Full Text
Enhancing Water Resources in Tompkins County: Benefits of Riparian Areas and Stream Buffers Tompkins County Planning Department www.bridgeandtunnelclub.com/bigmap/outoftown/fingerlakes/ithaca/cornell/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction Riparian areas, the areas immediately adjacent to flowing waters such as streams, lakes, shorelines, and wetlands, provide a transition between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Environmental Law Institute 2003). Though riparian areas and stream buffers generally comprise a small proportion of the landscape, they provide a disproportionably high amount of habitat and ecosystem benefits, including protecting water quality, stabilizing streams, minimizing flood damages, and enhancing ecological diversity. “If properly designed and maintained, riparian buffers can provide a variety of benefits, from water quality protection to ecosystem maintenance to recreation and education to flood damage prevention.” (Davis and Hitchings, 2000) To minimize adverse human impacts on water quality, biodiversity, and stream stability, communities are increasingly developing protective buffers around riparian areas and along streams, lakes, and rivers. Developing riparian buffers helps protect riparian and streamside areas and ensures they can continue to provide ecosystem benefits. Protecting and restoring streamside areas also enables streams “to recover dynamic equilibrium and function at a self-sustaining level.” (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998). As municipalities in Tompkins County take steps to protect and restore streams and riparian areas, understanding the benefits of riparian buffers and the buffer width needed to sustain those benefits will empower communities to make the best choices. The findings presented in this document are intended to educate community leaders on the benefits of riparian and stream buffers, and provide a scientific foundation for implementing riparian and stream buffers in Tompkins County. Although the term “riparian buffer” includes a variety of buffer types, this document emphasizes the benefits of forested riparian buffers, which are considered by many researchers to be the most effective. In addition, this document focuses on the benefits of buffering streamside areas, though buffering other riparian areas yields similar benefits. Benefits of Stream Buffers Forested stream buffers provide a variety of benefits: Habitat and Biodiversity. Stream buffers enhance habitat and biodiversity by providing terrestrial wildlife habitat and travel corridors, and food and habitat in aquatic ecosystems; Stream Stability. Buffers attenuate flooding, stabilize stream banks and prevent erosion of streambanks and streambeds; Water Quality. Buffers protect water quality by removing pollutants and moderating temperatures; and Financial Savings. Buffers prevent property damage, reduce public investment and enhance property values. Exemplary stream buffer. Forested stream buffers provide the greatest benefit when compared to other types of stream buffers. Paxton Creek Watershed and Education Association 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Habitat and Biodiversity Buffers enhance habitat and biodiversity by providing terrestrial wildlife habitat and travel corridors, food for aquatic food webs, and structural complexity for aquatic habitat. Enhance Wildlife Diversity Habitat. Located at the interface of land and water, riparian and streamside areas provide permanent habitat for a diversity of organisms that require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including many species of fish and other in-stream organisms, amphibians, and terrestrial plants and animals. Wildlife corridors. Stream buffers can provide “‘corridors’ which link [larger tracts of protected open space and] facilitate movement of wildlife between habitat ‘islands’ in otherwise developed areas.” (USACE, 1991) These corridors provide vital connective areas and prevent fragmentation and isolation of populations. Restore Aquatic Ecosystem Aquatic food. Stream buffers help support healthy aquatic ecosystems “by supplying plant detritus as food sources, the principal energy source for aquatic webs in small streams.” (USACE, 1991) Shading. Shading caused by overhanging vegetation and tree canopies helps keep streams and rivers cool during summer months. This is especially important for cold-water aquatic organisms. It is important to note temperature within a stream “is dependent not only on conditions such as canopy cover or imperious surfaces in the local area, but in the upstream river system as well.” (Mannik, 2004) Stream complexity. Stream buffers allow for stream channel complexity. “The presence of woody vegetation (living, decaying or dead, standing or fallen) is also important in the creation of large woody debris, which maintain a diversity of habitat niches” for fish and other aquatic organisms. “Logs falling into streams increase the complexity of the channel, block and slow stream flow, capture and retain organic material, and create protective habitat for fish.” (USACE, 1991) Silting prevention. Stream buffers help prevent silting of streams by filtering sediment-laden runoff and preventing stream bank erosion. Clean surfaces of submerged gravel are critical for spawning of many species. Natural Stream Dynamics Forested streamside buffers enable streams to recover their natural complexity and processes of dynamic equilibrium and fluctuation, critical characteristics of riparian ecology. (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, 1998) “Natural features such as sandbars, undercut banks, oxbows and floodplain pools resulting from a stream’s or river’s interaction with adjacent lands are created, undergo change through time, and eventually disappear, while the overall pattern meandering, braiding) remains constant, at least on some larger spatial scale and longer time scale. This form of dynamic equilibrium is a singular property of rivers and accounts for much of the high biological diversity and productivity of riverine systems.” (Cohen, 1997) “As long as the [stream] is allowed to freely interact with adjacent vegetated riparian areas, a diversity of habitats in various stages of ecological succession will be maintained.” (Cohen, 1997) “Altering or changing natural conditions to which species are adapted often harms native wildlife communities by destroying key conditions that make a given site suitable habitat. An obvious example is the removal of snags (dead trees) that are essential nesting structures, food sources, and perches for many birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.” (Brown and Schaefer, et al., 1987) Buffers are stream right-of-ways. Most stream channels shift or widen over time. By allowing for lateral movement, buffers protect both streams and nearby properties. US fish & Wildlife Service 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Stream Stability Forested stream buffers can help stabilize streams by providing flood protection, stabilizing streambeds and streambanks, and maintaining streamflow. Provide Flood Protection Forested stream buffers protect against flooding by intercepting rainfall, slowing melt-water and overland flow, promoting infiltration into soil, and providing a protective zone for built structures. Vegetation roughness enables stream buffers to “store water and reduce peak runoff during storm events” (USACE, 1991). Streamside vegetation also provides steadier rainwater infiltration, which “stabilizes runoff flows as water is stored in the soil profile, moves into Southeast Michigan Resource Conservation & Development Council Severe erosion on property lacking a streamside buffer. Observe the soil loss is more aggressive away from the bush’s unseen, stabilizing root system. groundwater supplies, or is taken up by plants and used in also reduce stream channel erosion by reducing “runoff and and envapotranspiration” (Mannik, 2004). streambed scour caused by excessive flows” (USACE, Finally, stream buffers provide a zone that can accommodate 1991). By naturally stabilizing streams, stream buffers floodwaters so that they do not interfere with or impact built lower the need for public investment in waterway restorations and floodwater management. structures. Stabilize Streambanks and Streambeds Forested stream buffers help stabilize streambanks and streambeds. “The roots of plants, especially trees, provide increased erosion resistance as fine roots bind with the soil. Root structures also help armor the [stream] bank or lakeshore from erosion” (Mannik, 2004). Stream buffers Maintain Streamflow Stream buffers also reduce the effects of drought, by “storing water and maintaining groundwater levels and maintain stream base flow during low flow periods” (USACE, 1991). 3 Forested Stream Buffers Grow Stronger with Time “Vegetative buffers are the only streamside stabilization technique that actually grows stronger over time. As plants mature and become more numerous and diverse, they actually do a better job of holding soil in place and filtering and slowing runoff. All [artificial] structural erosion control methods weaken over time.” (Cornell Cooperative Extension) Before Stream Buffer After Stream Buffer These pictures were taken upon the reestablishment of a forested stream buffer. Four years after reestablishment, the buffer continues to strengthen and grow. University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry ---PAGE BREAK--- Water Quality Stream buffers and other riparian areas can help improve water quality by capturing and filtering out sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants, and by moderating stream temperatures. Prevent Sedimentation “Riparian areas [reduce] stream sediment in the following ways: vegetation in riparian areas reduces soil erosion and filters sediment [from runoff]; roots of riparian vegetation bind streambanks and reduce erosion; pools created by [fallen trees] can trap substantial amounts of sediment, at least temporarily; and riparian areas reduce sediment transport by moderating stream flows and [streambed] scour during flood events” (USACE, 1991). Remove Nutrients Riparian and streamside buffers lower pollutant concentrations in runoff by slowing runoff velocities, and trapping and removing nutrients and contaminants (Mannik, 2004). “[Riparian buffer soil and vegetation] reduce nutrient inputs into streams by: 1) filtering sediment-bound nutrients (ex. phosphorous) from runoff, 2) removing nutrients (ex. nitrogen) from groundwater via uptake in vegetation and by denitrification, and 3) pushing back development which could increase nutrient loading (i.e. septic systems [and pesticide use])” (USACE, 1991). USDA Soil and Conservation Service Nutrient and sediment laden stream. Cattle-trodden and grazed streambanks offer little protection from runoff and associated pollutants. Moderate Temperatures “Riparian vegetation is one of the most important factors for [moderating] water temperatures in small streams” (USACE, 1991). “Shade provided by riparian vegetation helps keep the water temperature cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter” (Davis and Hitchings, 2000). Riparian forest buffers also store and gradually release water through subsurface flow, which maintains stream flow and lowers water temperatures. By also removing contaminants, riparian stream buffers further facilitate clearer and cooler stream water. Colder stream water holds more dissolved oxygen, critical for many aquatic species (USACE, 1991). US Forest Service Clean forestland stream. Forested watersheds are the generally accepted benchmark for achieving high quality water resources. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Protecting Sensitive Headwaters Riparian stream buffers in headwaters have proportionally greater impact on watershed health than buffers in waters. Clean and healthy headwater streams are critical for protecting the water quality, stream stability, and wildlife habitat of an entire watershed. The effects of even small disturbances in small upstream brooks and creeks may be compounded as waters join to feed into larger and larger streams. Research shows headwaters have proportionally greater impact on: Water Quality. “Small tributaries or other sensitive areas will benefit more from a buffer than will a large river. A relatively small change on a headwater or low order stream may greatly impact local water quality, while a similar change on a large river will not have an easily discerned impact” “Even the best [riparian buffers] along larger rivers and streams cannot significantly improve water that has been degraded by improper buffer practices higher in the watershed” (Fischer & Fischenich, 2000). Stream Stability. The success of riparian buffers “depends heavily on the hydrology in the upstream watershed. If the upper watershed becomes developed without adequate stormwater controls, the amount and rate of runoff flowing into area streams during storm events can increase dramatically. These increased flows can destabilize the streambanks and cause them to erode, even if the banks are well-vegetated” (Davis and Hitchings, 2000). Wildlife Habitat. Upstream buffers also have proportionally larger impact on aquatic wildlife habitat. “Regional land use is [likely] the primary determinant of stream conditions, able to overwhelm the ability of local [buffer] vegetation to support high- quality habitat and biotic communities. Degradation of in-stream habitat likely results from altered flow regime, increased sediment inputs and decreased organic inputs over considerable distances upstream of a site” (Roth et al., 1996). Quality water sources, evidenced by a natural, healthy headwater stream. David Funk 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Financial Savings City of Winston-Salem Restored urban stream buffer. This urban creek’s banks were restored and designated “no mow” areas. Streams buffers minimize property damage, reduce municipal investment, increase property values, and reduce maintenance costs. Minimize Property Damage “Buffers mitigate property destruction [by keeping development] away from floodwaters” (Hernandez et al). Floodplains are often attractive places to build because of their scenic beauty and their proximity to water. However, locating homes, businesses, and other structures in these places often puts people in harm’s way of flooding, standing water, and bank erosion. Setting back development enables floodwaters to spill out across undeveloped floodplains, not into people’s living rooms. If the stream buffer includes the naturally. By naturally stabilizing streams, controlling 100-year floodplain, stream buffers may also eliminate the erosion, and reducing flooding, buffers lower the need for need for expensive flood controls. significant public investment in waterway restorations and stormwater management. Buffers can also reduce the number of flood-related complaints received by local Reduce Municipal Investment officials, and provide space and access for future stream restoration, bank stabilization, and reforestation (Hernandez Stream buffers financially benefit municipalities in ways that, in the long term, can greatly exceed investment in stream buffer restoration. In areas lacking stream buffers, et al). Increase Property Values Residences near stream buffers often have higher property and where streams consequently deteriorate, municipalities must repair the damage to eroded streams, respond to results of flooding, treat contaminated drinking water, dredge silted streams, and artificially and expensively values. A national study found that land next to protected reproduce ecosystem services that stream buffers provide floodplains had an average increase in value of $10,427. Another study found that homes located next to restored streams have a three to 13 percent higher property value than similar homes located on unrestored streams (Hernandez et al). In addition, numerous studies show that greenways, such as stream buffers, can improve quality of life for communities, increase property values, and in turn increase local tax revenues (McMahon, 1994). Reducing Maintenance Costs Forested stream buffers reduce reoccurring maintenance costs of spraying, mowing, and watering cultivated grass lawns. “Corporate landowners can save between $270 to $640 per acre in annual mowing and maintenance costs when open lands are managed as a natural buffer area rather than turf” (Hernandez et al). Fairfax County, Virginia Planting trees to restore a riparian forest buffer. Buffer restoration is a great opportunity for environmental education and citizen involvement. 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Considerations for Stream Buffer Implementation Site Conditions Several factors influence buffer effectiveness for water quality protection: soil type and erodibility; topography, slope and unevenness; vegetation type and amount; buffer width; local and regional hydrology, groundwater, and streamflow; seasonal variation; and species spatial requirements, availability of upland habitat, and proximate noise and light. Among these, buffer width and vegetation are most easily influenced. Buffer effectiveness is also strongly influenced by watershed land use. “Some land uses outside the buffer will have a greater impact on surface runoff than others. For example, a high percentage of impervious area, such as pavement or roofing, will result in a larger volume and higher velocity of surface runoff. Agricultural runoff may include nutrients or pesticides, whereas runoff from residential or urban land uses may result in the manufacturing, use, or storage of potential contaminants. Land use in the entire watershed of the wetland or surface water will affect the volume and pollutant load of surface runoff, as well as subsurface flow” (Chase, 1997). Understanding Local Water Resources The quality of water is influenced both by human activities and by characteristics of the natural environment. Important natural characteristics that influence water quality in Tompkins County include steepness of slope and soil type. To better understand how these natural characteristics impact local water quality, the Tompkins County Planning Department initiated a study to identify land areas that contribute disproportionate amount of runoff to local streams based on slopes and soil types. These “hydrologically sensitive” areas can potentially contribute higher levels of runoff and pollution to streams, depending on the land management practices that affect them. For more information about this research and for locations of these areas, please contact the Tompkins County Planning Department. Recommendations for Buffer Width In this document, recommended stream buffer widths are measured starting from the top of the bank (or level of bankfull discharge) extending away from the water body. Thus, a 165-foot buffer on a stream that is 30 feet wide would result in a total buffer width of at least 360 feet. Scientific recommendations for appropriate buffers widths vary considerably. “As with other conservation thresholds, the scientific literature does not support an ideal buffer width applicable in all circumstances. The necessary buffer size varies considerably based on the specific management goal. In general, recommended buffer sizes are significantly greater if the intent is to protect ecological functions, such as providing wildlife habitat and supporting species diversity, as opposed to water quality functions” (Environmental Law Institute, 2003). According to the Environmental Law Institute, “based on the majority of scientific findings, land use practitioners should plan for buffers that are a minimum of 25 meters (approximately 80 feet) in width to provide nutrient and pollutant removal; a minimum of 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) to provide temperature and microclimate regulation and sediment removal; a minimum of 50 meters (approximately 165 feet) to provide detrital input [for aquatic ecosystems] and bank stabilization; and over 100 meters (approximately 325 fee) to provide for wildlife habitat [and movement corridors].” (Environmental Law Institute, 2003) 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- At a minimum, a stream buffer should encompass “the stream channel and the portion of the terrestrial landscape from the high water mark towards the uplands where vegetation may be influenced by elevated water tables or flooding, and by the ability of soils to hold water” (Naiman et al. 1993). Stream Buffer Width Recommendations (Adapted from Environmental Law Institute, 2003; Fischer and Fischenich, 2000) Benefit Minimum Width Description Water Quality 100 feet Buffers, especially dense grassy or herbaceous buffers on gradual slopes, intercept Protection overland runoff, trap sediments, remove pollutants, promote ground water recharge, and moderate temperature changes. For low to moderate slopes, most filtering occurs within the first 30 feet, but greater widths are necessary for steeper slopes, buffers comprised of mainly shrubs and trees, where soils have low permeability, or where non-point source pollution loads are particularly high. Streambank 165 feet Riparian vegetation moderates soil moisture conditions in stream banks, and roots Stabilization provide tensile strength to the soil matrix, enhancing bank stability. Widths for erosion control will vary based on site conditions. Wider buffers will help ensure that built structures are protected from the natural meandering of stream channels. Aquatic Habitat 100 feet Buffers provide food, shelter, and migration corridors for reptiles and amphibians and help ensure adequate protection of macro-invertebrates. Detrital Input 165 feet Detrital input leaves and twigs) provide the principal energy source for aquatic food webs in small streams. Flood Protection 65 to 500 feet Riparian buffers promote floodwater storage due to backwater effects, they intercept overland flow and increase travel time, resulting in reduced flood peaks. Areas needed for flood attenuation are highly variable based on the physical characteristics and level of development within a watershed. Riparian buffers also set back development from flood hazard areas. Wildlife Habitat 330 feet Buffers, particularly diverse stands of shrubs and trees, provide food and shelter for a wide variety of mammals. Uniform vs. Variable Width To determine stream buffer widths for regulation, two approaches are commonly used: uniform buffer widths versus variable buffer widths. Uniform Width. Uniform- or fixed-width buffers are commonly adopted because they are “easier to enforce, require less specialized knowledge, time, and resources to administer, and allow for greater regulatory predictability. Uniform widths are often based on a single resource protection goal, usually related to water quality” (Environmental Law Institute, 2003). However, depending on the area that is regulated, use of a uniform buffer width may not provide adequate protection for the issue of concern. For example, a 30-meter (100-foot) buffer designed to help filter pollutants may not be adequate to provide streambank and streambed stabilization. Variable Width. In contrast, variable-width buffers can accommodate multiple management goals, account for the benefit(s) provided at a particular location, and integrate considerations of adjacent land use and site and stream conditions. Buffer width may be adjusted depending on the importance of the aquatic resources, hydrological sensitivity, surrounding land use, and vegetation, topography, soils, or hydrology. “For example, a larger width may be required for buffers surrounding hydrologically sensitive wetlands or streams, [ecologically sensitive areas], disturbed land, steep slopes, highly erodible soils, or sparse vegetation” (Environmental Law Institute, 2003). 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Conclusion The scientific findings presented above describe how forested stream buffers and riparian areas play important roles in protecting water quality, stabilizing water channels, enhancing ecological diversity, and providing financial benefits. As municipalities in Tompkins County take steps to protect and restore streams and riparian areas, understanding the functions and optimum widths of buffers will empower communities to make the best choices. This document is intended to educate community leaders on buffers and provide a scientific grounding for their application in Tompkins County. For further information, please contact: Tompkins County Planning Department 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 274-560 www.co.tompkins.ny.us/planning/ References Brown, and Schaefer, et al. (1987) “Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife.” Center for Wetlands, University of Florida. October 1987. Castelle, A.J., Johnson, A.W., and Conolly, C. (1994) “Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements: A Review.” Environmental Quality. 23:878-882. Chase, Deming, and Latawiec, F. (1997) “Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters: A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities.” Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Revised in 2005 from original. Cohen, R. (1997) “Fact Sheet Functions of Riparian Areas for Wildlife Habitat.” Massachusetts Riverways Program. June 4, 1997. Cornell Cooperative Extension of Cayuga County. (2002) “Green Thumbs for Blue Waters.” Davis, and Hitchings, B. (2000) “Protecting Stored Water with Riparian Buffers.” Public Works. Excerpted from “An Introduction to Riparian Buffers,” published by Triangle J Council of Governments. Desbonnet, Pogue, Reis, Boyd, Willis, and Imperial, M. (1995) “Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal Zone: A Summary Review and Bibliography.” Coastal Resources Center Technical Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography. Narragansett, RI. 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dosskey, Schultz, and Isenhart, T. (1997) “How to design a riparian buffer for agricultural land," Agroforestry Notes (AFN-4), National Agriforestry Center, USDA Forest Service and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Environmental Law Institute. (2003) “Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners.” Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. (2000) “Width of Riparian Zones for Birds.” EMRRP Technical Notes Collection. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. January 2000. Fischer, R.A. and Fischenich, C.J. (2000) “Design Recommendation for Riparian Corridors and Vegetated Buffer Strips.” EMRRP Technical Notes Collection. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. April 2000. Hernandez, Reynolds, and Hajjar, L. “Vegetated Riparian Buffers and Buffer Ordinances.” South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Johnson, C. (1998) Utah State University. Presentation made at National Conservation Buffers Workshop, San Antonio, TX. January 1998. Mannik, R. (2004) “The scientific justification and application of variable-width riparian buffer models for local-level regulatory control.” School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. B. “The Determination of Buffer Widths: Literature Survey and Recommendations for Oswego County, New York.” Oswego County Environmental Management Council. McMahon, E.T. (1994) “National perspective, economic impacts of greenways,” Maryland Greenways Commission, Annapolis, MD. Naiman, R.J, Decamps, Pollock, M. (1993) “The Role of Riparian Corridors in Maintaining Regional Biodiversity.” Ecological Applications 3(2): 209-212. Rosenberg, D.K., Noon, B.R., and Meslow E.C. (1998) “Biological Corridors: Form, Function, and Efficacy.” BioScience 47(10): 677 687. Roth, N.E., Alan, J.D., and Erickson, D.L. (1996) “Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales.” Landscape Ecology 11(3): 141-156. Scheuler, T. (1995) “The architecture of stream buffers.” Watershed Protection Techniques, Center for Watershed Protection 1(4). South Carolina's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. (2000) “Backyard Buffers for South Carolina Lowcountry.” Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. (1998) “Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.” USACE. (1991) “Buffer Strips for Riparian Zone Management.” United States Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham MA. Wilson, L.G. (1967) “Sediment removal from flood water by grass filtration.” Trans American Society of Agricultural Engineers 19: 35 37. Welsch, D.J. (1991) “Riparian forest buffers: function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources.” U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-PR-07-91. Radnor, PA. Wenger, S.J., and Fowler, L. (2000) “Protecting Stream and River Corridors: Creating Effective Local Riparian Buffer Ordinances.” Public Policy Research Series. Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. 10