DOCSLIB.ORG

Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Targeting for the Rappahannock River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Targeting for the Rappahannock River Watershed W&M ScholarWorks Reports Winter 1-1-2001 Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Targeting for the Rappahannock River Watershed Anne Newsome Virginia Institute of Marine Science Carl Hershner Virginia Institute of Marine Science Dan Schatt Virginia Institute of Marine Science Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Wetlands Program Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Newsome, A., Hershner, C., Schatt, D., & Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Wetlands Program. (2001) Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Targeting for the Rappahannock River Watershed. Wetlands Program Technical Report no. 01-2. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/m2-94zr-hf69 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Riparian Forest Buffer Restoration Targeting for the Rappahannock River Watershed By Anne Newsom, Carl Hershner and Dan Schatt Introduction A little over three hundred years ago, more than ficulty in designing a protocol based on environ- ninety-five percent of the land within the Chesa- mental evaluation is that there is no well-defined peake Bay watershed was forested; today’s esti- paradigm for evaluation of potential environmen- mate of forest cover is just over sixty percent tal benefits associated with reforestation of ri- (Forested Lands, 1997). Much of this defores- parian areas. Guidance must be developed by tation has occurred in the riparian zone, an area inference from a variety of extant studies on per- of high ecological importance. The Chesapeake formance of specific functions by riparian for- Bay Program recognizes that “forests along wa- ests. Another constraint on development of a terways, also known as ‘riparian forests,’ are an targeting protocol applicable to large areas is the important resource that protects water quality” availability of data to support the decision rules. (Riparian Forest Buffers, 1996). In addition to After receiving available data sets, it was decided protecting water quality, forests along the shore to limit the targeting protocol to information function to maintain the integrity of the stream about land use/land (LULC) cover adjacent to channel, reduce the impact of upland pollution surface waters. This requires just two data sets: sources and supply food and habitat resources shoreline position and land use/land cover. The to fish and other wildlife (USDA, 1997 and US- consequence of limited data is decision rules EPA, 1996). In recognition of these many poten- must be very simple. Despite these constraints, tial benefits, it has become the official policy of the targeting protocol developed for the the Commonwealth of Virginia, as a partner in Rappahannock River watershed proved capable the Chesapeake Bay Program, to pursue refores- of ranking areas at two different scales. tation of 610 miles of its shorelines by the year 2010. How is Virginia, in cooperation with the Chesapeake Bay Program, going to accomplish Approach this task? The riparian forest buffer restoration project To be effective in increasing water quality and undertaken by VIMS was designed to operate in habitat resources within the Bay watershed, “ri- ERDAS IMAGINE using classified Landsat TM parian buffers need to be planned and imple- data and digital shoreline data. The Landsat mented on a watershed scale” (US-EPA, 1996) TM data gathered from 1991, 1992, and 1993 and also located in areas where buffer function (leaf on coverage) was classified as part of the can be maximized. There are several approaches Multi Resolution Land Cover (MRLC) classifica- for prioritizing riparian zones for restoration ef- tion program. The protocol assumes that the forts. The protocol developed by VIMS is based basic resolution of the Landsat TM imagery de- on an evaluation of environmental benefits pro- fines the detectable riparian zone as a 30 meter vided by riparian forest buffers (RFB). The dif- wide swath. The protocol uses information 1 about the land use/land cover (LULC) within the tribute to nonpoint source pollution; (2) have a 30m riparian zone as well as information about high proportion of riparian lands; and (3) have conditions in the next two 30m zones moving a high proportion of LULC within the riparian inland. The digital shoreline maps were U.S. zone which might contribute to nonpoint source Geologic Survey files developed at a 1:100,000 pollution. In order to determine which HUs con- scale. The hydrologic unit (HU) boundaries are tribute the most to nonpoint source pollution, defined by Virginia’s Department of Conserva- each defined land use class in the MRLC classi- tion and Recreation as 8-digit hydrologic units. fication is assigned to a category of potential pollution contribution. All developed and crop The targeting protocol uses a two phase approach lands are assigned to the class of potentially to designate priority restoration areas. The first polluting land uses, whereas wetlands, forested phase attempts to rank HUs within a watershed lands and barren lands are all considered non- based on their potential pollution contribution polluting land uses. to the watershed. The second phase considers the riparian zone within a hydrologic unit and Each indicator is essentially a percentage. For prioritizes shoreline reaches on the basis of op- example, indicator 1 (proportion of LULC which portunity and need for reforestation. might contribute to nonpoint source pollution) is calculated for each hydrologic unit as the per- Phase one of the protocol is accomplished by centage of all land within the HU which is devel- using three indicators that assess the general oped or agricultural. After the values for a par- opportunity and need for riparian reforestation ticular indicator were calculated for all hydro- within each hydrologic unit. In general, the pro- logic units, they were sorted by score. The one- tocol assumes that the need for reforestation is third with the highest scores were given a nu- relatively higher in hydrologic units which: (1) merical value of “3”. The middle one-third of have a high proportion of LULC which might con- scores were assigned a rating of “2”, and the lowest one-third a rank of “1”. After all three indicators are similarly developed the final Wetlands Program prioritization of all hydrologic units is accom- School of Marine Science plished by simply adding the respective values Virginia Institute of Marine Science for each of the three indicators. The result is a College of William and Mary population of cumulative values ranging from 3 Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 to 9. Hydrologic units receiving the highest val- (804) 684-7380 ues (cumulative score of “8” or “9”) would be those areas within the watershed which have the Dr. Carl Hershner, Program Director highest proportion of developed or agricultural Dr. Kirk Havens, Editor lands, the highest proportion of land adjacent Published by: VIMS Publication Center to surface waters, and the highest proportion of developed or agricultural riparian lands. The This technical report was funded, in part, by the protocol assumes that these three conditions Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program create the greatest relative potential for nonpoint of the Dept. of Environmental Quality source pollution which might be ameliorated by through Grant #NA97O20181-01 of the RFBs. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- The second phase of the protocol studies the ri- ministration, Office of Ocean and Coastal parian zone within a hydrologic unit. All of the Resources Management, under the shoreline within a HU is assessed on a reach by Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as reach basis for both opportunity and need. For amended. the purposes of this protocol, a reach is defined as a length of shoreline with a continuous, simi- The views expressed herein are those of the authors lar land use greater than 1000ft. in length. By and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or impressing a minimum reach length of 1000ft, any of its subagencies or DEQ. an inappropriately detailed assessment of the shoreline is avoided. Since RFBs may be de- Commonwealth’s Declared Policy: “to preserve the wet- sired for water quality functions or for habitat lands and to prevent their despoliation and destruction...” functions, the protocol is designed to evaluate the need for each function separately. This sec- Printed on recycled paper. ond phase of the protocol is based entirely on 2 existing LULC in the 30m riparian zone and in ing. A final cumulative priority ranking is devel- the adjacent 60m wide inland area. oped by simply compositing the two function specific rankings. Opportunity for restoration of the riparian zone is assessed by considering the existing riparian LULC. The protocol assumes that reforestation Results is not equally possible on all nonforested areas. Opportunity within a riparian zone is determined VIMS applied the targeting protocol to the to be high for agricultural lands, moderate for Rappahannock River watershed. Application of barren lands, and low for developed lands, ex- the protocol to this watershed generated the find- isting forests, wetlands, and beaches. ings presented below. Need for reforestation is assessed based on LULC HU Prioritization: There are twenty six hydro- in the inland zones of the 30m riparian area. logic units identified within the Rappahannock The need for RFB water quality functions is as- River watershed. Figure 1 presents the ranking sumed to be high when the adjacent inland area of each HU based on their cumulative scores for is developed or agricultural. It is assumed to be the three prioritization indices. The figure shows moderate for any other adjacent inland LULC. that only two of the HUs rank high for potential The need for RFB habitat functions is assumed nonpoint pollution contribution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecological Issues in Floodplains and Riparian Corridors
    Final White Paper Research Project T1803 Task 29 Riparian Corridor ECOLOGICAL ISSUES IN FLOODPLAINS AND RIPARIAN CORRIDORS by Susan M. Bolton Jeff Shellberg Associate Professor and Director Research Assistant Center for Streamside Studies University of Washington, Bx 352100 Seattle, Washington 98195 Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 University District Building 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 Washington State Department of Transportation Technical Monitor Patricia Lynch Environmental Affairs Prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission Department of Transportation and in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration July 2001 TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. WA-RD 524.1 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE Ecological Issues in Floodplains and Riparian Corridors July 2001 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. Susan M. Bolton and Jeff Shellberg 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC) University of Washington, Box 354802 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. University District Building; 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 535 Agreement T1803, Task 29 Seattle, Washington 98105-4631 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Research Office Washington State Department of Transportation Final white paper Transportation Building, MS 47370 Olympia, Washington 98504-7370 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE James Toohey, Project Manager, 360-705-0885 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES This study was conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 16. ABSTRACT This white paper examines and synthesizes the literature pertaining to the current state of knowledge on the physical and biological effects of alluvial river channelization, channel confinement, and various channel and floodplain modifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants for Riparian Buffers
    Website: Aberdeen Plant Materials Center http://plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov Plants for Riparian Buffers P.O. Box 296, Aberdeen, ID 83210 Phone:(208) 397-4133 Fax:(208) 397-3104 What is a Riparian Buffer? Many farmers, ranchers and land managers have a growing concern over water quality issues. Riparian buffers are one of the most important practices that you can use to help control non- point pollution and improve water quality. Riparian buffers are the grasses, grass-like, forbs, shrubs, trees or other vegetation growing along streams. These plants control erosion and help filter and keep water clean. Cropland fields shouldn’t be planted right up to a stream’s edge where the soil is generally more fragile and subject to erosion. A healthy riparian buffer between cropland and a river system Shrubs, trees and other vegetation protect the stream from pollutants and runoff. They absorb excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from farm and livestock operations. Plants protect the stream banks from erosion by providing a protective barrier against the water. The trunks, branches, stems and leaves intercept the water currents that can weaken and wash away bank material. In addition to protecting water and soil, riparian buffers provide important habitat for aquatic and upland wildlife and also fish habitat. The information contained in this brochure will help you select the best shrubs and trees for installing riparian buffers on your farm or ranch. The plants listed are all highly recommended for use in the Intermountain West and Rocky Mountain States. Included are tips for planning riparian buffers and areas, Aberdeen Plant Materials Center Service area.
    [Show full text]
  • Hood Canal Riparian Landscapes: Early Historical Condition and Ecological Changes
    Hood Canal riparian landscapes: early historical condition and ecological changes Ted Labbe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Ashley Adams, Independent Consultant Bob Conrad, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Natural Resources Department 31912 Little Boston Road NE Kingston, WA 98346 June 12, 2006 Executive Summary Though limited in spatial extent, riparian forests are among the most dynamic and diverse environments in the Pacific Northwest. At the interface between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, riparian environments host an array of critical plant and animal species, enrich the region’s aesthetic landscape, and support an array of crucial ecological services like nutrient processing/transformation, water quality protection, and flood hazard reduction. Our knowledge of riparian forest ecology has expanded rapidly over the last 30 years. However, there is little information on historical changes to riparian forests and this knowledge gap hinders effective ecosystem management. In this study, we combined archival land survey records and contemporary field surveys to reconstruct historical riparian forest conditions and chart ecosystem change in Hood Canal, Washington. Historical General Land Office (GLO) surveys (c. 1870) for Hood Canal and adjacent areas were integrated with a 1910 timber cruise survey for the 60 km2 Dewatto watershed in a GIS. Field surveys at 80 riparian sites were used to validate our approach and to chart historical vegetation composition change. Comparisons among historical land surveys and with a contemporary vegetation inventory revealed potential bias in historical survey records. To account for these biases we limited our analyses and capitalized on the complementary nature of the historical surveys, using the GLO records for forest composition and the 1910 timber cruise for forest age and spatial structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Systems
    Riparian Systems January 2007 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 45 Introduction Riparian areas are transitional zones between terres- trial and aquatic systems exhibiting characteristics of both systems. They perform vital ecological functions linking terrestrial and aquatic systems within water- sheds. These functions include protecting aquatic eco- systems by removing sediments from surface runoff, decreasing flooding, maintaining appropriate water conditions for aquatic life, and providing organic ma- terial vital for productivity and structure of aquatic ecosystems. They also provide excellent wildlife hab- itat, offering not only a water source, but food and shelter, as well. NRCS Soils in riparian areas differ from soils in upland areas because they are formed from sediments with differ- ent textures and subjected to fluctuating water levels and degrees of wetness. These sediments are rich in nutrients and organic matter which allow the soils to retain large amounts of moisture, affecting the growth and diversity of the plant communities. Riparian areas typically are vegetated with lush growths of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees that are tolerant of periodic flooding. In some regions (Great Plains), however, trees may not be part of the his- toric riparian community. Areas with saline soils or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service heavy, nearly-anaerobic soils (wet meadow environ- ments and high elevations) also are dominated by her- baceous vegetation. In intermittent waterways, the ri- parian area may be confined to the stream channel. Threats to riparian areas have come from many sourc- es. Riparian forests and bottomlands are fertile and valued farmland and rangeland, as well as prime wa- ter-front property desired by developers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Model of Riparian Forest Restoration for Natural Flood Management Simon J
    Water and Environment Journal. Print ISSN 1747-6585 A conceptual model of riparian forest restoration for natural flood management Simon J. Dixon1 , David A. Sear2 & Keith H. Nislow3 1Birmingham Institute of Forest Research, School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; 2Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK; and 3USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, UMASS, Amherst, Massachusetts. Keywords Abstract ecohydrology, forest, large wood, natural flood management, restoration There is an increasing emphasis on using natural processes, including riparian forest restoration, to enhance the ecological, hydrological and geomorphological Correspondence functioning of watercourses. However, we have insufficient knowledge on how Simon J. Dixon, School of Geography, Earth the supply and retention of in-channel wood from riparian forest stands changes and Environmental Sciences, Birmingham with age, with inferences typically based on data from terrestrial forests. This Institute of Forest Research, University of presents a challenge in estimating the efficacy and functional lifespan of restora- Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. Email: tion projects. In this paper, we use a riparian forest growth model to show there [email protected] is a lag of up to 40–50 years between the start of forest growth and trees doi:10.1111/wej.12425 delivering wood to the channel that is large enough to resist fluvial transport, anchor logjams and so increase channel complexity and hydraulic
    [Show full text]
  • The Riparian Ecosystem a SOIL BIOENGINEERING GUIDE
    CHAPTER 2 The Riparian Ecosystem A SOIL BIOENGINEERING GUIDE This chapter discusses the value of the riparian Riparian ecosystems are the canaries in the coal mine. ecosystem. It offers a different approach for using the They give warnings of erosion and pollution problems riparian ecosystem as an indicator of what has gone that threaten forest streams, rivers, lakes, and ocean- wrong or what is functioning well, as well as what is fronts across the Nation. They further warn that when important to protect. It also discusses the structural and water quality is impacted, the fundamental ecology is functional characteristics of the riparian ecosystem and deeply disturbed. how these characteristics are the key links to maintaining ecological integrity. All across the country, this Nation’s riparian areas flourish with bountiful populations of wildlife and diverse plant Anything and everything that has an influence on the communities. They serve as a classroom for complex structure and/or function of the riparian ecosystem ecology and show how interrelated and interdependent affects its integrity. Riparian ecosystems are the most ecosystems are. Even the most innocent or invisible acts sought-after forested areas by both humans and other impact the riparian ecosystem and, ultimately, the water animals. Any plant communities associated with water, we drink. Examples of these disruptive acts include whether they are in deserts, foothills, or mountains, are fertilizing farm lands; mowing beside lakes, rivers, and considered riparian. They offer major creature comforts streams; removing shrubs and trees; constructing access such as food, water, and shelter. Yet they are the most roads and trails for recreation, logging, and mining; misused, misunderstood, and abused portions of our fishing from streambanks; camping at the water’s edge; landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Forest Buffers
    .Riparian . .Area . Management Handbook E-952 Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University . Oklahoma Conservation Commission .............................................................................................. 109 .Riparian . .Area . Management Handbook E-952 Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University . Oklahoma Conservation Commission .............................................................................................. 99 © Copyright 1998 Oklahoma State Unviersity Use of the material herein may be copied or quoted if credited to Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University. Production, Editing, and Design: Margi Stone Cooper Photos (unless otherwise noted): Todd Johnson Illustrations: Jon Dickey .............................................................................................. 100 Table of Contents Acknowledgments .................................................................................................... v Foreword ................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ..........................................................................................................viii Benefits and Functions of Riparian Areas .............................................................. 1 Anna Fallon, Oklahoma State University Michael Smolen, Oklahoma State
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Benefits of Forested Riparian Zones
    water Article Assessing the Benefits of Forested Riparian Zones: A Qualitative Index of Riparian Integrity Is Positively Associated with Ecological Status in European Streams Francis J. Burdon 1,* , Ellinor Ramberg 1, Jasmina Sargac 1, Marie Anne Eurie Forio 2, Nancy de Saeyer 2, Petra Thea Mutinova 3,4, Therese Fosholt Moe 3 , Mihaela Oprina Pavelescu 5, Valentin Dinu 5, Constantin Cazacu 5 , Felix Witing 6, Benjamin Kupilas 3,7, Ulf Grandin 1, Martin Volk 6 , Geta Rî¸snoveanu 5,8 , Peter Goethals 2, Nikolai Friberg 3,9,10, Richard K. Johnson 1 and Brendan G. McKie 1 1 Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 75007 Uppsala, Sweden; [email protected] (E.R.); [email protected] (J.S.); [email protected] (U.G.); [email protected] (R.K.J.); [email protected] (B.G.M.) 2 Aquatic Ecology Research Unit, Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; [email protected] (M.A.E.F.); [email protected] (N.d.S.); [email protected] (P.G.) 3 Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), 0349 Oslo, Norway; [email protected] (P.T.M.); [email protected] (T.F.M.); [email protected] (B.K.); [email protected] (N.F.) 4 Institute for Biological Sciences, University of Rostock, 18059 Rostock, Germany 5 Department of Systems Ecology and Sustainability, University of Bucharest, 050095 Bucharest, Romania; [email protected] (M.O.P.); [email protected] (V.D.); [email protected] (C.C.);
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Riparian Habitat to Buffer Effects of Climate Change in California’S Central Valley
    THE VALUE OF RIPARIAN HABITAT TO BUFFER EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA’S CENTRAL VALLEY Abbygayle Britton Dr. Foran | ENVS 190 Senior Thesis April 17, 2019 THE VALUE OF RIPARIAN HABITATS 1 Abstract The ecosystem services provided by riparian habitats are a potential alternative to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the Central Valley of California (CVC). The rise in regional temperature increasingly alters the hydrological regime which degrades aquatic ecosystems, contributes to water scarcity, and imposes stress on the flora and fauna throughout the CVC. Though riparian habitats historically characterized much of the CVC, its current potential in onset of climate change is not as widely acknowledged. A literature review supports the capacity for riparian habitats to provide biological refugia through thermal cover, enhanced habitat quality and role as a corridor for migration. Further research determined that riparian habitats can likely influence aquifer recharge and effectively store water resources. As the effects of climate change become more severe, it will be essential to incorporate the role of riparian habitats. THE VALUE OF RIPARIAN HABITATS 2 Table of Contents Abstract..................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................3 Reduced snowfall and snowpack ......................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Forest Buffer
    Riparian Forest Buffer Illinois Job Sheet - 391 February 2003 Landowner _________________________________________________________________________ Definition A riparian forest buffer is an area of trees and shrubs woody roots increase the resistance of streambanks located adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, and and shorelines to erosion caused by high water flows wetlands. or waves. Some tree and shrub species in a riparian forest buffer can be managed for timber, wood fiber, and horticultural products. Purpose Riparian forest buffers of sufficient width intercept sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other materials in Where used surface runoff and reduce nutrients and other pollutants in shallow subsurface water flow. Woody Buffers are located along or around permanent or vegetation in buffers provides food and cover for intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and wildlife, helps lower water temperatures by shading seeps. Many of these areas feature year-round or the stream or waterbody, and slows out-of-bank flood seasonal moisture, which allows woody species to flows. In addition, the vegetation closest to the stream establish quickly. A new riparian forest buffer can or waterbody provides litter fall and large wood rapidly benefit a variety of settings, such as cropland, important to fish and other aquatic organisms as a rangeland, forest land, and urban areas. nutrient source and structural components to increase channel roughness and habitat complexity. Also, the Job Sheet – Riparian Forest Buffer (391) Revised November 2002 Page 1of 4 Pasture Crops Zone 3 Herbaceous Zone 2 Zone 2 or grass filter Zone 1 Zone 1 strip Managed forest Stream of fast-growing Managed forest introduced or of fast-growing native species introduced or Native species if available; native species little or no tree harvesting; water- loving or water-tolerant species A riparian forest buffer includes zone 1, the area closest to the stream or waterbody, and zone 2, the area adjacent to and up gradient of zone 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Forest Buffers: an Agroforestry Practice
    49Riparian Forest Buffer #1 AGROFORESTRY NOTES Riparian Forest Buffers: An Agroforestry Practice Kate MacFarland / Assistant Agroforester / USDA National Agroforestry Center Richard Straight / Lead Agroforester / USDA National Agroforestry Center Mike Dosskey, PhD / Research Ecologist / USDA National Agroforestry Center Published February 2017 Introduction ocated along streams, lakes, or wetlands, riparian forest buffers deliver water quality, habitat, recreation, and other benefits in agricultural, woodland, range, suburban, L and urban settings. A wide variety of state and federal programs support the installation of riparian forest buffers on public and private lands. Riparian forest buffers can be used in landscape-scale green infrastructure plans to serve a variety of functions, particularly along the rural-urban interface. Green infrastructure is an approach to conservation that involves creating a network of green areas to benefit people and wildlife. Definition A riparian forest buffer is an area adjacent to a stream, lake, or wetland that contains a combination of trees, shrubs, and/or other perennial plants and is managed differently from the surrounding landscape, primarily to provide conservation benefits. Objectives Riparian forest buffers can help meet a number of natural resource, economic, and social objectives, including: • Filtering nutrients, pesticides, and animal waste from agricultural land runoff • Stabilizing eroding banks • Filtering sediment from runoff • Providing shade, shelter, and food for fish and other aquatic organisms • Providing wildlife habitat and corridors for terrestrial organisms • Protecting cropland and downstream communities from flood damage • Producing income from farmland that is frequently flooded or has poor yields • Diversifying landowner income • Creating recreational spaces 1 A number of factors can impact the effectiveness of riparian forest buffers in meeting these objectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Laguna Wetlands Preserve Restoration and Management Plan December 23, 2015 Adopted January 5, 2016
    Laguna Wetlands Preserve Restoration and Management Plan December 23, 2015 Adopted January 5, 2016 Prepared for: City of Sebastopol 7120 Bodega Ave. Sebastopol, CA 95472 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation 400 Morris Street, Suite G 900 Sanford Road Sebastopol, CA 95472 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Vision for Preserve Use and Management ................................................................................ 1 Regional Setting and Conservation Values ................................................................................ 2 Plan Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 3 Plan Development Methods ...................................................................................................... 4 2 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 4 Property Descriptions ................................................................................................................ 4 Adjacent Ownership and Land Uses ........................................................................................ 10 Related Local Plans .................................................................................................................. 12 Applicable County, State,
    [Show full text]