DOCSLIB.ORG

Where the Land and Water Meet a Guide for Protection and Restoration of Riparian Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Where the Land and Water Meet a Guide for Protection and Restoration of Riparian Areas Where the Land and Water Meet A Guide for Protection and Restoration of Riparian Areas FIRST EDITION Prepared by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Tolland, CT September 2003 CT-TP-2003-3 Where the Land and Water Meet A Guide for Protection and Restoration of Riparian Areas FOREWORD People need available clean water to live. This is one of many environmental reasons why protection of surface water resources, such as streams and lakes, is important. The areas adjacent to surface water, also known as riparian areas, play a significant role in water quality, water quantity, and ecosystem health. As a result, riparian areas have been the focus of much research, regulation, and conservation work. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Connecticut recognizes the importance of riparian areas and considers them a valuable natural resource. NRCS has produced this do- it-yourself handbook on how to protect and restore riparian areas in an effort to meet the high demand for information and technical assistance on riparian areas. For additional copies, contact USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 344 Merrow Road, Suite A Tolland, CT 06268 (860) 871-4011 or visit the website at www.ct.nrcs.usda.gov The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. i Acknowledgements This handbook was prepared by the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Acknowledgements are given to the Stream Releaf Forest Buffer Toolkit, published by the Pennsylvania DEP (September 1998) for both the information and the format. Prepared By: Javier Cruz, District Conservationist USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 238 West Town Street, Norwich, CT 06360 Contributors: The following individuals contributed valuable information that assisted in the production of this report: • Nels E. Barrett, PhD, Biologist, USDA NRCS • Laurie Boynton, The Land Preservation Alliance • Sally Butler, Forester, USDA NRCS New England Interdisciplinary Resources Technical Team • Mark Edmonds, USDA NRCS, Resource Conservationist • Kathleen M. Johnson, USDA NRCS, District Conservationist • Shawn J. McVey, Assistant State Soil Scientist, USDA NRCS • Peter Piccone, Wildlife Biologist, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Wildlife Division Review: The following individuals provided comments and expert advice that contributed to the contents of this report: • Howard B. Denslow, USDA NRCS • Paul M. Capotosto, CT DEP • Carol Donzella, USDA NRCS • Vivian Felten, USDA NRCS • Alan M. Levere, CT DEP • Kenneth J. Metzler, CT DEP • James E. Murphy, CT DEP • Donald J. Mysling, CT DEP • Susan Peterson, CT DEP • Joseph E. Polulech, USDA NRCS • Joyce Purcell, USDA NRCS • Charlotte Pyle, PhD, USDA NRCS • Fernando A. Rincon, USDA NRCS • Elizabeth Rogers, USDA NRCS • Walter K. Smith, USDA NRCS • Margery Winters, Rivers Alliance of Connecticut • Chris Wood, Woodbury Town Planner Cover Design: • John Johnson ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 How to Use this Handbook ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 What are Riparian Areas? ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 The Importance of Riparian Areas ............................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2 - IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN RIPARIAN AREAS ...... 4 2.1 Using Maps and Other Resources ................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Surveying the Stream .................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 3 - TAKE A LOOK AT THE NATURAL RESOURCES .................................................. 6 3.1 Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 Water ............................................................................................................................................ 7 3.3 Air and Wind ................................................................................................................................ 8 3.4 Plants ............................................................................................................................................ 8 3.5 Animals ........................................................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER 4 - DETERMINING THE OBJECTIVES OF YOUR PROJECT ................................... 10 4.1 What are the Needs of the Landowner or the Community? ........................................................ 10 4.1.1 Forested Areas .................................................................................................................... 10 4.1.2 Farms .................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.3 Residential Areas ................................................................................................................ 11 4.1.4 Urban Areas ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.2 What are the Natural Resources Needs? ..................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 5 - PLANNING FOR A GREEN BUFFER ALONG BLUE WATER ............................ 13 5.1 Determining Riparian Buffer Widths ......................................................................................... 13 5.1.1 NRCS Guidelines ............................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Protecting Existing Riparian Buffers .......................................................................................... 17 5.2.1 Education ............................................................................................................................ 17 5.2.2 Regulation ........................................................................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Acquisition and Easements ................................................................................................. 17 5.2.4 Tax Incentives ..................................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Restoring a Riparian Buffer by Establishing Plants ................................................................... 18 5.4 Determining What to Plant ......................................................................................................... 18 5.4.1 Importance of Plant Diversity ............................................................................................. 19 5.4.2 Meadows and Grassland Areas ........................................................................................... 20 5.4.3 Native Plants ....................................................................................................................... 20 5.4.4 Plant Adaptation ................................................................................................................. 21 5.4.5 Wildlife Food and Cover .................................................................................................... 21 5.4.6 Plant Size ............................................................................................................................ 22 5.5 Landscaping ................................................................................................................................ 23 5.6 Drawing a Planting Plan ............................................................................................................. 24 5.7 Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 6 - PLANTING A RIPARIAN BUFFER ............................................................................ 26 6.1 Planting Times ............................................................................................................................ 26 6.2 Purchasing Healthy Plants .......................................................................................................... 26 6.3 Storage and Handling of Plant Materials .................................................................................... 27 6.4 Planting Layout and Site Preparation ........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riparian Buffer Restoration
    Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual Chapter 6 BMP 6.7.1: Riparian Buffer Restoration A riparian buffer is a permanent area of trees and shrubs located adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Riparian forests are the most beneficial type of buffer for they provide ecological and water quality benefits. Restoration of this ecologically sensitive habitat is a responsive action to past activities that may have eliminated any vegetation. Key Design Elements Potential Applications Residential: Yes Commercial: Yes Ultra Urban: Yes Industrial: Yes Retrofit: Yes Highway/Road: Limited · Reestablish buffer areas along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams · Plant native, diverse tree and shrub vegetation Stormwater Functions · Buffer width is dependant on project preferred function (water quality, habitat creation, etc.) · Minimum recommended buffer width is 35’ from top of stream Volume Reduction: Medium bank, with 100’ preferred. Recharge: Medium · Create a short-term maintenance and long-term maintenance Peak Rate Control: Low/Med. plan Water Quality: Med./High · Mature forest as a vegetative target · Clear, well-marked boundary Water Quality Functions TSS: 65% TP: 50% NO3: 50% 363-0300-002 / December 30, 2006 Page 191 of 257 Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual Chapter 6 Description The USDA Forest Service estimates that over one-third of the rivers and streams in Pennsylvania have had their riparian areas degraded or altered. This fact is sobering when one considers the important stormwater functions that riparian buffers provide. The non-structural BMP, Riparian Forest Buffer Protection, addresses the importance of protecting the three-zone system of existing riparian buffers. The values of riparian buffers – economic, environmental, recreational, aesthetic, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Data Report for Oneida Lake, Livingston County
    Michigan Lakes– Ours to Protect 2019 Data Report for Oneida Lake, Livingston County Site ID: 470573 42.4676°N, 83.8488°W The CLMP is brought to you by: 1 About this report: This report is a summary of the data that have been collected through the Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program. The contents have been customized for your lake. The first page is a summary of the Trophic Status Indicators of your lake (Secchi Disk Transparency, Chlorophyll-a, Spring Total Phosphorus, and Summer Total Phosphorus). Where data are available, they have been summarized for the most recent field season, five years prior to the most recent field season, and since the first year your lake has been enrolled in the program. If you did not take 8 or more Secchi disk measurements or 4 or more chlorophyll measurements, there will not be summary data calculated for these parameters. These numbers of measurements are required to ensure that the results are indicative of overall summer conditions. If you enrolled in Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature, the summary page will have a graph of one of the profiles taken during the late summer (typically August or September). If your lake stratifies, we will use a graph showing the earliest time of stratification, because identifying the timing of this condition and the depth at which it occurs is typically the most important use of dissolved oxygen measurements. The back of the summary page will be an explanation of the Trophic Status Index and where your lake fits on that scale. The rest of the report will be aquatic plant summaries, Score the Shore results, and larger graphs, including all Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature Profiles that you recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of the Nation's Lakes
    A Survey of the Nation’s Lakes – EPA’s National Lake Assessment and Survey of Vermont Lakes Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Environmental Conservation - Water Quality Division 103 South Main 10N Waterbury VT 05671-0408 www.vtwaterquality.org Prepared by Julia Larouche, Environmental Technician II January 2009 Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures........................................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 What We Measured..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Water Quality and Trophic Status Indicators.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Acidification Indicator............................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Ecological Integrity Indicators................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Nearshore Habitat Indicators
    [Show full text]
  • Current Insights Into the Effectiveness of Riparian Management, Attainment of Multiple Benefits, and Potential Technical Enhancements
    Published March 8, 2019 Journal of Environmental Quality SPECIAL SECTION RIPARIAN BUFFER MANAGEMENT Current Insights into the Effectiveness of Riparian Management, Attainment of Multiple Benefits, and Potential Technical Enhancements Marc Stutter,* Brian Kronvang, Daire Ó hUallacháin, and Joachim Rozemeijer iparian buffers have been one of the most widely Abstract used management options worldwide when dealing Buffer strips between land and waters are widely applied with protection of surface waters from agricultural dif- measures in diffuse pollution management, with desired Rfuse pollution. Appropriately managed riparian areas offer mul- outcomes across other factors. There remains a need for tiple functions related to improving water quality, biodiversity, evidence of pollution mitigation and wider habitat and societal benefits across scales. This paper synthesizes a collection of 16 and climate adaptation. First, riparian areas offer possibilities new primary studies and review papers to provide the latest for protecting watercourses and lakes from inputs of sediments, insights into riparian management. We focus on the following nutrients, pesticides, and other contaminants by intercepting areas: (i) diffuse pollution removal efficiency of conventional surface runoff, tile drainage, and groundwater from adjoining and saturated buffer strips, (ii) enhancing biodiversity of buffers, agricultural fields. Second, riparian areas also offer unique bio- (iii) edge-of-field technologies for improving nutrient retention, and (iv) potential reuse of nutrients and biomass from buffers. diversity (in turn affecting in-field and in-stream biodiversity) Although some topics represent emerging areas, for other including structurally complex layers of vegetation, making well-studied topics (e.g., diffuse pollution), it remains that them attractive to many wildlife species (Naiman et al., 1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Moe Pond Limnology and Fisii Population Biology: an Ecosystem Approach
    MOE POND LIMNOLOGY AND FISII POPULATION BIOLOGY: AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH C. Mead McCoy, C. P.Madenjian, J. V. Adall1s, W. N. I-Iannan, D. M. Warner, M. F. Albright, and L. P. Sohacki BIOLOGICAL FIELD STArrION COOPERSTOWN, NEW YORK Occasional Paper No. 33 January 2000 STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT ONEONTA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my gratitude to the members of my graduate committee: Willard Harman, Leonard Sohacki and Bruce Dayton for their comments in the preparation of this manuscript; and for the patience and understanding they exhibited w~lile I was their student. ·1 want to also thank Matthew Albright for his skills in quantitative analyses of total phosphorous and nitrite/nitrate-N conducted on water samples collected from Moe Pond during this study. I thank David Ramsey for his friendship and assistance in discussing chlorophyll a methodology. To all the SUNY Oneonta BFS interns who lent-a-hand during the Moe Pond field work of 1994 and 1995, I thank you for your efforts and trust that the spine wounds suffered were not in vain. To all those at USGS Great Lakes Science Center who supported my efforts through encouragement and facilities - Jerrine Nichols, Douglas Wilcox, Bruce Manny, James Hickey and Nancy Milton, I thank all of you. Also to Donald Schloesser, with whom I share an office, I would like to thank you for your many helpful suggestions concerning the estimation of primary production in aquatic systems. In particular, I wish to express my appreciation to Charles Madenjian and Jean Adams for their combined quantitative prowess, insight and direction in data analyses and their friendship.
    [Show full text]
  • LIS Impervious Surface Final Report
    PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Mapping and Monitoring Changes in Impervious Surfaces in the Long Island Sound Watershed March 2006 James D. Hurd, Research Associate Daniel L. Civco, Principal Investigator Sandy Prisloe, Co-Investigator Chester Arnold, Co-Investigator Center for Land use Education And Research (CLEAR) Department of Natural Resources Management & Engineering College of Agriculture and Natural Resources The University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-4087 Table of Contents Introduction . 4 Study Area and Data . 5 Land Cover Classification . 7 Sub-pixel Classification Overview . 8 Initial Sub-pixel Classification . 10 Post-classification Processing . 10 Validation . 13 Reseults and Discussion. 15 References . 18 Appendix A: Per Pixel Comparison of Planimetric and Estimated Percent Impervious Surfaces .. 21 Appendix B: Comparison of Planimetric and Estimated Percent Impervious Surfaces Summarized Over Grid Cells of Various Sizes. 34 Appendix C: Summary of Impervious Surfaces per Sub-regional Watershed . 46 Appendix D: Table of Deliverables . 56 i List of Figures Figure 1. Hydrologic impact of urbanization flowchart . 5 Figure 2. Study area . 6 Figure 3. Examples of land cover for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 . 8 Figure 4. IMAGINE Sub-pixel Classifier process . 9 Figure 5. Examples of raw impervious surface estimates for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 11 Figure 6. Examples of final impervious surface estimates for 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2002 14 Figure A-1. 1990 West Hartford validation data (area 1) and difference graph . 22 Figure A-2. 1990 West Hartford validation data (area 2) and difference graph . 23 Figure A-3. 1995 Marlborough validation data and difference graph . 24 Figure A-4. 1995 Waterford validation data (area 1) and difference graph .
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Strea
    Geographical Distribution and Potential for Adverse Biological Effects of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds in Streambed Sediment in the Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins, 1992-94 By Robert F. Breault and Sandra L. Harris Abstract exceed sediment-quality guidelines over a wider geographical area, although usually by lower Streambed-sediment samples were collected ratios of contaminant concentration to sediment- in 1992-94 at selected sites in the Connecticut, quality guideline than the organic compounds. Housatonic, and Thames River Basins to determine the geographical distribution of trace elements and organic compounds and their INTRODUCTION potential for adverse biological effects on aquatic organisms. Chromium, copper, lead, mercury, The Connecticut, Housatonic, and Thames River Basins study unit is one of 59 National Water-Quality nickel, zinc, chlordane, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs Assessment (NAWQA) study units nationwide. The were detected in samples from throughout the study unit drainage basin comprises an area of almost basins, but concentrations of these constituents 16,000 mi2 and extends through parts of the Province of generally were lowest in the northern forested Quebec, Canada, eastern Vermont, western New Hamp- drainage basins and highest in the southern shire, west-central Massachusetts, nearly all of Connect- urbanized drainage basins of Springfield, icut, and small parts of New York and Rhode Island. Massachusetts, and Hartford, New Haven and The study unit is entirely within the New Bridgeport, Connecticut. Possible anthropogenic England Physiographic Province (Fenneman, 1938), a sources of these contaminants include industrial plateau-like upland that rises gradually from the sea but effluent; municipal wastewater; runoff from includes numerous mountain ranges and individual agricultural, urban and forested areas; and peaks.
    [Show full text]
  • CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo Trutta)
    CT DEEP 2018 FISHING REPORT NUMBER 1 Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 4/26/2018 Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) YOU CAN FIND US DIRECTLY ON FACEBOOK. This page features a variety of information on fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching in Connecticut. The address is www.facebook.com/CTFishandWildlife. INLAND REPORT OPENING DAY – We had a short blast of warm air temperatures that gave anglers a comfortable Opening Day, however, water temperatures were very cold, possibly contributing to difficult catching for many. Fisheries staff were out at eight of the twelve Trout Parks were stocked on Opening Day and the many kids Connecticut’s Trout & Salmon Stamp: Connecticut present enjoyed helping us stock. Catch percentage has implemented a Trout and Salmon Stamp. 100% was from 60 to 80% at a number of the Trout Parks of the revenue from your investment comes to the including Stratton Brook, Black Rock, Kent Falls, DEEP Bureau of Natural Resources for Fisheries Chatfield Hollow, Valley Falls Park, Southford Falls, and programs. Great Hollow. Many other locations, both river and The Trout and Salmon Stamp is $5 for anyone age 18 stream as well as lake and pond did not give up their or older, including those 65 or older, and $3 for CT recently stocked trout so easily. residents age 16-17. The Stamp is required for the harvest (keeping) of Over 300,000 trout were stocked before Opening Day trout or salmon. into nearly 100 lakes and ponds and over 120 rivers The Stamp is required to FISH in one of these places: and streams located throughout Connecticut.
    [Show full text]
  • (King Philip's War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Connecticut Unscathed: Victory in The Great Narragansett War (King Philip’s War), 1675-1676 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Major Jason W. Warren, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: John F. Guilmartin Jr., Advisor Alan Gallay, Kristen Gremillion Peter Mansoor, Geoffrey Parker Copyright by Jason W. Warren 2011 Abstract King Philip’s War (1675-1676) was one of the bloodiest per capita in American history. Although hostile native groups damaged much of New England, Connecticut emerged unscathed from the conflict. Connecticut’s role has been obscured by historians’ focus on the disasters in the other colonies as well as a misplaced emphasis on “King Philip,” a chief sachem of the Wampanoag groups. Although Philip formed the initial hostile coalition and served as an important leader, he was later overshadowed by other sachems of stronger native groups such as the Narragansetts. Viewing the conflict through the lens of a ‘Great Narragansett War’ brings Connecticut’s role more clearly into focus, and indeed enables a more accurate narrative for the conflict. Connecticut achieved success where other colonies failed by establishing a policy of moderation towards the native groups living within its borders. This relationship set the stage for successful military operations. Local native groups, whether allied or neutral did not assist hostile Indians, denying them the critical intelligence necessary to coordinate attacks on Connecticut towns. The English colonists convinced allied Mohegan, Pequot, and Western Niantic warriors to support their military operations, giving Connecticut forces a decisive advantage in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Factsheet: City of Middletown Water Quality and Stormwater Summary
    79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Factsheet: City of Middletown Water Quality and Stormwater Summary This document was created for each town that has submitted monitoring data under the current Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit. What follows is information on how stormwater can affect water quality in streams and rivers and a summary of data submitted by your town. This factsheet is intended to help you interpret your monitoring results and assist you in compliance with the MS4 program. Water Quality in Connecticut Surface waters are important resources that support numerous uses, including water supply, recreation, fishing, shellfishing and sustaining aquatic life. Water quality conditions needed to support these uses are identified within the Connecticut Water Quality Standards (WQS). In order to protect and restore these uses, we need acceptable environmental conditions (physical, chemical and biological) to be present within surface waters. To assess and track water quality conditions, CT DEEP conducts monitoring across the State. The data is synthesized into a biennial state water quality report called the Integrated Water Quality Report. Currently, specific water quality monitoring in the state encompasses about 50% of rivers, 47% of lakes, and 100% of estuary/coastline. In addition, CT DEEP may have information about certain land uses or discharges which could indicate a potential for water quality to be impacted, even if the waterbody has not been fully monitored and assessed. To find more detailed information on water quality in your town, please see the Integrated Water Quality Report (IWQR) on the CT DEEP website at www.ct.gov/deep/iwqr.
    [Show full text]
  • Pomperaug River Watershed Streamwalk Report
    POMPERAUG RIVER WATERSHED Streamwalk Summary Report Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition Volunteer Streamwalk Program May 2010 Pomperaug River Watershed Streamwalk Summary Report February 16, 2014 Prepared for: Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition Prepared by: Jennifer Holton, Principal Ecologist of Streamscape Environmental, Keene, NH Acknowledgements: The Pomperaug River Watershed Streamwalk Program would not be possible without the assistance of local community volunteers. A special note of appreciation goes out to the more than 115 volunteers who willingly gave their time and effort to survey the Pomperaug River Watershed’s streams and ponds (refer to Appendix A for a full list of volunteers). In addition, the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition would like to thank the Connecticut Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Housatonic Valley Association, and the Audubon Center at the Bent of the River for their time and assistance with training volunteers. The Volunteer Streamwalk Program has been funded in part by The Connecticut Community Foundation. For additional information contact: The Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition P.O. Box 141 185 East Flat Hill Road Southbury, CT 06488 203.267.1700 [email protected] www.pomperaug.org i Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Buffers for Agricultural Land Mike Dosskey, National Agroforestry Center; Dick Schultz and Tom Isenhart, Iowa State University, Department of Forestry
    Riparian—2 Agroforestry Notes USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Station • USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service January, 1997 Riparian Buffers for Agricultural Land Mike Dosskey, National Agroforestry Center; Dick Schultz and Tom Isenhart, Iowa State University, Department of Forestry Purpose • Define what a riparian buffer is • Describe what benefits a riparian buffer can provide in an agricultural landscape • Identify situations where installing a riparian buffer should be considered Definition A riparian buffer is land next to streams, lakes, and wetlands that is managed for perennial vegetation (grass, shrubs, and/or trees) to enhance and protect aquatic resources from adverse impacts of agricultural practices. Benefits for • Stabilize eroding banks Aquatic Problem: Eroding and collapsing banks can remove valuable agricultural land, Resources particularly if unchecked for many years. Soil from bank erosion becomes sediment in the waterway which damages aquatic habitat; degrades drinking water quality; and fills wetlands, lakes, and reservoirs. Benefit from a buffer: Plant stems absorb the erosive force of flowing water and wave action, while roots hold soil in place. Effectiveness: Potentially good on small streams and lakes; poor or ineffective on large unstable streams where bank erosion is severe and rapid. Figure 1 — Benefits that a riparian buffer can provide. National Agroforestry Center 1 • Filter sediment from agricultural land runoff Problem: Sediment in the waterway damages aquatic habitat; degrades drinking water quality; and fills wetlands, lakes, and reservoirs. Benefit from a buffer: Plant stems slow and disperse flow of surface runoff, and promote settling of sediment. Roots stabilize the trapped sediment and hold riparian soil in place. Effectiveness: Potentially good, especially for filtering larger-sized sediment such as sand, soil aggregates, and crop residue.
    [Show full text]