffers more visible to the 27 public and publicize the buffer’s 28 purpose and value to adjacent property 29 owners. That can be accomplished in 30 many ways, as recommended by EPA 31 and the Center for Watershed 32 Protection, including 33

• Marking buffer boundaries with permanent signs thatdescribe allowable uses 34

• Educating property owners about buffer benefits and uses via newsletters, pamphlets, 35 meetings, and such and encourage a stewardship ethi c 36

• Teaching courses in restoration techniques for land owners 37

• Ensuring that when property is sold, the new owners receive information about allowable 38 uses and limits of the buffer 39 Baltimore County Public Schools have an annual Fore st 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 conjunc tion with the Chesapeake Bay Trust, Baltimore County Forestry Board, and Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks and either take place on schoo l land or at another designated location (does not gi ve specifics). During the Forest Buffer Maintenance Pr oject students will map the planting areas to show where the trees and shrubs were planted, complete a survival/mortality count, and perform maintenance o n the plantings such as pruning and staking. These activi ties are taught in the Forestry Unit of the High School Environmental Science Curriculum. Outdoor Science h as two maintenance kits with equipment and instruction s that can be used to perform the necessary tasks. Baltimore County Public Schools have an annual Fore st 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 conjunc tion with the Chesapeake Bay Trust, Baltimore County Forestry Board, and Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks and either take place on schoo l land or at another designated location (does not gi ve specifics). During the Forest Buffer Maintenance Pr oject students will map the planting areas to show where the trees and shrubs were planted, complete a survival/mortality count, and perform maintenance o n the plantings such as pruning and staking. These activi ties are taught in the Forestry Unit of the High School Environmental Science Curriculum. Outdoor Science h as two maintenance kits with equipment and instruction s that can be used to perform the necessary tasks.3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-47 • Conducting annual buffer walks to assess buffer health and check for encroachment 13/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-48 

## 5 References 1 Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. 1996. Riparian Forest Buffers . Public Policy Program White 2 paper, January 1996. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Annapolis, MD. 3 Axelson, G. 2010. Trees Fit for the Future. Minnesota Conservation Volunteer . January-February 4 2010. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St . Paul, MN. 5 Baird A., and D. Wetmore. 2003. Riparian Buffers Modification and Mitigation Guidan ce 6 Manual . Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreatio n. 7 Chesapeake Bay Program. 2005. <http://www.chesapeak ebay.net/maps.aspx?menuitem=16825>. 8 Accessed February 2010. 9 Claggett, P.R., J.A. Okay, and S.V. Stehman. 2010. Monitoring Regional Riparian Forest Cover 10 Change: The Necessity of a Priori Knowledge on the Locations of Change. To be published 11 in JAWRA , April 2010. 12 CWA PA ( Clean Water Action Pennsylvania (CWA PA ). 2009. Buffers 100: Taking a Positive 13 Trend Statewide

. Clean Water Action Pennsylvania, CWA PA. Philadelphia, PA. 14 Craig, L. S., M. A. Palmer, D. C. Richardson, S. Fi loso, E. S. Bernhardt, B. P. Bledsoe, M. W. 15 Doyle, P. M. Groffman, B. A. Hassett, S. S. Kaushal , P. M. Mayer, S. M. Smith, and P. R. 16 Wilcock, 2008. Stream Restoration Strategies for Re ducing River Nitrogen Loads. 17 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
, 6(10):529

– - 538 18 Curkendall, J
., ennifer and S

. allyClagget. 2004 . Riparian Forest Buffer Technical Support 19 Document

. U.S. United States Forest Service, Chesapeake Bay Program. March 2004. 20 Day, R.L., and R.C. Crew. 2005. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest and Wetland Buffer 21 Inventory: Final Report . Pennsylvania State University, Land Analysis Labo ratory. 22
FISRWG (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Gr oup) . 1998. S tream Corridor 23 Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices

. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration 24 Working Group

. GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.65 3. ISBN-0- 25 934213-59-3. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Gro up. 26 Gold, A.J., and P.M. Groffman. 1995. Groundwater nitrate removal in riparian buffer 27
zones. Groundwater Nitrate Removal i n Riparian Buffer Zone s

. Pages 63-65. In Clean 28 Water, Clean Environment - 21st Century. Volume II: Nutrients. Proceedings of a 29 conference March 5-8, 1995 . Kansas City, MO. Mo. American Society of Agricultural 30 Engineers, St. Joseph, MI Mich. 254 pages

. 31 Hillyer, S

. aunders C. 2003. A n Evaluation of the Maryland Critical Area Program Effects on 32 Conservation of Resource Lands and Patterns of Deve lopment . The Abell Foundation, 33 Baltimore, MD Maryland. December 2003

. 343/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-49 Klapproth, J.C., and J.E. Johnson. 2009. Understanding the Science Behind Riparian Forest 1 Buffers: Benefits to Communities and Landowners . Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2 Blacksburg, VA. 3 Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology . W.H. 4 Freeman and Company
, : San Francisco, CA. 5 Letsinger, S.L. 2004. Evaluation of Riparian Buffer Zones using GIS and R emote Sensing to 6 Target Watershed Restoration Efforts . Indiana University. 7 < http://igs.indiana.edu/Survey/projects/riparianBuff ers/index.cfm >. Accessed January, 8 2010. 9 Mayer, P., S.K. Reynolds, Jr., and T.J. Canfield. 2 005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, 10 and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Cur rent Science and Regulations

. 11 EPA/600/R-05/118. U.S. Environmental Protection Age ncy, Washington, DC. 12 MD CAC (Maryland Critical Area Commission for the C hesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bay). 13 2010. Preserving Our Precious Natural Resources

. 14 < http://www.dnr.state.md.us/criticalarea/preserving. html >. Accessed February 2010. 15 MDNR FS (Maryland Department of Natural Resources F orest Service). 1991. The Maryland 16 Forest Conservation Act (Natural Resources Article, Section 5-1601 through 5-1613. 17 Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest Se rvice, Annapolis, MD. 18 MDNR FS (Maryland Department of Natural Resources F orest Service). 2005. Riparian Forest 19 Buffer Design and Maintenance. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Forest 20 Service, Annapolis, MD. 21 MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment). 2009. Maryland Water Quality Standards

. 22 Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 26.08.02. Maryland Department of the 23 Environment, Baltimore, MD. 24 NRC (National Research Council ). ) , 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for 25 Management . National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 26 NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment an d Natural Resources). 1999. 27 Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (SPCA), as amended through 1999 . North 28 Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4. N orth Carolina Division of Land 29 Resources , Raleigh, NC. 30 Netusil, N. 2006. Economic Valuation of riparian corridors and upland wildlife habitat in an 31 urban watershed. Economic Valuation of Riparian Corridors and Upland Wildl ife Habitat in 32 an Urban Watershed

. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

. 134:39-45

. 33 Okay, J.A. 2007. Appropriate Riparian Forest Buffer Widths and Functions for Chesapeake Bay 34 Program Tracking. jokay@chesapeakebay.net. ForestryWork Group (FWG) Document 35 41307. 363/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-50 Palone, R.S., and A.H. Todd, eds. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for 1 Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffer s . NA-TP-02-97. U.S. Department of 2 Agriculture, Forest Service, Radnor, PA. 3
Patterson , R.W ., and . & K. J. Boyle. 2005. Costs & Benefits of Riparian Forest Management: A 4 Literature Review . Minnesota Forest Resources Council , St. Paul, MN

. 5 Qiu, Zeyuan, T

. onyPrato, and G

. erryBoehm

. , 2006. Economic valuation of riparian buffer and 6 open space in a suburban watershed. Economic Valuation of Riparian Buffer and Open 7 Space in a Suburban Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 8 (JAWRA) 42(6):1583-1596. 9 Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection . Center for Watershed Protection. 10 Silver Spring, MD. 11 Schultz, R.C., P.H. Wray, J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenh art, C.A. Rodrigues, and A. Kuehl. 1997. 12 Stewards of our Streams: Buffer Strip Design, Estab lishment, and Maintenance . Iowa State 13 University, Department of Forestry, Ames, IA. 14 Simpson, T.W., and S.E. Weammert. 2009. Riparian Forest Buffer Practice (Agriculture) and 15 Riparian Grass Buffer Practice: Definition and Nutr ient and Sediment Reduction 16 Efficiencies for use in Calibration of the Phase 5. 0 of the Chesapeake Bay Program 17 Watershed Model . University of Maryland, Mid-Atlantic Water Progra m, College Park, 18 MD City, ST

. 19 Schumm, S.A. 1977. The Fuvial System . John Wiley and Sons
, . New York, NY. 20 Speiran, G.K., P.A. Hamilton, P.A., and M.D. Woodside

. , M.D., 1998, Natural Processes for 21 Managing Nitrate in Ground water Discharged to Ches apeake Bay and Other Surface 22 Waters—More than Forested Buffers . U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 178-97. U.S. 23 Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 24 Sprague, E., D. Burke, S. Claggett, and A. Todd. 20 06. The State of Chesapeake Forests . The 25 Conservation Fund
, . Arlington, VA. 26 Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of water shed geomorphology. American Geophysical 27 Union Transactions 38: 913

– - 920. 28 Sweeney, B.W. 1992. Streamside forests and the phys ical, chemical, and trophic characterisitics 29 of piedmont streams in eastern North America. Water Science and Technology 26:2653

– - 30 2673. 31 Sweeney, B.W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate 32 communities Streamside Vegetation on Macroinvertebrate Communities of White Clay 33 Creek in Eastern North America. In Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 34 Philadelphia 144: 291–340. 35 Sweeney, B.W. 2002. Streamside forests Forests and the physical, chemical Physical, Che mical
, 36 and trophic characteristics Trophic Characteristics of Piedmont Streams in Eastern North 37 America. Water Science and Technology 26: 2653

– - 2673. 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-51 Sweeney, B.W. and Blaine, J.G 2007. Resurrecting th e in I n -stream side S ide of riparian 1 forests. R iparian F ore sts. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Educatio n 136:17

– 2

- 27. 3 Sweeney, B.W., S.J. Czapka, and L.C.A. Petrow. 2007 . How Planting Method, Weed 4 Abatement, and Herbivory Affect Afforestation Succe ss. South. J. Appl. For . 31(2) 2007. 5 Sweeney, B.W., S.J. Czapka, and T. Yerkes. 2002. Ri parian Forest Restoration: Increasing 6 Success by Reducing Plant Competition and Herbivory

. Restor. Ecol . 10(2):392– 400. 7 Sweeney, B.W., T.L. Bott, J.K. Jackson, L.A. Kaplan , J.D. Newbold, L.J. Standley, W.C. 8 Hesslon, and R.J. Horwitz. 2004. Riparian Deforesta tion, Stream Narrowing, and Loss of 9 Stream Ecosystem Services. PNAS 101(39) 2004. 10 Tjaden, R.L., and G.M. Weber. 1998a. Riparian Buffer Management: An Introduction to the 11 Riparian Forest Buffer . Fact Sheet 724. Maryland Cooperative Extension, U niversity of 12 Maryland, College Park, MD. 13 Todd, A lbert . 2002. Nutrient Load Removal Efficiencies for Riparian Buf fers and Wetland 14 Restoration . U .S. Department of Agriculture SDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State 15 and Private Forestry, Annapolis, MD, on behalf of t he Forestry Work Group. 16
US DI (U.S. Department of the Interior ) . 1998. Riparian Area Management: Process for 17 Assessing Proper Functioning Condition . Technical Reference 1737-9. U.S. Department of 18 the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, C O. 19 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide 20 to Stormwater Best Management Practices . EPA-843-B-96-001. U.S. Environmental 21 Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 22 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to 23 Protect and Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source 24 Pollution . EPA 841-B-05-003. U.S. Environmental Protection A gency, Office of Water, 25 Washington, DC. 26
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) . 2006. Wadeable streams assessment: A 27 collaborative survey of the nation’s streams

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 28 publication EPA 841-B-06-002 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Washington
, D

. C. 29 Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Se dell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river 30 continuum concept. The River Continuum Concept

. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 31 Aquatic Sciences 37: 130

– - 137. 32 VDEQ (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality) . 2009. 9 VAC 25-260 Virginia Water 33 Quality Standards with Amendments Effective August 20, 2009 . Statutory Authority § 62.1- 34 44.15 3a of the Code of Virginia. Virginia State Wa ter Control Board. 35 VDCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recre ation). 2010. A Virginia Priority...A 36 Local Option . < http://dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/ordinanc.sht ml >. Accessed February 37 2010. 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guida nce — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 5. Riparian Area Management 5-52 Vought, LB. MJ Dahl, CL Pedersen and JO Lacoursiere . 1994. Nutrient Retention in Riparian 1 Ecotones . Ambio 23 (6): 343

– - 348. 2 Welsch, D avid . 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers—Function and Design for Pro tection and 3 Enhancement of Water Resources . NA-PR-07-91. U .S. nited States Department of 4 Agriculture Forest Service
, . Radnor, PA. 5 Williams, M. 1989. Americans and their Forest: A Historical Geography . Cambridge University 6 Press, Cambridge, UK. 7