DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3B Contour Buffer Strips

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3B Contour Buffer Strips Chapter 3b Contour Buffer Strips Definition of contour Design considerations buffer strips Location and layout Contour buffer strips are narrow strips of permanent, herbaceous vegetative cover established across the Buffer strip width The actual width of the contour buffer strip is deter­ slope and alternated down the slope with wider mined by the purpose or purposes identified, the type cropped strips (fig. 3b–1). of vegetation to be established, and its effectiveness. Where more than one purpose is being served, the Contour buffer strips are most suitable on slopes most restrictive criteria governs. ranging from 4 to 8 percent where slope lengths are less than the critical slope length beyond which con­ Minimum widths for various purposes and types of touring loses its effectiveness. Critical slope length is vegetation are stated in the contour buffer strip prac­ determined by using the Revised Universal Soil Loss tice standard for your area. Generally, contour buffer equation (RUSLE) or other approved erosion predic­ strips are a minimum of 15 feet wide for grasses or tion technology. grass legume mixtures and 30 feet for legumes alone. Experience has shown that by increasing the mini­ The practice is not suited to long slopes where lengths mum width to 20 feet, flow velociy through the buffer exceed critical slope length by more than 1.5 times is reduced even further thus reducing the risk of unless other practices, such as terraces or diversions, erosion immediately below the buffer. are installed to intercept the flow. Contour buffer strips are more effective in trapping Width of cultivated strips Since contour buffer strips are established in conjunc­ sediment and filtering pollutants and less likely to fail tion with contour cropped strips, the spacing between in areas where storm energy intensities are low to buffer strips is determined by the purpose(s) being moderate and where 10-year erosion index (EI) values served and the criteria stated in the practice standard. as used in RUSLE are less than 140. Purpose of contour buffer Figure 3b–1 Typical slope with contour buffer strips strips designed to reduce contaminants 1X wide buffer This practice has two primary purposes for which it Crop can be designed and installed: • to reduce sheet and rill erosion 1/2 "L" or 150 feet • to reduce transport of sediment and other water­ borne contaminants downslope, onsite, or offsite Crop 2X wide buffer In addition to these primary purposes, the practice may also enhance wildlife habitat. Core4 Conservation Practices, August 1999 25 Conservation Buffers Generally, for erosion control the criterium is the For example, if common planting equipment is six 30­ lesser of half the predominant downhill slope length or inch rows, the working width of each pass is 15 feet. If half the critical slope length for contour strip cropping half of the downhill slope length is 125 feet, the appro­ as determined using RUSLE or other approved erosion priate spacing would be adjusted downward to 120 prediction technology. Critical slope lengths can be feet or eight passes (four rounds) with the 15-foot- increased by increasing residue cover or roughness, wide 6-row planter. which changes the vegetative cover management conditions of the cropped strip. Strip width is not as much of an issue with drilled or broadcast seeding methods. If other crops, such as The criterium for reducing sediment or other water­ small grains or drilled soybeans, are planted in the borne contaminants is generally the lesser of half the rotation, a spacing of 120 feet fits multiple passes of 8-, predominant downhill slope length or 150 feet 10-, 12-, 15-, 20-, 24-, and 30-foot wide drills. (fig. 3b–1). To determine the minimum width of culti­ vated strips, some preliminary slope information must Consideration must also be given to use of other be collected in the field and run through RUSLE. equipment, such as sprayers. For example, a sprayer Additionally, equipment must fit well with contour with a 60-foot boom can be successfully used on a 120- buffer strips. Not only must the strips be parallel, but foot-wide strip by making two passes or on a 90-foot they must also be planned on multiples of the working strip by making one full pass and then a half pass with width of equipment, typically, the planter or drill used half of the boom shut off to avoid overlap and spraying to plant the crops. This adjustment will prevent en­ the buffer strip. croachment into the buffer strip or the planting of point rows. Tables 3b–1 through 3b–4 show strip widths for various planter and drill widths and row spacing. Table 3b–1 Strip width adjustments for planters on 30-inch rows # of - - - - - - - 4 row - - - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - 6 row - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 row - - - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - 12 row - - - - - - - passes # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft 1 4 10 6 15 8 20 12 30 2 8 20 12 30 16 40 24 60 312 30 1845 24 60 3690 416 40 2460 32 80 48120 5 20 50 30 75 40 100 60 150 6 24 60 36 90 48 120 72 180 7 28 70 42 105 56 140 84 210 8 32 80 48 120 64 160 96 240 9 36 90 54 135 72 180 10 40 100 60 150 80 200 11 44 110 66 165 88 220 12 48 120 72 180 96 240 13 52 130 78 195 14 56 140 84 210 15 60 150 90 225 16 64 160 17 68 170 18 72 180 19 76 190 20 80 200 21 84 210 22 88 220 23 92 230 26 Core4 Conservation Practices, August 1999 Chapter 3b: Contour Buffer Strips Table 3b–2 Strip width adjustments for planters on 20-inch rows # of - - - - - - - 4 row - - - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - 6 row - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 row - - - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - 12 row - - - - - - - passes # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft 1 4 6.67 6 10 8 13.33 12 20 2 8 13.34 12 20 16 26.66 24 40 3 12 20.01 18 30 24 39.99 36 60 4 16 26.68 24 40 32 53.32 48 80 5 20 33.35 30 50 40 66.65 60 100 6 24 40.02 36 60 48 79.98 72 120 7 28 46.69 42 70 56 93.31 84 140 8 32 53.36 48 80 64 106.64 96 160 9 36 60.03 54 90 72 119.97 10 40 66.70 60 100 80 133.30 11 44 73.37 66 110 88 146.63 12 48 80.04 72 120 96 159.96 13 52 86.71 78 130 14 56 93.38 84 140 15 60 100.05 90 150 16 64 106.72 96 160 17 68 113.39 18 72 120.06 19 76 126.73 20 80 133.40 21 84 140.07 22 88 146.74 23 92 153.41 24 96 160.08 25 100 166.75 Core4 Conservation Practices, August 1999 27 Conservation Buffers Table 3b–3 Strip width adjustments for planters on 38-inch rows # of - - - - - - - 4 row - - - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - 6 row - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 row - - - - - - ­ - - - - - - - - 12 row - - - - - - - passes # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft 1 4 12.67 6 19 8 25.33 12 38 2 8 25.34 12 38 16 50.66 24 76 3 12 38.01 18 57 24 75.99 36 114 4 16 50.68 24 76 32 101.32 48 152 5 20 63.35 30 95 40 126.65 60 190 6 24 76.02 36 114 48 151.98 72 228 7 28 88.69 42 133 56 177.31 84 266 8 32 101.36 48 152 64 202.64 96 304 9 36 114.03 54 171 72 227.97 10 40 126.70 60 190 80 253.30 11 44 139.37 66 209 88 278.63 12 48 152.04 72 228 96 303.96 13 52 164.71 78 247 14 56 177.38 84 266 15 60 190.05 90 285 16 64 202.72 96 304 17 68 215.39 18 72 228.06 19 76 240.73 20 80 253.40 21 84 266.07 22 88 278.74 23 92 291.41 24 96 304.08 25 100 316.75 28 Core4 Conservation Practices, August 1999 Chapter 3b: Contour Buffer Strips Table 3b–4 Strip width adjustments for drills and seeders on 15-inch rows # of - - - - - - - 4 row - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6 row - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 row - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 row - - - - - - ­ passes # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft # of rows width ft 1 8 10 12 13 15 20 24 30 216 20 24 26 30 4048 60 324 30 36 39 45 6072 90 432 40 48 52 60 8096 120 5 40 50 60 65 75 100 120 150 6 48 60 72 78 90 120 144 180 7 56 70 84 91 105 140 168 210 8 64 80 96 104 120 160 192 240 9 72 90 108 117 135 180 10 80 100 120 130 150 11 88 110 132 143 165 12 96 120 144 156 180 13 104 130 156 169 14 112 140 168 182 15 120 150 180 16 128 160 17 136 170 18 144 180 19 152 20 160 21 168 22 176 23 184 Core4 Conservation Practices, August 1999 29 Conservation Buffers Alignment Continue setting flags on the contour until you reach Alignment is generally the most important factor in the field edge.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Riparian Vegetation Management
    Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide Riparian Vegetation Management Second edition, June 2009 Your comments SEPA is committed to ensuring its Good Practice Guides are useful and relevant to those carrying out activities in Scotland’s water environment. We welcome your comments on this Good Practice Guide so that we can improve future editions. A feedback form and details on how to send your comments to us can be found at the back of this guide in Appendix 1. Acknowledgements This document was produced in association with Northern Ecological Services (NES). Page 1 of 47 Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide: Riparian Vegetation Management Second edition, June 2009 (Document reference: WAT-SG-44) Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 What’s included in this Guide? 3 2 Importance of riparian vegetation 6 3 Establishing/creating vegetation 8 3.1 Soft or green engineering techniques 8 3.2 Seeding and planting of bare soil 10 3.3 Creating buffer strips 11 3.4 Planting trees and shrubs 15 3.5 Marginal vegetation 18 3.6 Urban watercourses 21 4 Managing vegetation 24 4.1 Management of grasses and herbs 24 4.2 Management of heath and bog 27 4.3 Management of adjacent wetlands 28 4.4 Management of non-native plant species 29 4.5 Management of scrub and hedgerows 31 4.6 Management of individual trees 31 4.7 Management of trees – riparian woodland 33 4.8 Management of trees – conifer plantations 35 4.9 Large woody debris 37 4.10 Marginal vegetation 37 4.11 Urban watercourses 40 4.12 Use of herbicides 40 4.13 Environmental management of vegetation 41 4.14 Vegetation management plans 41 5 Sources of further information 42 5.1 Publications 42 5.2 Websites 44 Appendix 1: Feedback form – Good Practice Guide WAT-SG-44 45 Page 2 of 47 1 Introduction This document is one of a series of good practice guides produced by SEPA to help people involved in the selection of sustainable engineering solutions that minimise harm to the water environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • An Agroforestry Project: Sustainable Tree-Shrub-Grass Buffer Strips
    Volume 78 Article 5 1-1-1991 An Agroforestry Project: Sustainable Tree-Shrub- Grass Buffer Strips Along Waterways Richard Schultz Iowa State University Joe Colletti Iowa State University Carl Mize Iowa State University Andy Skadberg Iowa State University Bruce Menzel Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/amesforester Part of the Forest Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Schultz, Richard; Colletti, Joe; Mize, Carl; Skadberg, Andy; and Menzel, Bruce (1991) "An Agroforestry Project: Sustainable Tree- Shrub-Grass Buffer Strips Along Waterways," Ames Forester: Vol. 78 , Article 5. Available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/amesforester/vol78/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ames Forester by an authorized editor of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN AGROFORESTRY PROJECT: susTAINABLE TREE-SHFIUB-GRASS BUFFEFI STRIPS ALONG WATERWAYS BY F]lCHAF]D SCHULTZ, JOE COLLETTl, CAFZL MIZE, ANDY SKADBEFIG, AND BFIUCE MENZEL Introduction the streambank, the aquatic ecosystem, and for providing wildlife habitat for terrestrial Iowa is a mosaic landscape of agricultural animals. crops, pasture lands, native woodlands. prai- rie remnants, wetlands, and a network of A cooperative project on a private farm was streams and rivers. With settlement and the started in the spring of 1990. An interdiscipli- increased mecha- naryteam fromthe nization of agricul- Departments of ture, many natural Forestry, a as ` sgffi se.>< isee`s±gg // //,i/// i/// i/ // // //////i1/,,,,,74,i,,;,,#,// ,z/ /// Agronomy, Geol- woodland corri- `x,`,`/`se*/a <.*ng ng`'` -i- dors along these `asJz '3¥sezl , ` i ogy and Atmo- i // /// streams and rivers spheric Sciences, i$3& and Animal Ecol- were removed.
    [Show full text]
  • Buffering the Buffer, by Leslie M. Reid, And
    Buffering the Buffer1 Leslie M. Reid2 and Sue Hilton3 Abstract: Riparian buffer strips are a widely accepted tool for helping to sustain ¥ Maintenance of the aquatic food web through provision aquatic ecosystems and to protect downstream resources and values in forested of leaves, branches, and insects areas, but controversy persists over how wide a buffer strip is necessary. The physical integrity of stream channels is expected to be sustained if the ¥ Maintenance of appropriate levels of predation and characteristics and rates of tree fall along buffered reaches are similar to those in competition through support of appropriate riparian undisturbed forests. Although most tree-fall-related sediment and woody debris ecosystems inputs to Caspar Creek are generated by trees falling from within a tree’s height of the channel, about 30 percent of those tree falls are triggered by trees falling ¥ Maintenance of water quality through filtering of from upslope of the contributing tree, suggesting that the core zone over which sediment, chemicals, and nutrients from upslope sources natural rates of tree fall would need to be sustained is wider than the one-tree- height’s-width previously assumed. Furthermore, an additional width of “fringe” ¥ Maintenance of an appropriate water temperature buffer is necessary to sustain appropriate tree-fall rates within the core buffer. regime through provision of shade and regulation of air Analysis of the distribution of tree falls in buffer strips and un-reentered stream- temperature and humidity side forests along the North Fork of Caspar Creek suggests that rates of tree fall are abnormally high for a distance of at least 200 m from a clearcut edge, a ¥ Maintenance of bank stability through provision of root distance equivalent to nearly four times the current canopy height.
    [Show full text]
  • Template for Pdfs.Pmd
    2.12 Stream temperature and buffers Buffers can help maintain cooler water temperatures in small streams if the vegetation provides adequate shade on the water surface. This can be beneficial for coldwater aquatic species and for water quality. Stream shade is comprised of topographic shade provided by nearby hills, bank shade, and vegetative shade. Streams with vegetation removed usually have undesirable summer temperature increases from 5 to 11oC. Aspect, channel morphology, and groundwater input may affect temperatures more than buffers. Key Design Considerations • Incorporate topography and bank shade in the design. • Trees and shrubs provide the most shade but unmowed or ungrazed grass buffers can provide shade on streams less than 8 feet in width. • Buffer shading effectiveness decreases as stream width increases. • Windthrow may be common in buffers retained after timber harvest and wider buffers may be necessary. • Buffers may need to be wider (150 to 1000 ft) to maintain other microclimatic factors (e.g., soil temperature, humidity). 2.12 Biodiversity 2.12 References Anbumozhi, V.; Radhakrishnan, J.; Yamaji, E. 2005. Impact of riparian buffer zones on water quality and associated management considerations. Ecological Engineering. 24: 517-523. Barton, D.R.; Taylor, W.D.; Biette, R.M. 1985. Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 5: 364- 378. Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands. 19: 25-28. Blann, K.; Nerbonne, J.F.; Vondracek, B. 2002. Relationships of riparian buffer type to water temperature in the Driftless area ecoregion of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption of Conservation Buffers: Barriers and Strategies
    United States Department of Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Buffers: Barriers and Natural Strategies Resources Conservation Service Social Sciences Institute October 2002 Adoption of Conservation Buffers Front cover photo courtesy of NRCS Photo Gallery http://photogallery.nrcs.usda.gov/ Acknowledgments Supporting data for this publication includes social science research studies, reports from the Conservation Technology Information Center, and summaries of field interviews. I would especially like to thank NRCS technical specialists David Buland, Jim Cropper, David Faulkner, Aaron Hinkston, Jim Robinson, Gary Wells, and Bruce Wight for their time and expertise. Sandy Hodge, State Specialist-Public Policy, Community Development Extension Program, University of Missouri, graciously assisted me with her time and technical materials, including photos. Thanks also to Frank Clearfield, director, Social Sciences Institute, and to Peter Smith, director, NRCS Resource Economics and Social Sciences Adoption of Conservation Buf Division, for taking the time to help edit and modify this document, and Mary Mattinson, Suzi Self, and Wendy Pierce, NRCS National Cartography and Geospatial Center, for editing and preparing the document for publication. Gail Brant Sociologist Social Sciences Institute fers Adoption of Conservation Buffers Adoption of Conservation Buffers: Barriers and Strategies Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Buffer Strip Function and Design Ïïï
    ÒÒÒ BUFFER STRIP FUNCTION AND DESIGN ÏÏÏ An Annotated Bibliography Compiled for the Region III Forest Practices Riparian Management Committee by James D. Durst and James M. Ferguson Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division SUMMARY Natural forests adjacent to water bodies can contribute all of the ten habitat components listed in the FRPA, AS 41.17.115, which were discussed in the Introduction. The relative importance of each component to maintaining fish habitat and water quality varies with differences in the physical and other characteristics of the water body, such as stream width (or lake size), gradient, incision depth, bank characteristics, and average, seasonal, and peak flow. Research has demonstrated the importance of maintaining forested conditions along water bodies that are naturally forested. In the 1990s, this research began to be incorporated into forest practices-related laws and regulations. In Alaska, the FRPA, Tongass Timber Reform Act, and Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) revision each prescribe mandatory buffers for certain types of fish-bearing (and, in the case of TLMP, some non-fish-bearing) water bodies. Buffer widths vary, based on different water body classifications, which are in turn based on different physical stream characteristics, and the presence of anadromous fish. The TLMP standards use the classification of Paustian (1992). These buffers were designed for the relatively small stream systems found in Southeast Alaska. Murphy (1995) provides a good summary of buffer-related research conducted in Alaska, and riparian management recommendations that have been applied in Southeast Alaska. The Tongass Land Management Plan (1997) and the FRPA revisions of 1999 update Murphy’s summary of existing buffer standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Catchment Issues
    UPPER CATCHMENT ISSUES TASMANIA First edition feature — Upper Catchment Issues in the North Eastern Highlands Journal of The Community Based Risk Assessment Group of Tasmania Vol. 1 No. 1 ISSN 1444-9560 Upper Catchment Issues - Tasmania Disclaimer: Articles from any person, group or organization are accepted for publication at the discretion of the Editor, and the opinions expressed therein may not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor. Copyright: Readers of this publication are reminded that all material appearing in The Journal, including any specially composed article, is covered under the copyright laws of Australia and may not be reproduced or copied in any form or part whatsoever or used for any promotional or advertising purpose without the written consent of the Editors, author or artist. Submissions — Guide for intending authors We welcome submissions on topics concerning any aspect of upper catchment issues. Consult a current issue of the journal for style and layout of submissions. Intending authors are reminded that a very diverse audience reads the Journal and so highly technical or specialised terminology should be carefully explained. Finally, responsibility for spelling, punctuation and referencing shall remain with the author. Submissions should be addressed to: The editor, 8 Lenborough Street Beauty Point Tasmania 7270 Deadlines for Submissions Australia Desktop Publishing: January, 7 Resource Publications (ABN 66 828 584 972) 9 Lenborough Street Beauty Point, Tasmania, 7270 Phone: (03) 6383 4594 Fax: (03) 6383
    [Show full text]
  • The Massachusetts Vegetated Buffer Manual
    TThhee MMaassssaacchhuusseettttss BBuuffffeerr MMaannuuaall Using Vegetated Buffers to Protect our Lakes and Rivers Prepared by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission For The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 2003 Massachusetts Vegetated Buffer Manual About The Massachusetts Buffer Manual In 2001 the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission was awarded a Nonpoint Source Pollution grant to conduct a demonstration and outreach project. The goal of this project was to promote the bene- fits of vegetated buffers. The three main objectives to achieve this goal were to 1) create a buffer guidance document, 2) plant five buffer demonstration sites and 3) talk about vegetated buffers to the public. This document, three of the buffers seen in Chapter 2 and several presentations made to lake groups and conservation commissioners are direct outcomes of this project. Russ Cohen of the Riverways Program was our partner and co-presenter for three of our "on the road" presentations. Many thanks, Russ. Acknowledgements To our Partners: A very special thank you goes out to our project partners, without whose contributions the Buffer Project would not have been made possible. These plant specialists, landscape professionals and nurseries have voluntarily contributed their time, expertise and materials to our demonstration projects and to this document. Their support is greatly appreciated. Robert Akroyd, landscape architect, Greylock Design Associates Rachel Fletcher and Monica Fadding, Housatonic River Walk Rick Harrington, landscaper, Good Lookin' Lawns Dorthe Hviid, horticulturist, Berkshire Botanical Garden Dennis Mareb, owner, Windy Hill Farm Christine McGrath, landscape architect, Okerstrom Lang, Ltd. Craig Okerstrom Lang, landscape architect, Okerstrom Lang, Ltd. Greg Ward, owner, Ward's Nursery and Garden Center Raina Weber, plant propagation, Project Native (an undertaking of the Railroad St.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on Sustainable Forest Management in Québec
    Consultation on sustainable forest management in Québec Consultation paper Sustainable forest management strategy and Provisions proposed for the future regulation on sustainable forest management Consultation on sustainable forest management in Québec Consultation paper Sustainable forest management strategy and Provisions proposed for the future regulation on sustainable forest management For additional information, please contact: Direction des communications Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune 5700, 4e Avenue Ouest, C 409 Québec (Québec) G1H 6R1 Telephone : 418 627-8600 Elsewhere in Québec: 1 866 248-6936 Fax: 418 644-6513 [email protected] Cover photographs Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune Lower left: Pourvoirie Poulin de Courval, Roch Théroux This publication is available on the Internet at: www.mrnf.gouv.qc.ca Ce document est également disponible en français. Legal Deposit – Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, 2010 Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, 2010 ISBN 978-2-550-60087-9 (Printed version) ISBN 978-2-550-60088-6 (PDF) Code de diffusion : 2010-2007 © Gouvernement du Québec MESSAGE FROM THE MINISTER In recent months, Québec has been pursuing a full-scale revision of its forest regime. This major ongoing process passed a crucial stage on March 23, 2010, when the Members of the National Assembly gave unanimous assent to the Sustainable Forest Development Act. This sent a clear message that our government is committed to taking charge of the management and conservation of Québec’s forest heritage to ensure as many benefits as possible for citizens and, in addition, to make Québec an international leader in sustainable forest management.
    [Show full text]
  • AGROFORESTRY and GRASS BUFFER INFLUENCES on MICROCLIMATE Ranjith P
    AGROFORESTRY AND GRASS BUFFER INFLUENCES ON MICROCLIMATE Ranjith P. Udawatta Peter P. Motavalli Research Assistant Professor Associate Professor Neil I. Fox Kelly A. Nelson Assistant Professor Research Agronomist Introduction: Agroforestry practices have been considered to be more environmentally friendlier than row- crop agriculture due to improvements in soil and water quality. Research shows that agroforestry and grass buffers on corn-soybean watersheds reduce non point source pollution in runoff and improve soil properties (Udawatta et al., 2002; Seobi et al., 2005; Udawatta et al., 2006). These improvements have been attributed to organic matter addition, roots of the permanent vegetation, nutrient uptake, water use, and changes in soil parameters. The permanent vegetation within the buffers may also change microclimate and thus directly and indirectly influence evapotranspiration, soil water dynamics, soil enzyme activities, carbon sequestration, and nutrient dynamics. Research shows that larger trees act as a barrier to wind speed and thereby reduce evapotranspiration and crop damage from crop fields as compared to open fields (Bird, 1998). Studies speculate that reduced energy levels under buffers and adjacent areas promote more soil moisture storage, less evaporation, and diverse microbial activity. Studies on windbreaks have shown increased crop yields, yield quality, on the leeward side (Bird, 1998; Huth et al., 2002), however this varies with crop, windbreak type, geography, moisture and soil properties (Brandle, et al., 2004). The objective of this study was to evaluate Figure 1. Grass buffer (grass only) and agroforestry differences in microclimatic parameters (grass+trees) buffer watersheds with 0.5 m interval among crop, grass buffer, and agroforestry contour lines (black), buffers (gray), grass waterways buffer areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Design Ofof Forest Forest Riparian
    Ire in ~-714). Vildlife Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: ve Analysis of Scientific Literature 1 J A i! Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group Report No.8 by George H. Belt,l Jay Q'Laughlin,2 and e, Troy Merrill3 June 1992 1 Professor of Forest Resources, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences, University ofIdaho, Moscow, ID 83843. :: Director, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843. from 3 Research Assistant, -Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843. -­ -------~--------- Acknowledgements ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The efforts of the Technical Advisory Committee, listed below, are gratefully acknowledged These individuals provided guidance on the design of the plan for this study, and provided techn review of the final draft of the report. Dr. C. Michael Falter Lyn Morelan Professor of Fisheries, and Head Boise National Forest Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Boise, Idaho University of Idaho (Chair, Idaho Forest Practices Act Advisory Committee) Dr. Robert L. Mahler Professor, Department of Soil Science Dale McGreer University of Idaho Potlatch Corporation Lewiston. Idaho Dr. Roy Mink (Member, Idaho Forest Practices Act Professor of Geology, and Director Advisory Committee) Idaho Water Resources Research Institute University of Idaho John T. Heimer Fishery Staff Biologist Idaho Department of Fish and Game Boise, Idaho One other individual provided technical review of the fmal draft of the report: Dr. Kenneth J. Raedeke Research Associate Professor of Wildlife Biology College of Forest Resources University of Washington i , , I J, Table of Coments .~1 ----------------------------------~----------"-'------------------------ I Acknowledgements ........•.
    [Show full text]