LCHS LIBRARY PATHFINDER Chesapeake Bay Ordinance Mrs. Francis
advertisement
LCHS LIBRARY PATHFINDER Chesapeake Bay Ordinance Mrs. Francis October 2014 To find this pathfinder … Go to LCHS website Click on Library Click on Pathfinders Click on your teacher’s name For Online Subscriptions… Click on Library Click on Online Subscriptions Click on Newsbank Click on Washington Post Type “Chesapeake Bay Ordinance” Another site to check out is on Controversial Issues under Online Subscriptions. Internet Links http://www.chesapeakebay.net/watersheds.aspx?menuitem=14603 Fact Sheet View Document Dictionary - Glossary of technical terms HTML An Introduction to the Riparian Forest Buffer. HTML PDF Riparian Forest Buffer Design, Establishment, and Maintenace HTML PDF Trees for Riparian Forests. HTML PDF Understory Plants for Riparian Forest Buffers and Wildlife Habitat Imprivement. HTML PDF Grasses for Riparian Buffers and Wildlife Habitat Improvement HTML PDF Riparian Buffer Management: Soil Bioengineering or Streambank Restoration for Riparian Forest Buffers HTML PDF Riparian Buffer Management: Riparian Buffer Systems HTML PDF Wildlife Plantings - Food and Cover Plantings HTML PDF Riparian Buffer Financial Assistance Opportunities HTML PDF When a Landowner Adopts a Riparian Buffer - Benefits and Costs HTML PDF http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdlsag.shtml. 3.4. Websites and Technology Based Outreach Three main Web sites have been developed to inform stakeholders and the public of the Bay TMDL: EPA’s Bay TMDL Web site: http://www.epa.gov/chesapeakebaytmdl/ DCR’s Bay TMDL Web site: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/baytmdl.shtml DEQ’s Bay TMDL Web site: http://www.deq.state.va.us/tmdl/chesapeakebay.html The sites provide information on upcoming meetings and meeting recaps after the fact. They also feature numerous EPA guidance documents and pages explaining elements of the planning effort including: The planning timeframe; and the revised timeframe The announcement of draft loading targets The EPA “consequences” letter Identification and explanation of the tidal water segments Heated opposition to Chesapeake Bay ordinance in Loudoun In response to waves of outspoken opposition from residents at a public input session, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors delayed its decision on a water quality measure that would make Loudoun the first jurisdiction in Virginia to voluntarily adopt the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, including strict water protection rules. The board's decision followed a forum Monday evening at which more than 100 Loudoun residents signed up to address the supervisors before a standing-room-only crowd. The vast majority of speakers -- including farmers, business owners, local government leaders, developers and homeowners -- spoke out strongly against adoption of the ordinance. At the session, Purcellville Mayor Robert Lazaro Jr. read from a letter submitted to the board on behalf of the towns of Hamilton, Purcellville and Round Hill. "The ordinance will have a negative impact on the already weakened economy, especially the county's rural economy," he said. "It's an unfunded mandate that we cannot afford, and we urge you to step back." Joe Coleman, president of the Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy, was one of the few in attendance who spoke in favor of the ordinance. "It will not only protect the Chesapeake Bay but also our local streams and local water quality," Coleman said. Voluntary efforts that merely encourage protection of waterways do not work, he added: "We need strong, unambiguous laws that will fully protect and encourage buffers." The Bay Act requires 84 tidewater localities -- defined as areas subject to tidal influence, including Arlington, Fairfax and Prince William counties -- to implement strict water protection rules to protect the health of the bay. The act also allows non-tidewater localities to voluntarily adopt the water protection criteria to improve the quality of local waterways and bay tributaries. While Loudoun is not subject to tidal influence, the county is bordered by the Potomac River, which drains into the bay. Margi Wallo, Sterling district chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, was terse in her assessment that the ordinance was created for political reasons rather than environmental ones. "We all know that this regulation has nothing to do with the Chesapeake Bay," she said. "What I don't know is how you can live with yourself if you vote for this, and how you can sleep at night." The board's close vote Tuesday came after more than two hours of debate over the heated nature of the issue, the uncertainty surrounding the impact that the ordinance might have on county residents and the possibility of adding greater flexibility to the measure's regulations. Supervisor Kelly Burk (D-Leesburg) said she was encouraged by the tone of the previous evening's public input session. "Most of the people who spoke made the comment that there need to be changes," she said. "They didn't say kill this, don't do it ... many people talked about being flexible, making some changes. And that was a real change from what has been previously been spoken." But Waters had a less optimistic take on the feedback presented to the board. "There is still a lot of anger," she said. "I think there would have to be some pretty drastic changes for people to buy in to this being a good thing for the county. I don't feel we've done a good job in identifying what the problem is and how this specifically will solve that problem." York stated his view simply: "We've blown it," he said. "This is a critical issue and unfortunately we have our community completely divided." It would be better, he said, to start over with a new plan specific to Loudoun's needs, rather than attempting to adopt the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. "In hindsight I think it was a huge mistake to go with the Chesapeake Bay," he said. By Caitlin Gibson | September 21, 2010; 5:52 PM ET Categories: Loudoun County University of Maryland: Riparian Buffers An Introduction to the Riparian Forest Buffer by Bob Tjaden & Glenda M. Weber The word riparian refers to anything connected with or immediately adjacent to the banks of a stream or other body of water. Streamside forests are riparian forests. Riparian areas, which encompass the flood-plain and a portion of the adjacent upslope area, are complex ecosystems, connecting a stream system and a people-based system such as agriculture, housing, or industry. The ability of these areas to function naturally is crucial to the protection of the water resources of the United States. A buffer is an area managed to reduce the impact of adjacent land use. A riparian forest buffer, therefore, encompasses the area from the streambank in the floodplain to, and including, an area of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation located upslope from the body of water. Buffers are established and managed to reduce the impact of adjacent land use. The design of a buffer serves several important functions: it preserves the stream's natural characteristics, protects water quality, and improves habitat for plants and animals on land and in the water. The riparian buffer traps and filters sediments, nutrients, and chemicals from surface runoff and shallow groundwater. A framework of tree roots stabilizes the streambank. Microbes in organic forest soils convert nitrate into nitrogen gas through denitrification. Shade keeps the water cooler and moderates temperature fluctuation, increasing the water's ability to hold oxygen and support life. The stream flow slows around fallen trees and branches in the stream or riverbed, creating favorable areas for fish. Plant stems slow water velocity and root systems keep the soil porous, so excess water is absorbed into the ground and flooding potential is reduced. The buffer's capacity to hold large amounts of water allows percolation to deeper water aquifers, replenishing groundwater supplies. A riparian forest buffer improves the biological diversity of surrounding areas. Birds, mammals, and other animals find the food, cover, water, and nesting sites they need as well as corridors and pathways for movement between areas. Beginning at water's edge and moving away or upslope, the riparian area can be pictured in segments or zones. (See Figure 1) Figure 1. The Width of a Riparian Buffer is site specific and dependant on the landowners objectives This "Three-zone Buffer Concept" provides a framework for thinking about the establishment and maintenance of a long-term riparian forest buffer. The width of the buffer depends on the landowner's objectives, specific site conditions, and the condition of the waterway. The important structural component in Zone 1 (next to the water's edge) is a mixture of fast-and slowgrowing native trees. If the stream is narrow, at maturity the tree canopy from both sides of the stream will meet or nearly meet. Zone 2 is designed for uses such as timber harvest (pulpwood or sawtimber), outdoor recreation, wildlife habitat, or alternative forestry products (ginseng, mushrooms, nuts, etc.). Livestock should be excluded from this zone. Dense grasses and/ or forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants and wildflowers) compose Zone 3. The vegetation must be managed to promote nutrient uptake and sediment filtering. Used along with other conservation or best management practices, a riparian forest buffer offers a range of environmental benefits to everyone living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. References U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1966. Riparian Forest Buffers. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay White Paper: Riparian Forest Buffers, Jan. 1996 FS724 An Introduction to the Riparian Forest Buffer P97/R98 by Robert L. Tjaden Regional Extension Specialist Natural Resources Wye Research and Education Center Glenda M. Weber Faculty Extension Assistant Natural Resource Management Wye Research and Education Center Riparian Buffers What is a Riparian Buffer? The term riparian buffer is used to describe lands adjacent to streams where vegetation is strongly influenced by the presence of water. They are often thin lines-of-green containing native grasses, flowers, shrubs and trees that line the stream banks. They are also called vegetated buffer zones. A healthy riparian area is evidence of wise land use management. What are their values? Riparian buffers are important for good water quality. Riparian zones help to prevent sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides and other pollutants from reaching a stream. Riparian buffers are most effective at improving water quality when they include a native grass or herbaceous filter strip along with deep rooted trees and shrubs along the stream. Riparian vegetation is a major source of energy and nutrients for stream communities. They are especially important in small, headwater streams where up to 99% of the energy input may be from woody debris and leaf litter. Overhanging riparian vegetation keeps streams cool, this is especially important for North Carolina’s mountain trout populations. Riparian buffers provide valuable habitat for wildlife. In addition to providing food and cover they are an important corridor or travel way for a variety of wildlife. Forested stream sides benefit game species such as deer, rabbit, quail and nongame species like migratory songbirds. Riparian vegetation slows floodwaters, thereby helping to maintain stable stream banks and protect downstream property. By slowing down floodwaters and rainwater runoff, the riparian vegetation allows water to soak into the ground and recharge groundwater. Slowing floodwaters allows the riparian zone to function as a site of sediment deposition, trapping sediments that build stream banks and would otherwise degrade our streams and rivers. Loss of Riparian Areas Degraded riparian buffers reduce water quality values, reduce wildlife and fish populations, cause serious property damage (bank erosion) and loss of valuable agricultural lands. Removal of riparian vegetation results in increased water temperatures and decreased dissolved oxygen. The loss of shade exposes soils to drying out by wind and sunlight and reduces the water storage capacity of the riparian area. Loss of riparian vegetation causes stream bank erosion. Eroding banks contribute to sedimentation and lead to a wide shallow stream with little habitat value. These factors result in significant reductions in aquatic stream life. Restoring and Managing Riparian Buffers Rehabilitating riparian buffers is key to restoring natural stream functions and aquatic habitats. There are many economic benefits derived from increased riparian habitat, channel stabilization, improved water quality, improved wildlife and fish populations, improved aesthetics, and other associated values. Depending on the surrounding land use and area topography, riparian buffers should range from 25 to 100 feet wide on each side of the stream. Recommended Riparian Management Practices Protect or establish native shrubs, trees, or other vegetation along streams to help prevent bank erosion, trap sediment and filter other pollutants. Manage livestock grazing in riparian zones to avoid damage to existing plants. Plan developments, forestry activities and other land disturbing activities to protect riparian zones. Practices to Avoid • Straightening sections of streams. • Removing streamside shrubs, trees and other vegetation. • Farming up to the edge of a stream. • Allowing livestock access to the riparian zone. • Operating heavy equipment in the riparian zone. Find Out More About Riparian Buffers and Management... For assistance in evaluating riparian buffer problems, designing a riparian system, information on permits and cost share, contact the following organizations: North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission Natural Resources Conservation Service Resource Conservation & Development Councils Soil & Water Conservation Districts United States Fish and Wildlife Service All programs and services are offered on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital status or disability. This fact sheet was made possible by the following organizations: Surry Soil and Water Conservation District Stone Mountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited Pilot View Resource Conservation and Development, Inc. Southwestern Resource Conservation and Development, Inc. United States Fish and Wildlife Service North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission Understory Plants for Riparian Forest Buffers by Bob Tjaden & Glenda M. Weber The following tables list understory trees and shrubs appropriate for riparian forest buffers. Understory trees and shrubs are tolerant to shade and are an important structural component of any forest. Some shrubs, such as rhododendron and some blueberries are also adapted to the low-light conditions of the forest understory, but more are adapted to the buffer's edge. The edge might be next to the water or next to an upland area. Most of the shrubs listed prefer moist growing conditions and are good choices for areas that filter water flow. Shrubs that prefer drier sites include witch hazel, grey dogwood, and rose-bay rhododendron. Including understory trees and shrubs in a riparian forest buffer planting increases the structural diversity of the buffer by providing layers of vegetation. This increases biodiversity and enhances both the water quality and wildlife habitat attractiveness of the buffer. Riparian Understory Shrubs Wildlife Light Flood Growth Region1 Value2 Preference Tolerance3 Rate full Arrowwood sunlight CP,P,M Medium Medium Medium viburnum partial shade full Bayberry CP High High Medium sunlight full sunlight Blackhaw P,M High High Medium partial shade full Medium- sunlight Buttonbush CP,P,M High Medium High partial shade Common full CP,P Medium High Fast ninebark sunlight full Very sunlight Elderberry CP,P,M High Fast high partial shade Grey Very full P,M Low Medium dogwood high sunlight Deciduous/ Rooting Evergreen Deciduous Shallow Deciduous/ Shallow Evergreen Deciduous Shallow Deciduous Shallow Deciduous Shallow Deciduous Shallow Deciduous Shallow Highbush blueberry CP,P Very high Inkberry CP High Maple-leaf virburnum P,M High Pinxterbloom azelea CP,P Low Possumhaw P,M High Pussy willow P,M Medium Red chokeberry CP Medium Red osier dogwood CP,P,M High Rosebay CP,P,M rhododendron Low Silky dogwood P,M High Smooth alder P,M Medium Speckled alder M Medium partial shade full sunlight partial shade full sunlight partial shade partial shade shade partial shade shade full sunlight partial shade full sunlight full sunlight partial shade full sunlight partial shade partial shade shade full sunlight partial shade full sunlight partial shade full sunlight High Slow Deciduous Shallow High Slow Evergreen Shallow MediumDeciduous Slow Shallow Low High High Slow Deciduous Shallow Medium Deciduous Shallow Medium Fast Deciduous Shallow High Slow Deciduous Shallow High Fast Deciduous Shallow Low Slow Evergreen Shallow Fast Shallow (good Deciduous bank stablizer) Medium High High MediumDeciduous Fast Fast Deciduous Shallow Shallow partial shade Medium Fast shade full Swamp sunlight CP,P Low High Medium azalea partial shade partial Swamp CP,P Low shade Medium Slow leucothoe shade full Sweet sunlight CP,P,M High High Medium pepperbush partial shade full Virginia sunlight MediumP,M Low High sweetspire partial Slow shade full sunlight Winterberry CP,P High High Slow partial shade full sunlight Witch-hazel P,M Low Low Medium partial shade Riparian Understory Trees Wildlife Light Flood Growth Region1 Value2 Preference Tolerance3 Rate American partial MediumCP,P High Slow holly shade Low partial American MediumMediumP,M shade Slow hornbeam High Low shade full Boxelder P,M Medium High Very fast sunlight full sunlight Flowering CP,P,M Medium partial Low Slow dogwood shade shade full LowHawthorn CP,P,M High Medium sunlight Medium Spicebush CP,P,M Very high Deciduous Deep lateral Deciduous Shallow Evergreen Shallow Deciduous Shallow Deciduous Shallow Shallow (seasonally Deciduous flooded areas) Deciduous Deep lateral Height (feet) Rooting 30-40' Taproot 30-40' Deep lateral >50' Deep lateral 30-40' Shallow <30' Shallow Hophornbeam CP,P,M Medium Pawpaw P Very high Persimmon CP,P Very highHigh Redbud P,M Medium Sassafras CP,P,M High Shad-bush P,M High CP,P Very lowLow Sweet-bay magnolia full sunlight partial shade shade partial shade shade full sunlight partial shade full sunlight partial shade shade partial shade Low Slow <30' Shallow LowMedium Slow 30-40' Deep lateral Medium Slow <50' Deep taproot High Slow <50' Shallow Low Fast <50' Shallow High Slow 30-40' Shallow Medium Medium <30' Deep lateral 1. P = "Piedmont", CP = "Coastal Plain", and M = "Mountains" 2. food source for wildlife 3. High = "tolerates flooding/high water", and Low = "does not tolerate flooding/high water" " For a list of shrub sources, refer to "PLANT AND SEED SUPPLIERS". References U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook. FS727 Understory Plants for Riparian Forest Buffers by Robert L. Tjaden Regional Extension Specialist Natural Resources Wye Research and Education Center Glenda M. Weber Faculty Extension Assistant Natural Resource Management Wye Research and Education Center P97/R98 The University of Maryland is equal opportunity. The University's policies, programs, and activities are in conformance with pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, and disability. Inquiries regarding compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Educational Amendments; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; or related legal requirements should be directed to the Director of Human Resources Management, Office of the Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742. Riparian Buffer Management: Grasses for Riparian Buffers and Wildlife Habitat Improvement By Bob Tjaden & Glenda Weber Introduction Riparian areas link the land and the water together. A riparian buffer planted in native, warm season grasses in combination with trees or by themselves can uptake nutrients in groundwater, filter sediments from runoff, spread waterflow, and provide valuable wildlife habitat. For the greatest overall environmental benefits, grasses should be planted in combination with trees and incorporated with conservation practices Figure 1. Grasses in Zone 3 provide water quality benefits and wildlife habitat. This fact sheet will focus on establishing and maintaining grass buffers that will mainly benefit wildlife species. Warm Season Grass Buffers The area between a field and a riparian forest is an excellent place to establish warm season grasses for wildlife habitat. Although many people equate improving wildlife habitat with providing winter foods, cover is an important factor for animals living in and using the riparian buffer. Cover is vital for mating, nesting, brood-rearing, and feeding activities. Much of the decline seen in populations of ground-nesting birds results from lack of nesting and brood-rearing cover. By planting native, warm season grasses rather than introduced or exotic species, the needs ofbob white quail, turkey, meadowlarks, some songbirds, and rabbits can be met. Small mammals such as meadow voles, field mice, and cottontail rabbits provide food for hawks, owls, and fox. Incorporating forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants and wildflowers) in the riparian buffer will benefit a variety of butterflies and other valuable insects. The growth habits and attributes of the warm season grasses recommended for this area include a strong root system to hold the soil; growing in bunches (these are not turf-forming grasses, such as fescue); remaining standing throughout the winter, providing cover as well as filtering sediment from runoff; growing well on low fertility soils; and in some cases, such as eastern gamagrass, providing high quality pasture forage and hay. (Pasture use must be carefully controlled to protect nesting birds.) In general, warm season grasses are not considered high quality forage, except for eastern gamagrass. Their main attribute as a forage is that they produce 1 1/2 to 2 times the yield of cool season grasses, even in low fertility sites. However, warm season grasses are able to provide forage during the summer slump when cool season grasses are not productive. Warm season grasses are slower to establish than the more familiar cool season grasses traditionally planted, so be patient. It may take two growing seasons for a grassy area to fully establish itself. Once a stand is established the benefits of low-maintenance, increased wildlife, and improved water quality (when part of a riparian forest buffer) far outweigh the extra initial effort. In general, native, warm season grasses are not especially shade tolerant. A possible solution when planted next to a forested area (as with a riparian forest buffer) is to incorporate a shrub transition area between the grasses and the trees. Site Preparation Proper site preparation is critical to the success of any planting. Remove existing vegetation by herbicide use, cultivation, or a combination of the two. Soil test sites and bring fertility up to medium levels for phosphorus and potassium. Do not apply nitrogen to warm season grass planting sites. Nitrogen will only stimulate weeds that could dominate the warm season grass seedlings. Finally, pH levels should be between five and eight for warm season grass plantings. If necessary, apply lime as indicated. Existing Turf Fields A. Applying herbicides: Use a nonpersistent, glyphosate-based herbicide such as Roundup. Follow manufacturers' instructions. o Apply in previous fall and in mid-spring for spring plantings. o Apply once in early fall for fall planting. o Till soil and plant. Remove dead sod to create smooth seedbed. B. Cultivation: Cultivate two to three times to kill grass and work up soil. Remove dead sod to create smooth seedbed. C. Sod removal: Use a sod-cutter to remove the sod, then till the exposed soil to prepare the seedbed. Existing Agricultural Fields A. Applying herbicides: Spray once in mid-spring for spring planting, or once in early fall after removal of crop for fall planting. Till soil and plant, or use no-till seeder and plant directly into soil with no soil tillage. B. Cultivation: Work up seedbed as for any other crop. If rhizomatous perennials are present, work up soil all year, as recommended in section "Old Fields." After the existing vegetation is removed, the seedbed should be prepared by tilling or discing, and then dragging or raking smooth. Properly prepared seedbeds will be smooth and free of large clumps. Old Fields A. Applying herbicides: Mow in early spring, then spray twice, once in mid-to-late spring and once in early fall. Till soil after final spraying and plant, or use no-till seeder and plant directly into dead sod. B. Cultivation: Prior to planting, cultivate soil 4 to 6 inches deep periodically throughout the growing season to kill rhizomatous perennial weeds. After the final cultivation late in the year, a dormant fall seeding can be made. If further weed control is desired, the planting can be done the following spring, allowing for light surface cultivation to kill weeds prior to spring planting. Planting With few exceptions, warm season grasses should be planted using a specialized warm season or rangeland grass planter or drill. In fine soils, all species should be drilled as shallow as possible, 1/4 to 1/2 inch, except eastern gamagrass, which should be planted 3/4 to 1 inch. In coarse, sandy soils, it is recommended all species be planted 3/4 to 1 inch, except for eastern gamagrass, which should be planted 1 to 1 1/2 inch. Seeds tend to dryout and not germinate if planted shallower in these sandy soils. Planting seed any deeper will prevent adequate germination. If a drill is not available, clean seed can be broadcast or drop-seeded (with a cultipacker seeder) onto a firm seedbed, except for eastern gamagrass, which needs to be drilled. Fall planting - Plant from early September to first freeze Generally it is not recommended to fall plant any of the warm season grasses, except for eastern gamagrass. The cool season grasses can be fall planted as well as the eastern gamagrass after the first killing frost. Advantages: 1. 2. 3. Seed overwinters and comes up in spring when conditions are right. In general, forb seed has greater germination. Recommended for planting on droughty soils, because seeds germinate when soil moisture levels are optimal. Disadvantages: 1. 2. Grass seed often has poorer germination. Because weeds will have a head start the following spring, there is limited opportunity for early season weed control by cultivation. It is NOT recommended for clay soils, due to difficulty in preparing proper seedbed after dry summer months. 3. Early spring planting - Plant from March to April Advantages: 1. 2. 3. Forbs will germinate better than those planted in late spring. Grass seeds will germinate better than those planted in fall. Droughty soils should be planted as soon as possible in spring, if it is not possible to plant in fall. Disadvantages: 1. 2. Limited opportunity for early, cool season weed control. It is NOT recommended to plant heavy soils in early spring, because it is difficult to work these soils. Late spring planting - Plant from May to end of June Advantages: 1. 2. 3. More time for soil preparation. This is important for planting on heavy soils. Longer time for weed control. Best time to plant warm season grasses. Disadvantages: 1. 2. Increased chance of drought conditions. Overall, poorer for germination, except for warm season species. Many cool season species will not germinate until fall or the next spring. This allows the weeds a 1-year head start. Broadcast Planting Broadcast planting includes spreading seed with fertilizer spreaders, other spinner-type seeders, and drop-seeders. Warm season grass seeds are light and fluffy because of attached "parachutes" that facilitate wind dispersal. For successful broadcast planting, the seed needs to be clean. This means seed that is at least 75 percent pure-live seed (75 percent PLS). Seed that is less than 75 percent PLS should only be planted with a specialized warm season grass drill or planter. When broadcast seeding, extreme care must be taken to ensure good seed to soil contact while limiting maximum seed depth to 1/4 to 1/2 inch. Seed should be rolled lightly after seeding. However, do not be concerned about covering all of the seed. In fact, it is better to leave some on the surface rather than cover it too heavily. Planting Steps: 1. 2. 3. Prepare soil for planting by tilling (plow, disc, and drag). Raking or dragging will loosen the soil to allow incorporation of the seed into the surface soil. Inoculate legume seeds prior to planting. Mix inoculated legume seeds with forb/wildflower seeds. These can be mixed together with the grass seed to form a uniform mix. Plant the mixed seed. Drag lightly and firm with a roller or cultipacker; avoid firming soil when wet. Note: On steep slopes, it is often beneficial to plant a nurse crop and/or mulch the planting. Post-planting Maintenance (Warm season grasses) Year One. If straw mulch is used, control annual weeds by mowing to 4 to 6 inches in the first year. Invading weeds can dominate the planted grass seedlings by depriving them of water, light, and space. Do NOT let weeds get higher than 12 to 14 inches before mowing. Cutting down tall weeds can smother the grass seedlings below. If wildflowers were included in the mixture, do not mow lower than 8 to 12 inches. If a nurse crop is used, do not mow in the first year, unless weeds become a serious problem. If weeds are dense and begin to grow up to 16 inches, cut them down along with the nurse crop to prevent shading-out of desired grass seedlings. Year Two. Once your stand has established itself, prescribed or controlled burning is the most effective method of maintaining and rejuvenating a stand of warm season grasses. Burn one-third of your total grass acreage every year. Controlled burning will ensure a cleaner, more valuable stand over a longer period of time. Burning is much easier and less expensive than you might think, however, permits are required and great care must be taken during the burning. Contact your local Project Forester for permits and assistance. Haying or grazing at the proper times, using proper methods, can also help maintain a stand. Cut hay or graze to a minimum height of 6 inches. It is important to rotate mowed or grazed areas on an annual basis. Avoid, if possible, haying or grazing any stand during the peak nesting period between April 15 and August 15. Disturbances during this time period are detrimental to the reproductive success of the area's wildlife. Note: Certain management practices, such as haying or grazing, are restricted under USDA programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program. Contact your local NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) or Farm Service Agency for details. You can mow your grass to maintain it, however, this is not the most desirable alternative. Mow one-third of your stand every year, once it is established. Mowing will keep woody growth from encroaching, but repeated mowing will create a layer of "litter" on the ground. This mulch layer will eventually crowd grass seedlings. The mulch also makes it difficult for young birds to move on the ground and makes the stand less attractive to insects they eat. If you do decide to mow, it may be necessary to lightly disc the stand every 3 or 4 years in order to turn over the litter layer, destroy woody growth, and encourage dormant grass seed and native annuals. Note: It is important to understand that you are required by law to control noxious weeds, including Johnsongrass, jimsonweed and Canada thistle, on your property. Should you encounter these species in your plantings, your first priority should be control of these weeds, even at the expense of the planted grasses. Contact your county weed control specialist at the Maryland Department of Agriculture (410-841-5871) for more information. Nurse Crops Annuals or short-lived perennials that provide rapid soil stabilization, and help keep weeds down without competing with the grass/ forb seedlings are called nurse crops. Nurse crops can be planted at the same time as the grass/forb seed. Mix the nurse crop seed with the grass/forb seed and hand-broadcast together. On large plantings, oats can be drilled prior to, or after, seeding. Oats: Apply at a rate of 50 pounds per acre in spring plantings. Use 100 pounds per acre in mid-autumn plantings, because it will winterkill. Heavier seeding rates ensure better soil holding ability. Grasses for Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Habitat Seeding Recommendations Native Warm Season Mixtures (rates are per acre) Mix 1: Upland/ Dry Soils o 3 lbs Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) o 2 lbs Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi) o 1 lb Little bluestem(Schizachyrium scoparium) Mix 2: Lowland/ Moist Soils o 3 lbs Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi) o 2 lbs Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) o 1 lb Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Individual Stands: Rates for seeding pure stands of individual grasses from the above-mentioned mixtures: 7-15 lbs Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi) 7-15 lbs Little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) 7-12 lbs Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) 5-12 lbs Switchgrass(Panicum virgatum) Listed below are other grasses that may be used for both wildlife habitat and sediment filtering in a grassy buffer strip. Except for eastern gamagrass and coastal panicgrass, these are cool season, non-natives adapted to this area and utilized by wildlife. The seeding rates given are per acre for pure stands. 8 lbs Coastal panicgrass (Panicum amarum var. amarulum) 7 lbs Eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) 6-8 lbs Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) 4-25 lbs Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) 4-6 lbs Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) 3 lbs Weeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) In addition to the grasses recommended above, it is a good idea to include a variety of forbs or wildflowers. Plant a premixed variety at a rate of 1/4 pound per acre. The following is a partial list of native species: Black-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta) New England aster (Aster novea angliae) Lanceleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata) Ox-eye sunflower (Heliopsis helianthoides) Partridge pea (Cassia fasciculata) Warm And Cool Season Grasses Warm Season Grasses Big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi) Robust warm season, native bunchgrass (with short rhizomes). Prefersmoist, welldrained soils, but is more drought tolerant than other warmseason grasses. Good acid tolerance. Grows 6 to 7 feet tall. Cultivars: Niagara, Kaw, Rountree Figure 2. Big Bluestem Little bluestem(Schizachyrium scoparium) Warm season, native bunchgrass. Fair to excellent acid tolerance. Grows 3 to 4 feet tall. Usually sown in mixtures with other native grasses. Seeds are light and fluffy. Cultivars: Aldous, Camper, Blaze Figure 3. Little Bluestem Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans) Native, warm season perennial. Acid tolerant. Difficult to establish in pure stands, best used in mixtures. Seed light and fluffy. Cultivars: Rumsey, Oto, Holt Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) Native, perennial, warm season, tall grass. Drought resistant, but grows under a wide range of conditions. Salt and acid tolerant. Used as as and stabilizer and for erosion control. Earliest maturing warm season grass. Grows 3 to 8 feet tall. Cultivars: Blackwell, Cave-in-Rock, Shelter Figure 5. Switchgrass Eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides) Large, native, warm season, colony-forming bunchgrass. Useful in lowland, irrigated, or subirrigated sites. Not alkaline tolerant. Do not include in seeding mixture with other warm season grasses. Currently being tested for silage in place of corn. Figure 4. Eastern Gamagrass Coastal panicgrass (Panicum amarum var. amarulum) Deep-rooted, long-lived, warm season, native bunchgrass. Thrives on droughty, infertile, sandy soils. Moderate saline tolerance. Grows 3 to 5 feet tall. Used to stabilize sand dune areas in Coastal Plain Cultivar: Atlantic Weeping lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) Introduced, warm season, perennial bunchgrass. Tolerant of acid, dry, and infertile soils. Moderately salt tolerant. Establishes rapidly, providing good initial cover, gradually gives way to other perennial species. Cool Season Grasses Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Tall, coarse, sod-forming, cool season perennial with aggressive rhizomes. Grows on land with high water tables. Will survive long periods of flooding. Has very good acid tolerance, moderate saline and alkaline tolerance. Can be used for streambank and gully stabilization where woody plants are not suitable. Introduced. Grows 3 to 7 feet tall. Cultivars: Ioreed, Palaton, Rise, Venture Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) Introduced, cool season, rapid developing, short-lived perennnial bunchgrass. Moderately alkaline tolerant. Requires over 20 inches annual precipitation. Grows 1 to 2 feet tall. Cultivars: Blazer (99), Pennfine Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) Introduced, cool season, drought tolerant bunchgrass. Exhibits some shade tolerance. For a list of grass/forb seed sources, refer to "PLANT AND SEED SUPPLIERS". References 1982-83 Field Crop Variety Recommendations for Maryland. Bulletin 249, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service. Barnes, Robert F., Maurice E. Heath, and Darrel S. Matcalfe, eds. 1985. Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture (4th ed.). Capel, Stephen. 1985. North Carolina Benefits for Livestock and Wildlife. Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. Capel, Stephen. 1985. Warm Season Grasses for Virginia. Virginia Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries. Growing Guide. 1995. Prairie Nurseries, P. O. Box 306, Westfield, WI. Habitat Program, recommendations by Paul Peditto and Peter Jayne, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Wildlife and Heritage Division. Hay and Pasture Seedings for Maryland. Bulletin 299, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service. Reclamation and Environmental Grasses. 1985. Jacklin Seed Company. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. May 1989. Conservation Plants for Special Sites: Using SCS Cultivars for Conservation Cover. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture "Recommended Cultivars for Conservation Plantings". USDA-NRCS, Pub. No. 908-246-1205. Reviewed by Paul Peditto Wildlife Biologist Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Division Livia Marques-Cooper Plant Resource Specialist USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Don Robbins Weed Control Specialist Maryland Department of Agriculture Note: When trade names are included, no discrimination against similar products is intended. Mention of trademarks in this publication does not constitute an endorsement by the Cooperative Extension Service. FS728 Riparian Buffer Management: Grasses for Riparian Buffers and Wildlife Habitat Improvement by Robert L. Tjaden Regional Extension Specialist Natural Resources Wye Research and Education Center Glenda M. Weber Faculty Extension Assistant P97/R98 Natural Resource Management Wye Research and Education Center The University of Maryland is equal opportunity. The University's policies, programs, and activities are in conformance with pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, and disability. Inquiries regarding compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Educational Amendments; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; or related legal requirements should be directed to the Director of Human Resources Management, Office of the Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742. Trees for Riparian Forest Buffers by Bob Tjaden & Glenda M. Weber Tree selection for a riparian forest buffer requires consideration of several factors: region, wildlife value, light preference, flood tolerance, growth rate, height, and rooting. Trees closest to the waterway are most likely to be flooded, and need a greater tolerance to high water tables. If the area has recently been disturbed, trees with a fast growth rate will quickly establish root systems to hold the soil. Fast-growing trees are not necessarily long-lived, therefore interplanting fast-and slow-growing trees is a wise practice. Eventual tree height is an important factor to consider. Ask the following questions when you choose your buffer: 1. At its maximum height, will the tree provide adequate shade for the stream? 2. Are there any aesthetic considerations (the trees will screen or frame a view or provide a windbreak)? 3. Are there any safety considerations (avoiding power and telephone lines or ensuring that the view of vehicles on a road is not obstructed)? Trees with shallow rooting systems hold surface soils well, but do not provide as much stability to high banks and steep slopes as trees with deeper root systems. Also, deeper root systems anchor trees better where there are repeated flooding/ drying cycles. Below is a table of trees recommended for Maryland riparian forest buffers, compiled from several references. Information on the trees' ecological and growing characteristics should help the landowner determine suitable species for a specific riparian forest buffer site. Wildlife Light Flood Growth Height Region1 Rooting 2 3 Value Preference Tolerance Rate (feet) American basswood P,M Low partial shade Low Medium >75' Deep lateral American beech CP,P High partial shade shade Low Slow >75' Shallow American holly CP,P High partial shade MediumLow Slow 30-40' Taproot American hornbeam P,M Medium- partial shade MediumHigh shade Low Slow 30-40' Deep lateral Bald cypress CP,P Low full sunlight partial shade Medium >75' Shallow Bitternut hickory CP,P Medium Black cherry P,M High Blackgum CP,P,M Medium Black locust P,M Low Black walnut P,M Black willow P,M Boxelder P,M Cherrybark oak CP High Chestnut oak P,M Choke cherry Crabapple High full sunlight MediumMedium >75' partial shade Slow partial shade shade Low full sunlight Mediumpartial shade High full sunlight Low Medium- full sunlight Medium Low partial shade High Deep taproot Medium 40-60' Deep taproot Slow <50' Taproot Medium40-60' Fast Shallow Medium Taproot >75' full sunlight High Very fast 50-75' Shallow Medium full sunlight High Very fast >50' Deep lateral partial shade Low Medium >75' Taproot High partial shade shade Low Slow 50-75' Taproot Deep lateral CP,P,M High full sunlight partial shade Low Fast <50' Deep taproot CP,P,M High full sunlight partial shade Low Medium <30' Shallow Dogwood full sunlight CP,P,M Medium partial shade shade Eastern cottonwood CP,P,M Eastern red cedar CP,P Green ash CP,P,M Slow 30-40' Shallow Low full sunlight High Fast >75' Shallow Medium full sunlight partial shade Low Slow <50' Shallow LowMediumfull sunlight Very fast 50-75' Medium High Shallow full sunlight LowMedium60-70' partial shade Medium Slow Shallow Green birch CP,P,M Medium Hackberry CP,P,M Hawthorn CP,P,M High Hemlock P,M Medium Hophornbeam Low High- full sunlight Medium V. high partial shade FastMedium >75' Deep lateral LowMedium Medium <30' Shallow partial shade Highshade Medium SlowMedium >60' Shallow lateral full sunlight full sunlight CP,P,M Medium partial shade shade Low Slow <30' Shallow Low Fast >75' Shallow Fast 30-40' Taproot Loblolly pine CP,P Lowfull sunlight Medium Mulberry CP,P High- partial shade Medium Medium shade Northern red oak CP,P,M Overcup oak CP High partial shade Medium shade Slow 50-75' Deep taproot Pawpaw P V. high partial shade Lowshade Medium Slow 30-40' Deep lateral Persimmon CP,P Slow <50' Deep taproot Pin oak CP,P High full sunlight MediumFastpartial shade High Medium >75' Shallow Pitch pine CP Low full sunlight Medium<50' Slow Shallow Redbud CP Medium partial shade High Red maple CP,P,M Medium- full sunlight High partial shade High River birch CP,P,M Medium- full sunlight High partial shade High Mediumpartial shade High V. high full sunlight High Low Medium Medium Medium>75' Fast Slow <50' Deep lateral Shallow Fast 50-75' Very Shallow Medium Fast 50'+ Shallow Sassafras CP,P,M Scarlet oak CP,P,M Shagbark hickory High full sunlight Low Mediumpartial shade High Low CP,P,M Medium partial shade Low- full sunlight Medium partial shade CP,P,M Southern red oak CP,P Sugar maple M Medium Swamp chestnut oak CP,P High Swamp white cedar CP Swamp white oak CP,P Swamp bay magnolia CP,P Sweet birch M Sweetgum CP,P Sycamore CP,P Water oak CP Medium partial shade White ash P,M Medium- full sunlight Medium Low partial shade White oak High Medium partial shade Medium full shade- Mediumpartial shade Low Medium full sunlight High full sunlight partial shade High Medium 50-75' Shallow Deep lateral Medium >75' Medium 50-75' Slow <75' Very shallow Deep lateral Shallow Medium 50-75' Shallow Medium- Medium50-75' High Slow Shallow High V. lowpartial shade Medium Low Medium <50' MediumMedium 50-75' Deep taproot Low Silver maple full sunlight partial shade Fast partial shade Medium shade FastMedium >75' Shallow Medium <30' Deep lateral Slow 50-75' Shallow Medium- full sunlight MediumMedium 50-75' Deep taproot Low partial shade High Low CP,P,M V. high full sunlight Medium Very fast 50-75' partial shade MediumHigh full sunlight Lowpartial shade Medium Shallow Fast 50-75' Deep lateral Medium >75' Shallow Slow >75' Deep taproot Willow oak CP,P High full sunlight MediumFastpartial shade High Medium >75' Shallow Yellow poplar CP,P,M Low full sunlight partial shade >75' Shallow/deep Low Fast 1. P = "Piedmont", CP = "Coastal Plain", and M = "Mountains" 2. food source for wildlife 3. High = "tolerates flooding/high water", and Low = "does not tolerate flooding/high water" For a list of tree sources, refer to "PLANT AND SEED SUPPLIERS". References Brown, R. G. and M. L. Brown. 1972. Woody Plants of Maryland. Collingwood, G. H. and W. D. Brush. 1984. Knowing Your Trees. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook. Riparian Forest Buffer Design, Establishment, and Maintenance By Bob Tjaden & Glenda Weber Introduction Maintaining a forested buffer along creeks, streams, and rivers provides more than just a beautiful landscape. The combination of trees, shrubs, and native grasses can improve water quality by removing sediment and chemicals before they reach the waterway. A properly cared for buffer area can moderate flooding, help recharge groundwater, prevent soil erosion, and preserve or improve certain types of wildlife habitat. Trees in the buffer strip can provide landowners with valuable timber and alternative income sources, such as nuts and mushrooms. A well-designed buffer system may include not only a multispecies buffer area established on land next to the stream, but also plantings that stabilize the streambank and wetlands constructed to absorb storm runoff. This publication discusses how to design, plant, and maintain a riparian forest buffer - an important part of the riparian ecosystem. Design The Three-zone Concept The most effective riparian buffers contain three different categories, or zones, of plantings as one moves away from the water's edge (see Figure 1). Figure 1. The Three-Zone Buffer concept. Closest to the water is Zone 1, consisting of trees. The middle zone (Zone 2) can be trees with a combination of shrubs. Farthest from the stream and next to another land use (for example crops, pasture, or homes) is Zone 3. This zone is best planted with native grasses and forbs (broad-leaved herbaceous plants and wildflowers). The "Three-zone Concept" provides a framework for planning and grouping types of plantings. Combining fast-and slow-growing trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs helps protect the waterway and provide a diverse habitat for wildlife. Trees and shrubs provide perennial, deep-reaching root systems to hold the soil and absorb nutrients into the woody biomass for long-term storage. Forbs and grasses provide a high density of stems to slow surface runoff, trap sediment, and absorb nutrients. The riparian buffer stabilizes the soil, removes nutrients from both surface and sub-surface water flow, slows rainwater runoff velocity, and traps sediments. This reduces the amount of nonpoint source pollutants entering our rivers, streams, and lakes. Zone 1. The trees in this zone help provide streambed and streambank stability. Deadwood and leaf litter falling into the stream help regenerate the streambed, which is constantly changing and eroding. This regeneration is very important to the health of the stream and to all life in the stream. The tree species nearest the water's edge also provide shade and are selected for their ability to quickly develop deep roots that can increase bank stability. Native riparian tree species are preferable because they coevolved with the stream's inhabitants. Bottomland species, such as silver maple, black willow, eastern cottonwood, green ash, and sycamore, are best suited for Zone 1 in most locations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These species tolerate wet conditions, grow quickly and, while the main trunks are flexible and sturdy, the branches are brittle. This fast growth rate and brittleness help these species withstand the periodic trauma of heavy flooding. Instead of washing away and exposing unstabilized banks to erosion, these trees will "shed" branches, which causes little damage to the main trunk stem. In the drier portions of Zone 1, hardwoods such as black walnut, red and white oak, and white ash can be planted. If the water table is at least 3 feet below ground for most of the growing season, plant hardwood species that require good drainage. If the site has poor drainage, select hardwood species that are more tolerant of wet conditions. Some examples are river birch, black ash, bitternut hickory, and hackberry. Table 1 lists other recommended species. Table 1. Recommended Tree Species for Zone 1 & 2 American beech Green Ash Silver maple Bald cypress Hackberry Sweetgum Basswood Loblolly pine Swamp white oak Bitternut hickory Persimmon Sycamore Blackgum Pitch pine Tulip poplar Black walnut Red maple White ash The large hardwood tree species mentioned above provide a canopy as they mature. Understory trees and shrubs should be interplanted among these canopy species to provide stability for the streambank and shading next to the water. Table 2 lists shrub species tolerant of flooding and wet soils. Table 2. Recommended Shrub Species for Zone 1 & 2 Arrowwood Inkberry Spicebush Bayberry Maple-leaf viburnum Swamp azalea Buttonbush Pinxterbloom azalea Swamp leucothoe Common ninebark Pussy willow Sweet pepperbush Elderberry Red chokeberry Virginia sweetspire Grey dogwood Rosebay rhododendron Winterberry Table 3 lists understory species recommended for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Table 3. Recommended Understory Woody Plants for Zone 1 & 2 American holly Flowering dogwood Redbud Blackhaw Hornbeam Shad-bush Boxelder Paw paw Sweet bay On sunny banks, shade-intolerant species will thrive until overshadowedby the canopy. On wide streams, south-and west-facing banks receive more sun. North-facing streambanks receive less solar exposure. Fewer species thrive in these shadier conditions, so plant selection is more limited. Swamp leucothoe(fetterbush), pinxterbloom azalea, spicebush, rosebay rhododendron, and mapleleaf viburnum are good choices for shady conditions. Zone 1 is an undisturbed forest area where logging is generallynot recommended. Livestock should be excluded from this zone. Stream crossings,watering sites, and any streambank stabilization work must be carefully plannedto minimize negative impact on water quality. Zone 2. This zone allows the water to infiltrate or percolate into the soil so that waterborne nutrients/ pollutants are absorbed and cleansed through vegetation and other natural ecological systems. Zone 2 also provides long-term storage of nutrients in the woody biomass of trees and shrubs. Large trees dominate Zone 2, which has an understory of smaller trees and shrubs. This zone can tolerate some disturbance. Where site conditions permit, commercially viable species can be planted for possible future logging. A wide range of forest management options can be used in Zone 2. Other nontraditional agricultural products can be grown in this area (for example, Christmas trees, nut crops, shade-loving wildflowers, and ginseng). Select species adapted to the specific site and soil conditions. Look at adjoining areas for the types of native species that grow in that locale. Shade-tolerant shrub species such as winterberry, Virginia sweetspire, and mapleleaf viburnum generally do well in this zone. Planting a variety of tree and shrub species increases diversity and improves wildlife habitat. Also, planting a mix of species prevents loss of all benefits if one species does not thrive or fails to grow completely. In areas with heavy deer browsing, spicebush and mapleleaf viburnum are good choices (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). For more information on trees and shrubs, refer to Fact Sheet 726 Trees for Riparian Forest Buffers, and Fact Sheet 727 Understory Plants for Riparian Forest Buffers. Zone 3. Zone 3 is the transition zone between the forested areas in Zones 1 and 2 and adjacent land. When carefully designed, this zone filters sediments, increases water absorption capacity, converts nutrients into green biomass, takes in nutrients, and prevents erosion by spreading the concentrated surface water flow to a uniform sheet flow. Zone 3 also provides valuable food and cover for certain wildlife species. A dense, herbaceous cover with no trees or shrubs works best to slow and filter runoff. Warm and/or cool season grasses are recommended in this zone. Switchgrass is preferred because its dense, stiff stems remain upright throughout the seasons. This slows the overland flow of water, allowing the water to infiltrate the buffer, and also allows sediment carried by the water to be deposited in the buffer area. In addition, switchgrass produces an extensive and deep root system, much of which is replaced annually, providing large amounts of organic matter to the soil. Organic matter improves soil quality by increasing infiltration rates and microbial activity. Switchgrass takes approximately 3 years to become fully established. Where surface runoff is not a major problem, other permanent grasses such as Indiangrass, big bluestem, and little bluestem can be used. Black-eyed Susan and purple- and gray-headed coneflower also can be planted with grass to intercept surface runoff. Other grasses may be combined with the switchgrass to promote wildlife diversity within this zone. Native forbs also may be part of the mix, especially if they are seeded in clumps with other native grasses. Cool season grasses, such as bromegrass and fescue, are not appropriate for Zone 3 because they do not tend to remain upright under the flow of water and they provide limited value as wildlife habitat. They also produce up to eight times less root mass than native grasses and, therefore, do not improve soil quality as quickly or as much as the same planting of warm season grasses. However, in areas where soil erosion is aserious problem, cool season grasses are recommended to establish vegetation cover quickly. In some cases, cool and warm season grasses can be planted to provide wildlife habitat and also help prevent serious soil erosion problems. For more information on establishing grass buffers, refer toFact Sheet 728 Grasses for Riparian Buffers and Wildlife Habitat Improvement and Fact Sheet 759 Wildlife Plantings - Food and Cover Plantings. Other Planting Strategies The combination of plantings already described provides the most effective buffer system, but the three zones are not the only approach to improving water quality, habitat, and flood control. Site conditions, surrounding land use, owner objectives, and cost-share program requirements should be considered in determining combinations of species for a buffer. The following strategies also provide some reduction of nonpoint source pollution: Plant the entire buffer area to warm season grasses and forbs. Some soil stabilization may be needed, such as growing willow stakes along the streambank. This system does not provide as many benefits as a multispecies design (three zones) and is best suited where streambanks are not very high or steep. In urban areas, plant warm season grasses over the entire area and small groups of shrubs and/ or trees to provide a diverse, natural look. Recreational facilities such as hiking or bike trails can be incorporated into the system. Careful design will help avoid erosion problems often associated with runoff from trails. Accelerate succession by overplanting with seedlings of fast-growing, shade-intolerant species at a high enough density to provide canopy closure relatively rapidly. Tulip poplar, box elder, and silver maple are among the fastest growing trees appropriate for the riparian zone. Seedlings of shadetolerant canopy species, such as red oak, interplanted among these pioneer species can be selectively released after canopy closure to become the eventual dominants. That is, once the species intended to be the dominant trees are well-established, the protective, fast-growing, shade-intolerant species are removed. Canopy overplanting will also reduce deer browsing on the future dominant species. This strategy also provides more wildlife habitat and deadwood in the riparian zone. The decision to use this strategy is largely determined by the existing vegetation in the riparian zone. Where many indigenous seedlings exist, the planting approach should attempt to capitalize on this. Establishment Buffer Width There is no ideal buffer width for all applications in all areas. Many factors including slope, soil type, adjacent land uses, floodplain, vegetation type, and watershed condition influence what can be planted. The function of the buffer, that is, the reason for installing a riparian buffer, should be the overriding criteria, with other factors (such as those listed above) influencing the final decision to a lesser degree. The most commonly prescribed minimum buffer widths for use in water quality and habitat maintenance are approximately 35 to 100 feet. Buffers of less than 35 feet cannot sustain long-term protection of aquatic resources. (Figure 2 associates a range of buffer widths with some specific buffer benefits.) Figure 2. Buffer widths (in feet) for specific objectives. Site Preparation Often, a riparian area will have a mixture of pasture, overgrown fields, and a line of branchy, poor quality trees along the stream. This requiresa combination of site preparation techniques. In all situations a combination of physical and herbicidal methods will be most effective and efficient. Site preparation should begin the fall prior to planting. In some situations site preparation can require up to a year of vegetation control prior to planting. Any necessary streambank stabilization needs to be included in the planting plan so work can proceed in a logical order. If the area has been used for row crops, disk the ground in the spring and seed the area where the woody material will be planted with a cover crop, such as annual rye grass or cereal rye. Since a good cover is essential, cool season grasses such as field bromegrass and tall fescue are often appropriate. These grasses are not invasive, do not require mowing, and will be shaded out (eventually eliminated) by the woody plants. In pasture-type situations, eliminate competing perennial vegetation with herbicides in 3-to 4-foot-wide circles or strips where trees or shrubs willbe planted. Problem species, such as multiflora rose and honeysuckle, will still need to be controlled by cutting, pulling, and/or herbicides. Abandoned fields of varying ages already have tree saplings, shrubs, andvines. In this situation, site preparation focuses on releasing the desired saplings and other plants from competition by undesired species. Release methods vary according to the target species and extent of infestation by invasives. Techniques include spraying basal bark herbicides during the dormant season, cutting large shrubs and vines and then treating the stumps to prevent resprouting, and mowing everything around the "keepers" after they have leafed out in late spring. Larger cut stumps may also require an application of an herbicide to control resprouting. Plant Materials One-to two-year-old seedlings of most tree and shrub species, or rooted or unrooted cuttings of willow can be obtained from various forest nurseries. Order plants early to get desired species and type of planting stock. Consider ordering 10 to 15 percent more trees and shrubs than you think you will need. The additional plants can be planted in a nearby "holding" area by the heeling-in method and used for replacement plantings (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Heeling-in method to protect roots Seeds should be ordered as PLS (Pure Live Seed) to ensure you are paying for and planting only live seed, not inert material. Plant trees and shrubs as soon as possible after receiving them. If planting must be delayed, keep plants cool and moist, or heel-in as previously mentioned. Always use high quality stock with good root systems. Quality hardwood seedlings should have a minimum of four to five large lateral roots. Trees and shrubs should be planted in early spring. A tree planter, auger, planting bar, or shovel can be used to plant seedlings and cuttings. Before planting, soak rooted cuttings in water for 2 to 4 hours and unrooted cuttings for 24 hours. Root collars of seedlings should be slightly below the soil surface. Make sure planting holes are closed and the soil around the root or cutting is firm. For unrooted cuttings, plant deep enough to leave only 1 or 2 buds above ground. Grass and forb seeds may be broadcast planted using a spinner-type seeder or a drop-seeder. Because of the light, fluffy nature of the seed, broadcast seeding of warm season grasses can only be accomplished with clean seed. This means at least 75 percent PLS. Seed less than 75 percent PLS should be planted with a specialized warm season grass drill or planter. Plant trees 8 to 12 feet apart. Depending on the species and desired results, leave 8 to 12 feet between trees in the row. Spacing will vary considerably depending on your objectives and on the species. Planting for timber production, biomass production, and wildlife management all have different recommendations. Maintenance Weed control is essential for the survival and rapid growth of trees and shrubs in a buffer. Options include 4 to 6 inches of organic mulch, weed control fabrics, shallow cultivation, pre-emergent herbicides, and mowing. Nonchemical weed control techniques are preferred because chemicals can quickly enter the water system in riparian areas. Continue weed control until woody plants occupy the area, normally 2 to 3 years. For more information about weed control, contact your local forester or state extension forester. During the first year, control annual weeds in Zone 3 by mowing to 6 inches. Do not let weeds get higher than 12 to 14 inches before mowing. Cutting down tall weeds can smother the small seedlings below. During the second year, mow to 12 to 18 inches in early summer if weeds are a problem. Mowing lower could harm plants and nesting animals. Long-term Management Buffers must be monitored and managed to maintain their maximum water quality and wildlife habitat benefits. They should be inspected at least once a year, and always within a few days of severe storms for evidence of sediment deposit, erosion, or concentrated flow channels. Repairs should be made as soon as possible. Grasses should be harvested, burned, or in some instances, can be control grazed. The use of fast-growing tree species ensures rapid growth and the effective removal of nutrients and other excess chemicals that could pollute waterways. Harvesting fast-growing trees as early as possible removes the nutrients and chemicals stored in their woody stems. Periodic harvesting also promotes continued vigorous growth. If harvested in winter, these species will regenerate from stump sprouts, thereby maintaining root system integrity and continued protection of the streambank. Finally, if possible, avoid working in the riparian area between April 15 and August 15. During this time period, disturbance can be detrimental to a variety of wildlife, because of mating and newly born wildlife. References Stewards of Our Streams: Riparian Buffer Systems, Pm-1626a/ b, Jan. 1996. Iowa State University Extension. Stewards of Our Streams: Buffer Strip Design, Establishment, and Maintenance, Pm-1626b, Apr. 1996 Iowa State University Extension. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest Buffer Handbook: A Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 1996. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. Pub. No. NA-PR-07-91. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. Agroforestry Notes. Rocky Mountain Station, USDA-NRCS, Jan. 1997, AF Note-4 FS725 Riparian Forest Buffer Design, Establishment, and Maintenance P97/R98 by Robert L. Tjaden Regional Extension Specialist Natural Resources Wye Research and Education Center Glenda M. Weber Faculty Extension Assistant Natural Resource Management Wye Research and Education Center The University of Maryland is equal opportunity. The University's policies, programs, and activities are in conformance with pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, and disability. Inquiries regarding compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Educational Amendments; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; or related legal requirements should be directed to the Director of Human Resources Management, Office of the Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742. When a Landowner Adopts a Riparian Buffer-Benefits and Costs By Loretta Lynch & Bob Tjaden Society’s Economic Benefits The environmental benefits of riparian buffers, such as improvements in water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation, have been documented. To assess the economic benefits or values of riparian buffers, however, society must decide how willing it is to pay for the environmental improvements. Determining the exact value of these improvements is difficult. The environmental benefits of each buffer zone depend on whether grass or trees are planted, how wide the buffer is, the land use of adjacent property, and the conditions that exist both up- and downstream from the buffer. In addition, some benefits are immediately evident, others take time. For example, it may take years or even decades for aquatic habitats and stream formation to improve and for the public to be aware of the benefits these changes bring. This complicates how environmental effects and thus economic benefits are calculated. If improved water quality enhances goods and services that are bought or sold in the marketplace, economists can assign a value to this improvement. For example, if trout return to a stream and the landowner is then able to sell fishing rights, the income from the sale represents a direct economic benefit, which can be calculated. If adopting a buffer results in topsoil retention and higher crop yields for a farm, the added production and income is an economic benefit. Economists can also assess the value of the increase in recreational opportunities in streams, tributaries, and the Chesapeake Bay. They use valuation methods based on the amount of money people are willing to spend to take advantage of the improved recreation. In addition, economists can calculate the health benefits improved water quality brings, in terms of lives saved, health costs reduced, or sick days avoided. It can be harder to assign a value to other benefits of improved water quality that are not bought or sold. We do not yet have exact figures for how much society will benefit economically from the creation of riparian buffers. Other studies of improved water quality, however, can give us an idea of what the potential benefits are. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture economists, the 40 to 45 million acres of cropland retired under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), at an annual cost of $1 billion, have generated $3.5 to $4.5 billion annually in water quality benefits. Reduced erosion; increased recreational fishing; and improvements in ease of navigation, water storage and treatment, and flood control are among the benefits. The economists hypothesize that the dollar value of benefits would be higher if more environmentally sensitive land had been targeted. The Chesapeake Bay’s Riparian Forest Buffer Panel Technical Team reports that established riparian forest buffers can remove 21 pounds of nitrogen per acre at $.30 per pound and about 4 pounds of phosphorus per acre at $1.65 per pound, annually. The Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) estimates that urban retrofitting of best management practices (BMPs) to remove 20 percent of the current nutrient runoff will cost approximately $200 per acre, or $643,172,600 for the Bay basin, a much larger price tag. The ICPRB also estimates the costs of reducing runoff from highly erodible agricultural land to be $130 per acre. According to the buffer panel, establishing forest buffers in Maryland could cost $617,000 per year in order to achieve the 40percent reduction of nutrients by the year 2000; comparable structural engineered approaches cost $3.7 million per year. In this case structural engineering approaches are those that require major construction and engineering design such as stormwater retention ponds. Even without the exact societal benefits or willingness to pay for these riparian buffer–generated improvements, policy makers have concluded that on a societal scale the overall benefits are greater than the cost. However, from an individual landowner’s perspective, benefits may not always clearly outweigh costs. Landowner Benefits Establishing a streamside buffer will result in decreased soil erosion from the adjacent field and will assist in maintaining stable streambanks. In addition, landowners can benefit from the aesthetic value of the trees or grass and may see increases in property values. Other benefits can include payments from government programs, such as the cost-share and annual incentive and rental payments. In some cases, buffers can provide income from tree, grass, and orchard crop harvesting; hunting and fishing; hunting and fishing leases; and medicinal herbs. Under certain government programs, however, participating landowners cannot derive any income from the buffer during their years of participation. Many growers who hunt derive added benefit from attracting wildlife, in addition to any possible leasing opportunities. (Leases for deer and upland game hunting cost between $5 and $20 per acre.) The economic returns depend on the type of vegetation planted as well as on whether or not a particular program permits harvest opportunities. Under one program, USDA-CREP (U.S. Department of Agriculture - Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program), landowners who decide to plant riparian buffers are eligible for an annual rental payment for the length of the selected contract, which is between 10 and 15 years. The payment is based on rental rates in the county where the land is located and the types of soil found in the riparian area. In addition, the landowner receives an annual incentive payment equal to 70 percent of the rental rate, for planting trees, and 50 percent of the rental rate, for planting grasses next to waterways such as streams, wetlands, and drainage ditches. Besides the rental and incentive payments, a landowner can receive up to 100 percent in cost-share payments to establish forested buffers and up to 95 percent to establish grass buffers, through a cooperative agreement of USDA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and Ducks Unlimited. In addition to these payments, landowners also have the option of putting a permanent easement on the land and receiving a lump-sum payment based on number of acres and the county where the land is located. In this case, the riparian area would have to remain in a vegetated buffer forever with the landowner having limited rights for harvesting the timber or grass. Planting and Maintenance Costs Forest Buffer Direct planting costs depend on the size and type of buffer. A forest buffer costs between $218–$729 per acre to plant and maintain. Establishment costs can be broken down into site preparation, the plants, planting, replanting, and maintenance. Planting costs depend on geographic location, number of acres planted, number of trees planted per acre, species of trees, and whether or not the trees are from bare root or container stock. Trees can be planted either by machine or by hand. Machine-planted trees often have a higher survival rate. Machine planting can be less expensive and the property owner avoids having to hire laborers, who may or may not be available. Planting costs shown in Table 1, Tree Buffer Costs, are based on a range of $0.11 to $0.40 per tree for hand planting and $0.14 to $0.30 per tree for machine planting. The cost of the plant material—the seedlings are based on the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Tree Nursery Rates of $0.11 to $0.50 per seedling. Depending on the adjacent land-use, the optimal site preparation may include broadcast application of an herbicide or mowing and a band application of pre- and post-emergent herbicides. Herbicide costs are based on a range of chemicals and assume that application followed label recommendations. The costs of replanting will depend on the survival rate of the trees. We assume a survival rate of 80 percent. Thus, 20 percent of the trees (110 trees) need to be replanted by hand at a rate of $0.40 per tree. The seedling cost of the replanted trees ranges between $12 and $55 per acre. Table 1. Tree Buffer Costs (436-550 trees) Per acre Plant by machine Plant by hand Plant material Site Preparation (herbicides for grass control) Band Broadcast Replanting Maintenance Herbicides Mowing Total $75-130 $60-174 $60-275 $30-50 $80-120 $56-100 $30-60 $12-60 $218-729 In many areas of Maryland, tree shelters are also being recommended to ensure the survival of the buffer’s highvalue trees. Because of vole damage, many foresters are recommending tree shelters for all trees planted on pastureland. Tree shelter costs are based on the length of the shelters: 4-foot shelters cost $1.89 each and 5-foot shelters cost $2.29 each. In addition, stakes cost between $0.31 and $0.40 each. Labor costs to install shelters range from $0.50 to $0.75 per shelter. Although CREP does not offer cost sharing for tree shelters, it is available through another USDA program. The Farm Service Agency office can assist landowners in submitting a separate application to receive this money. Grass Buffer Grass buffers tend to cost less than tree buffers to plant and maintain. See Table 2, “Grass Buffer Costs.” For warm and cool season grasses, costs for site preparation, seeds, planting, fertilizer, and maintenance need to be considered. Seed costs vary depending on the seed mixture used. We found that the cost of seeds varies annually because of fluctuating availability. Planting costs depend on the number of acres planted and the distance the planting drill must travel. Some of the low costs here reflect that some landowners will engage in the buffer planting themselves. The higher numbers reflect the cost of hiring a contractor to provide the machinery and do the planting. Table 2. Grass Buffer Costs Per acre Planting Seeds Site preparation Fertilizer/lime Maintenance Mowing or Herbicide Total $10-50 $100-225 $18-40 $30-50 $10-60 $168-400 Buffers Next to Pasture Costs will be higher for establishing buffers in an area where animals have been pastured. If animals have had previous access to a stream, a fence, a crossing, and/or an alternative watering source are needed. See Table 3, “Costs of Keeping Animals Away from a Stream.” Electric fences cost from $2.15 to $2.60 per foot to erect. The cost of an alternative watering source depends on the type of generator necessary for pumping the water and the distance the water has to travel between the water source and the watering trough. Although a gravity system usually costs between $2,000 and $4,000, some landowners have spent $7,000, to pay for increased costs of pumping water a long distance or up a steep slope. Similarly, a typical solar unit costs between $4,000 and $6,000, but some growers buy units that cost as much as $10,000. Stone and concrete stream crossings, the most common type, typically cost from $2,000 to $4,000. Some growers, however, have chosen to use culverts and/or bridges to provide a crossing for their animals. Under the USDA-CREP program, marginal pastureland is eligible for tree buffer establishment only, not grass. Table 3. Costs of Keeping Animals Away from a Stream Fencing $2.15-2.60(per ft) (High tensile--3 strand) Alternative watering source Solar $4,000-10,000 Gravity $2,000-7,000 Stream Crossing Stone $2,000-6,000 Culverts/bridges $4,000-10,000 Transaction Costs Beyond these direct costs of establishment and maintenance is the investment of time, which is rarely factored into a project cost estimate. Participants find that the paperwork for signing up for and participating in the costshare and/or incentive programs is time consuming. Program coordinators and field staff estimate that a typical CREP program request in Maryland takes 3 hours of a landowner’s time, even with field staff help. According to participants’ reports, completing the paperwork can take anywhere from 2 to 8 hours. In addition, landowners who participate in the site visit, the buffer design, and planting could invest 15 hours, depending on the number of acres involved. This cost can be significant, depending on the value a landowner places on his or her time. Program requirements may also be inflexible. A participant usually has to take part in more than one program or to piggyback programs to cover all costs. A number of different agencies run these programs, with limited coordination, and each agency has different rules. Often, cost-share payments are not made at the same time monetary expenditures occur; landowners may have to wait for up to a year for reimbursement. As a result, paperwork and other perceived difficulties may keep a landowner from becoming involved in the programs. Opportunity Costs An individual incurs opportunity costs for all the opportunities (options B through Z, for instance) lost because option A was chosen. The loss of earnings from crops that could have been grown in place of the buffer is an opportunity cost. Landowners can calculate opportunity costs by considering other possible uses for the land where the buffer is being planted. Opportunity costs include the net changes in current and future income that will result from establishing the buffer. Factors such as the productivity of the land nearest the stream and the type of crop grown will affect these costs. In some areas, the streamside will be the grower’s most productive land, in others, the least productive. Option Value Opportunity costs also include the option value of the land. The option value, similar to options in the stock or futures market, is the possible price the landowner would receive for the land in the future if all his or her options were available. Most landowners will take into account the possible change, which could be a reduction, in the potential sales price of converting the land to residential development because of the buffer’s presence. The change may not be negative, however; sales prices can increase or decrease with a forested parcel. For example, the Chesapeake Bay Program reports in its “Economics of Riparian Forest Buffers” that according to a Bank of America Mortgage survey, real estate agents find that homes with treed lots are 20 percent more saleable. According to the Chesapeake Bay Program, Maryland developers receive prices 10 to 15 percent above the average for lots next to forests and buffers. Landowner Concerns Landowners have expressed a number of concerns regarding the adoption of buffers. Some owners worry that once the buffer is in place they will not be able to remove it. The irreversibility could derive from future regulations or existing legislation that will apply to the land once a buffer is planted. For example, if an endangered species establishes itself in the buffer, would a landowner ever be able to cut down the buffer, even though the endangered species would not exist there had the buffer not been established? Thus, the buffer could limit the landowner’s flexibility or options. As another example, if the land containing the buffer reverts to a wetland, would the land then be subject to all wetland legislation? Most growers have to be assured that they will be able to drain and farm this area again or would need a risk premium or “option value” to cover the new restriction. In the case of CREP participants, landowners have a 5-year window following the termination of the contract to reclaim the cropland before the wetland legislation goes into effect. Although some landowners favor adopting a buffer that creates habitat and attracts wildlife, others worry that buffers might attract members of endangered species or too many deer. A possible increase in the deer population could lead to an increase in crop destruction or an increase in expenditures to prevent deer from entering the fields. University of Maryland economists have found that 92 percent of Maryland farmers experienced a deerrelated yield loss in 1996. Between 6 and 12 percent of farmers’ income was lost, depending on crop and location. Wildlife biologists have not yet determined if the adoption of a buffer will affect the number of deer present on a farm. Some growers think trees will shade their fields, decreasing yields. Careful attention to the design of the buffer is important to ensure trees are not located where they would shade fields. A landowner can also choose to plant both trees and grass to ensure adequate distance between trees and field. Other growers think buffers will draw moisture from crops or nutrients in the field, decreasing production. Farmers are also concerned about how much of their time will be necessary to maintain a buffer and about crop destruction that might result from falling limbs of trees or from noxious weeds growing in the buffers. Some farmers fear that a buffer will alter the configuration of the field, making machinery or equipment maneuvering more difficult. In the case of waterfront property, landowners express concern that establishing a forest buffer might result in a lost or hindered scenic view. Views have aesthetic value to the landowner and to any others who live on the property. The sales price for land with a view can be higher than similar land nearby. However, a buffer design incorporating a view corridor could potentially enhance the aesthetics by framing the view, resulting in a higher or at least undiminished sales price. Available Programs Programs exist that offer money to landowners who establish buffers on their property. These programs decrease the costs associated with a buffer, through cost-share programs and technical assistance, and increase the benefits through incentive payments. These are described in Fact Sheet 769, Riparian Buffer Financial Assistance Opportunities. Calculating Net Benefits of Buffer Adoption We have computed the net benefits for two types of farmers in Table 4, “Partial Budget Worksheet #1,” and Table 5, “Partial Budget Worksheet #2.” These numbers are estimates that farmers might use. Although payments and costs cover a 15-year period, the values are not discounted to 1999 dollars. Fact Sheet 547, “Using the Partial Budget To Analyze Farm Change,” explains partial budgets more fully. Table 4. Partial Budget Worksheet #1 for Queen Anne County Corn Farmer Proposed change: Establishing a riparian buffer on 10 acres of land Enrolling in the Conservation Reserve Enhanced Program Positive Effects Value Negative Effects Increases in income Reductions in income CREP payments Crop revenue Value Rental payment: $81 per acre for 10 acres for 15 years $12,150 120 bushels per acre at $2.60 per bushel $46,800 Incentive payment: $56.70 per acre for 10 acres for 15 years $8,505 on 10 acres for 15 years Cost-share payments 100 percent of $575 per acre for 10 acres $5,750 Maintenance payments $5 per acre for 10 acres for 15 years $750 Total increases in income $27,155 Total reductions in income Reductions in costs Increases in costs Production expenses Tree establishment $210 for 10 acres for 15 years $31,500 $575 per acre for 10 acres $46,800 $5,750 Time for program sign-up 15 hours at $10 per hour Reduced soil erosion Other costs Tax implications Changed configuration of field $150 Long-term consequences Total reductions in costs $31,500 Total increases in costs Total income increases and cost reductions $58,655 Total income reductions and cost increases $5,900 $52,700 Change in net income: (Total income increases and cost reductions) minus (Total income reductions and cost increases) $5,955 Source: Adapted from “Using the Partial Budget To Analyze Farm Change” 1990. Table 5. Partial Budget Worksheet #2 for Frederick County Farmer Proposed change: Establishing a riparian buffer on 5 acres of land Enrolling in the Conservation Reserve Enhanced Program Positive Effects Increases in income Value Negative Effects Reductions in income Value CREP payments Dairy revenue Rental payment: $74 per acre for 5 acres for 15 $5,550 No change anticipated years Incentive payment: $51.80 per acre for 5 acres for 15 years $0 $3,885 Cost-share payments 100 percent of $575 per acre for 5 acres $2,875 100 percent of fence establishment costs $3,750 100 percent of bridge establishment costs $5,000 100 percent of watering source costs $3,000 Maintenance payments $5 per acre for 5 acres for 15 years $375 Total increases in income $24,435 Total reductions in income Reductions in costs Increases in costs Production expenses Tree establishment No change anticipated $0 $575 per acre for 5 acres $0 $2,875 Fence establishment Less probability of mastitis reoccurrence High tensile (3 strands) for 1,500 feet at $2.50 per foot Reduced soil erosion Watering source Tax implications Solar-generated water delivery $3,750 $5,000 Stream crossing establishment Stone passage $3,000 Time for program sign-up 15 hours at $10 per hour $150 Other costs Long-term consequences Total reductions in costs $0 Total increases in costs $14,775 Total income increases and cost reductions $24,435 Total income reductions and cost increases $14,775 Change in net income: (Total income increases and cost reductions) minus (Total income reductions and cost increases) $9,660 The first case is a farmer in Queen Anne’s County who traditionally grows nonirrigated corn on a 200-acre farm. This farmer has a first order or intermittent stream on the property and wants to consider whether to adopt a riparian buffer. The farmer’s yield is 120 bushels per acre with a per acre cost (excluding land rent) of $210. At the 5-year average price of $2.60 a bushel, the profit computes to $102 per acre. Of course, as with any agricultural commodity, yield and market price can vary with climatic conditions and changes in demand. Therefore, the $102 profit per acre is not guaranteed. If yields or prices fell, the farmer could earn less. If yields rose or prices increased, the farmer could earn more. If the farmer joins CREP and puts in a tree buffer, the program calculates a rental rate based on the types of soil in the buffer area. In this case, he can earn $81 per acre in rental fees plus an incentive bonus of $56.70 (100 percent of the rental rate) for a total payment of $137.70 per acre. This is a guaranteed payment each year for the length of the contract, which can vary from 10 to 15 years. If he plants grass, the incentive bonus is $40.50 per acre (80 percent of the rental rate) for a total payment of $121.50 per acre. The program adds on another $5 per year per acre for maintenance costs. The cost to install a hardwood buffer is estimated to be $575 per acre. Combining CREP, MACS (Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program) and funds from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Ducks Unlimited, the cost share for trees equals 100 percent. In most cases, the farmer would have to expend the money and be reimbursed later. In addition to paying the establishment costs, the farmer must spend time signing up for the program and possibly participating in the site visit, taking part in the buffer design, and ordering plant material. Estimating these steps taking 15 hours and valuing the owner’s labor at $10 per hour equals an additional cost of $150. Of course, some growers may value their time at a higher rate and others may not find the time outlay burdensome. After examining the partial budget worksheet #1, we find that the farmer’s positive effects ($58,655)—an increase in income and a reduction of costs—exceed his negative effects ($52,700), which are a reduction of revenue and an increase in costs. Therefore, if this farmer did not estimate any additional costs, he might consider investigating the CREP program and establishing a buffer. In case number 2, a Frederick County farmer pastures her cows on 75 acres. The cows water in the stream running through the property. This has caused some streambank destruction, and several dairy cows have come down with mastitis from walking in the stream’s bacteria-laden water. After reading some information on CREP, the farmer is considering installing a forest buffer, the only type permitted on marginal pasture. Besides the cost of installing a tree buffer at $575 per acre, the farmer must erect a fence to keep the cows out of the buffer and the stream. Since pasture lies on both sides of the stream, she must also build a stream crossing. In addition, she must provide a watering source for her animals. Depending on the evaluation of the streambank destruction, the owner may also have to employ some engineering or bioengineering tools and methods to keep the bank from degrading and to ensure its integrity. (More information about bioengineering or streambank restoration can be found in Fact Sheet 729, Riparian Buffer Management: Soil Bioengineering or Streambank Restoration for Riparian Forest Buffers.) She does not anticipate any reduction in income resulting from the buffer, nor does she expect any reduction in expenses related to the farm. She will have to invest in mechanisms to keep the cows out of the stream. There will be some increase in income, however, from the rental, incentive, and cost-share payments. The farmer uses Partial Budget Worksheet #2 to get a rough idea of what the net benefits are of installing a riparian forest buffer. Based on the estimated payments and added costs, she finds that the overall impact is positive and therefore worth a visit to the local Farm Service Agency office to discuss actual numbers. Conclusions Buffers provide another mechanism for reducing the flow of nutrients into the Chesapeake Bay, and thus contribute to increased water quality. However, while society obviously benefits from these buffers, a landowner’s decision whether or not to adopt a buffer will have to be based on his or her individual circumstances. We have provided information about the costs of establishing different types of buffers and their possible benefits. We present two case studies of farmers who may be eligible for the CREP program: in the first study, the farmer grows a field of row crops, and in the second, the farmer pastures cows. We present a format landowners can use to determine what the cost-benefit tradeoffs are for their individual situations. We would like to thank Anne Hairston-Strang of Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Patty Engler of USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and Claudia Jones of the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission for their review of and comments about the document. References Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, Md. May 1998. “Economics of Riparian Forest Buffers.” Lessley, Billy V., Dale M. Johnson, and James C. Hanson. 1990. “Using the Partial Budget To Analyze Farm Change.” University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 547. McNew, Kevin, and John Curtis. Fall 1997. “Maryland Farmers Lose Bucks on Deer-Damaged Crops,” Economic Viewpoints 2(2). Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension. Ribaudo, Mark O., C. Tim Osborn, and Kazim Konyar. 1994. “Land Retirement as a Tool for Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution.” Land Economics 70(1): 77-87. Riparian Forest Buffer Panel Technical Team. October 1996. “Riparian Forest Buffer Panel Report: Technical Support Document.” Chesapeake Bay Program. Tjaden, Robert L., and Glenda M. Weber. 1998. “Riparian Buffer Management: Soil Bioengineering or Streambank Restoration for Riparian Forest Buffers.” University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 729. FS774 When a Landowner Adopts a Riparian Buffer-Benefits and Costs P00/R00 by Lori Lynch Assistant Professor Agricultural and Resource Economics University of Maryland, College Park Robert Tjaden Regional Extension Specialist Wye Research and Education Center The University of Maryland is equal opportunity. The University's policies, programs, and activities are in conformance with pertinent Federal and State laws and regulations on nondiscrimination regarding race, color, religion, age, national origin, gender, and disability. Inquiries regarding compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Title IX of the Educational Amendments; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; or related legal requirements should be directed to the Director of Human Resources Management, Office of the Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Symons Hall, College Park, MD 20742.
