Riparian Forest Buffer Goals Directive 061

1
Where Do Riparian Forest Buffers Fit into
Directive 06-1? Potential Riparian Forest
Buffer Goals
2
The Directive Emphasizes .conservation of
forest lands most critical to water quality.

• Here the focus will be the first bullet from the
  Directive
• Stream, shoreline and floodplain forests and
  forested wetlands.

3
The Objective of Proposed Riparian Forest Buffer
Goals

• Support 2003 forest buffer commitments
• Incorporation in Directive of unrealized
  commitments ( Conserve existing forests along
  all streams and shorelines) and (Preserve from
  development 20 of the land area in the watershed
  by 2010, targeting high value areas).
• 2003 Key finding For maximum ecosystem
  resiliency, forest buffers should exist on 70 of
  all shorelines and stream banks in the
  watershed.

4
Proposed Goals

• Because Signatory states committed to Tributary
  Strategy goals which include set numbers of
  riparian forest buffer miles
• Because 30,000 miles of forest buffers on
  streams and shorelines are needed to reach 70
  forest cover, a recommendation for ecological
  health
• Because The 2003 goal of 10,000 miles by 2010 is
  reasonable and 53 realized

5
It is suggested to

• Goal 1. CONTINUE THE EXPECTED ANNUAL RESTORATION
  RATE OF
• 900 - 1000 MILES BEYOND 2010.

6
Why 900 miles past 2010? Approximately 288,000
total miles of streams and shorelines in Bay
watershed (Penn State data revised in
2005).201,600 miles represent 70 of shorelines
and streams 167,040 miles represents already
58 forest buffers 187,200 miles of buffer
needed for 65 of streams and shorelines 167,040
miles (current 58 buffered) 20,160 miles to
reach the 65 minus 10,000 mile goal 2010 10160
miles left at current expected rate of
restoration the end timeline is 2020.
7
Suggested Actions to Implement Goal 1

• Target through GIS applications on a coarse
  scale, areas in need of riparian forest buffers
  for nutrient reduction efficiency, source water
  protection, stormwater management, and quality
  habitat.
• Train technical assistance providers to use a GIS
  framework to recognize and locate target areas in
  their work region.
• Compile a landscape targeting matrix for finer
  scale targeting of riparian forest buffers at
  local levels.
• Establish a Forestry Workgroup GIS consortium to
  serve as a resource for state conservation
  targeting efforts.
• Create economic incentives for landowners to
  incorporate and protect riparian forest buffers
  as best management practices on their land.
• Continue state and federal support for cost share
  programs with RFB element.

8
Goal 2

• Because Wilder and Jorgenson (2006) reported
  range of 1.1-5.2 loss of riparian forest buffers
  in highly developing counties in MD,PA, and VA
• Because The current 10000 mile goal does not
  consider forest buffer losses occurring
  simultaneously with restoration.
• Because Forest buffer losses in the Bay
  watershed are counterproductive to nutrient
  reduction and forest buffer restoration efforts

9
It is suggested to ..

• Goal 2 PERMANENTLY PROTECT 50 OF
  RESTORED FOREST BUFFERS IN TARGETED WATERSHEDS BY
  2020.

10
Suggested actions to implement Goal 2.

• Assess losses of forest buffers along streams and
  shorelines
• in the Bay watershed using newly developed GIS
  buffer
• mapping and analysis tools supported by Forestry
  Work
• Group funding.
• Use forest buffer loss analysis to target needed
  restoration
• And to implement the 50 permanent protection for
  these sites.
• Provide riparian forest buffer restoration and
  permanent
• protection information to landowners and decision
  makers.

11
Goal 3

• Because A coordinated approach to riparian
  forest buffer monitoring across the Bay states
  will produce more credible data that can be
  interpreted at a watershed scale
• Because The early years of riparian forest
  establishment are influenced by many outside
  factors that threaten survival
• Because Tracking and monitoring of successful
  projects provides the opportunity to correlate
  restoration efforts with improvements in Bay
  water quality
• Because Monitoring provides information that can
  be used to promote and sustain riparian forest
  buffer efforts..

12
It is suggested to.

• GOAL 3. ENHANCE AND STRENGTHEN 2003 MONITORING
  EFFORTS FOR FIRST FIVE YEARS OF IMPLEMENTATION,
  FOR ALL NEWLY RESTORED RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS
  UNDER PERMANENT PROTECTION

13
Suggested actions to implement Goal 3 .

• Develop a stratified random monitoring design to
  statistically represent on the ground success of
  riparian forest buffer efforts.
• Provide a monitoring system that is linked
  geographically and easily coupled with other
  monitoring in states and across state lines, the
  Pennsylvania WAVE , and the Virginia IFRIS
  systems are good examples or starting points to
  reference.

14
Goal 4

• Because Urban canopy cover through interception,
  stemflow, litter interception and
  evapo-transpiration reduces hydrologic
  fluctuation and provides protection for streams,
  similar to the functions of riparian forest
  buffers
• Because UFORE- HYDRO can be employed to
  determine canopy cover contributions to
  stormwater management and the findings can be
  applied to conservation and/or restoration needs
  for jurisdictions ...
• Because The information obtained through
  UFORE-HYDRO analysis can be incorporated into
  watershed planning processes, and sprawl
  reduction efforts, both are elements of
  keystone commitments for the Chesapeake Bay
  Program .

15
It is suggested to

• Goal 4. COMMIT TO AN INCREASE OF CANOPY COVER
  AND REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS COVER IN ONE URBAN
  COMMUNITY IN EACH STATE

16
Suggested actions to implement Goal 4

• Use UFORE - HYDRO analysis in a demonstration
  community, in each state.
• Develop canopy cover restoration and protection
  policies that relate to the UFORE HYDRO
  analysis in the demonstration community.
• Build private/ public partnerships that
  philosophically and financially support
  implementation of canopy cover restoration and
  permanent protection.
• Use green market opportunities to financially
  support restoration and permanent protection
  efforts.

17
SUMMARY

• The proposed goals support and enhance goals
  developed and committed to in 2003.
• The assessment and monitoring components will
  have a lasting influence on riparian forest
  buffer conservation and restoration decisions.
• A coordinated approach to goal setting will
  maintain momentum to establish more and better
  forest buffer conservation, restoration and
  protection throughout the Bay watershed.
• THOUGHTS QUESTIONS COMMENTS