HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 Stream Protection(·fH~
C O•N•N•••C•T ........,._. . .._..
Caµs(amt A llmtun ISf) Fav.mJ fa
Jcx/cmlJ llstrtt (<Xf6 d Ef1j"tm
Grand Forks keo Protects Itself Against
Next Ked Kiver Surge
Freedom Park Stream Restoration
By Chris Matthews
Looking downstream at th e firs t new meander bend. No te the rock wall supp orting backfill of the old channel and th e riparian seed
mix in bloom.
Due to a rapidly expanding population in the
Carolinas, especially in the Charlotte and
Raleigh-Durham areas of North Carolina,
large-scale transportation projects, residential and
commercial development and subsequent urban
stormwater runoff have taken their toll on many of
the streams and wetlands .
To help repair, restore and preserve these important
aquatic resources , the North Carolina Legislature
developed the innovative Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP). The EEP is part of the N .C .
Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
and uses a multi-agency approach to improve
watershed functions through the advancement of
planning documents and construction projects prior
to impacts from development. Officially, the
mission of the EEP is to "restore, enhance, preserve
and protect the functions associated with wetlands,
streams and riparian areas , including but not
limited to those necessary for the restoration,
maintenance and protection of water quality and
riparian habitats throughout North Carolina ."
Despite the EEP presence and its role as a valuable
planning and funding source in North Carolina, the
success of a large stream or wetland restoration
project, especially in an urban area , often depends
on having a good loca l sponsor. The role of the local
sponsor varies from project to project, but it can
include coordination between municipal departments ,
public outreach , agency coordination, monetary
support and technical review. Having good local
support from a municipal engineering, planning or
stormwater department can make or break a project.
Littl e Su gar Creek Initiative
In the past three years , an enterprise has been
underway in the Charlotte region , specifica lly in
Mecklenburg County, to create greenways, enhance
connectivity and mobility and improve the environment
One significant project championed locally is the Little
Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative, which
encompasses stream restoration, greenway trail
development and overall enhancement of the stream
corridor. It covers a 15-mile section of Little Sugar Creek
running south from Uptown Charlotte to the North
Carolina/South Carolina state line.
continued on page 2
-
Freedom Park... continued from page I
Phase 2 of this initiative is a joint effort
between Mecklenburg County and the EEP
known as the Freedom Park Stream
Restoration Project. The EEP-funded
project is one of the largest of its kind in the
state, placing more than 1,500 linear feet of
stream on a new alignment as much as 150
feet from its current location.
The Little Sugar Creek flows through the
entire length of Freedom Park, a distance of
more than 4,500 linear feet. Freedom Park is
in a highly urbanized setting two miles south
of the central business district. The 14-
square-mile watershed is virtually built-out,
with the only development occurring on
in-fill locations . Therefore, urban runoff and
stormwater are the main contributors to
stream degradation along this section of the
creek.
Historical records indicate that Little Sugar
Creek likely was channeled and straightened
in the early 1900s to improve stormwater
conveyance and allow urban development to
occur on the floodplain. In the 1970s and
'80s, the creek was showing signs of
instability due to upstream development, so
a concrete and grouted rip-rap liner was
installed along the banks to provide stability
and prevent erosion. The stream remained in
this state for the next 25 to 30 years .
In 2002, Mecklenburg ColU1ty awarded a contract
to demolish the concrete banks in preparation for
the upcoming restoration project The demolition
ran concurrently with the design and permitting of
the channel restoration.
Po s t-co ns tru ction up s tream vi ew of th e regraded s lop es and enhanced habitat of th e Freedom Park s tretch
of little Su gar Creek.
Freedom Park Restoration Details
HDR, and a local environmental specialty firm ,
Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program Inc.,
were selected for this project based on past
experience in the watershed, availability to devote
technical expertise and other resources to this
complex project and a familiarity that had been
formed through previous work with EEP. The
team performed an extensive watershed survey, a
sediment transport study, a reference reach
analysis and a site survey to achieve a permittable
and stable design. The final design incorporated
natural channel techniques to enhance and create
habitat, provide stability, improve water quality,
control stormwater rlll1off and provide a more
aestheticaIIy pleasing stream ecosystem.
Constrnction began in March 2003 and was
completed in September 2003 , despite
having one of the wettest summers on record in
the Charlotte region. In fact , Charlotte had
obtained its average annual rainfall allowance
by August 1. Even with the muddy conditions
and frequent flood events, the stream remained
stable throughout the construction process .
The constructed stream has 15-foot bank
heights and 30-foot bottom widths and was
built economically, though it required
moving more than 50,000 cubic yards of
earth, placing over 3 ,000 tons of boulders,
river cobble and rock cross vanes and
planting 40,000-plus trees and shrubs .
Considering the large quantities of materials
moved and used on this project, remarkably
all of the excavated material was disposed of
on-site . This reduced costs and provided
additional floodplain area for flood storage
and riparian habitat. The stream was
narrowed for the majority of the project
length to help push sediment through the
system and prevent sand and silt from
blocking the normal stream flow and
reducing aquatic habitat. Due to the "flashy"
nature of this stream during rain events, this
project was being constructed "in the wet"
without the use of pumps to move the water
around the active construction zone. Instead,
rock check dams were placed at the end of
the project and immediately below
construction zones to trap sediment.
Pre-construction photo of stream reach shown above. No te the co ncrete lining and poo r habitat.
Some of the natural design elements
implemented in the project include rock
A typical bankfi1ll event fo r th e sec ti on of Lillie Sug ar Creek in Freedom Park.
Taken about halfway throug h th e co nstru ction process, this photo is a g ood example
of th e unusually we t summer th e project team had to overcome.
vanes , boulder clusters, natural stone storrnwater outfall stmctures,
floodplain benches, root wads and boulder walls that were used to
cut off the old stream channel. Of special interest was the
implementation of constmcted riffies, which provide stability and
habitat using a combination of stone and boulder materials. As part
of the restoration , more than 20 shmb and tree species were planted
to further stabilize the banks and reforest the upland areas.
Additionally, a diverse seed mix was used to provide herbaceous
cover along the banks .
An important component of this project was the involvement of the
community during the planning and constmction phases. Public
meetings for input and review were held throughout the course of
the project to facilitate the sharing of information with the
community and several special interest groups. Prior to and during
constmction , signs indicating schedule and project team members
were posted. Images of the final conceptual design and descriptions
of the rationale behind the design elements were posted in kiosks
along the stream .
Taking place at left is co nstruction of th e ro ck wall that protec ts th e back fill of th e
old channel. At rig ht, a crew member wo rks on th e malting and live staking
in stallation for th e new channel slopes.
Summ ary
This is the first in a series of four Little Sugar Creek projects
currently undergoing restoration and greenway trail development.
The four segments are part of the much larger watershed-wide
environmental initiative that includes demolition of concrete liners ,
dam removal and "daylighting" (removing parking decks from
above the stream).
The Freedom Park Restoration project and the EEP funded portions
of the larger Little Sugar Creek Environmental Restoration Initiative
stand as examp les of how the EEP plans to carry out its mission by
providing:
• High-quality, cost-effective projects for watershed improvement
and protection
• Compensation for unavoidable environmental impacts associated
with transportation infrastmcture and economic development
• Detailed watershed planning and project implementation efforts
within North Carolina 's threatened or degraded watersheds
Aerial view of th e new upp er meanders taken shortly after construction.
As outlined in the EEP 2003 Annual Report, "during this past fiscal
year, efforts have resulted in a total of 37 stream and wetland
restoration projects that are either completed or in constmction,
totaling 127,632 linear feet of streams and 466 .9 acres of wetlands .
An additional 35 projects are in the design phase and upon
completion will result in the restoration of 91 ,480 linear feet of
streams and 478.5 acres of wetlands. In addition, policies have been
developed and implemented for improved riparian plantings as well
as vegetation monitoring techniques."
Chris Matth ews can be reached at HDR s Charlotte, N. C., office at
(704) 338-6778 or e-mail chris.matthews@hdrin c.com
CorpsConned: A Quantum Leap Forward for Jacksonville
Distrid Corps of Engineers
By Mark Taylor, P.G ., HOR; and Mike Drnella, USACE -Jacksonville District
0 n Feb. 19 , 2004 the Jacksonville District
of U .S . Anny Corps of Engineers
(USACE) made a quantum leap forward
in the way it conducts its executive-level
monthly board meetings by using Web-based
technology to display live schedule and budget
data. A meeting that often lasted nine to 10
hours was three hours shorter using the new
tool , and preparation time for the presenters
was reduced by one to two days . The
organization projects a savings of $450,000
annually due to reduced labor and reproduction
costs .
The tool that made all of this possible is
CorpsConnect, a Web-based program
management system. CorpsConnect uses the
latest in thin client technology (which places an
application on a server, allowing access to
multiple users) to sort, query and display data
from multiple sources associated with the
Jacksonville District's operation in an easy to
use Web browser environment. CorpsConnect
uses queries based in Structured Query
Language (SQL) to ask questions of multiple
databases, then displays the answers in a single
environment.
CorpsConnect was created to support the
implementation of an integrated program
management philosophy that focuses on
improving operational execution of projects at
the local level. Another key factor in its
development was the increased demand for
data spawned by adding the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan to the Jacksonville
District's list of duties. This new responsibility
created unprecedented staffing growth and the
pressure to create a more efficient organization.
Development Proces s
CorpsConnect was developed in a partnership
among the Programs and Project Management
and Information Management divisions of the
Jacksonville District and HDR It is not simply an
"off-the-shelf' product, but rather the result of a
well-planned approach that included interviewing
a cross section of the Jacksonville District staff.
Participants were asked what types of information
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,
Financial .... Scheduling
Construction
Management
r c:::l ("o rp.\
.... C @ 0 • N • N • E • C • T ... Intranet
Project Data t
Mapping Internet
Co rps Connect uses queries based in St ructured Query language (SQL) to ask questio ns of multiple databases, then
displays the an swers in a s ing le enviro nment.
both internal and external users wanted to see; how
they wanted to view it; and what types of data were
available.
Information from those interviews, along with
snapshots of actua l Jacksonvi lle District project
and program data (e.g., schedule, financial and
GIS), was used to construct an initial prototype
of CorpsConnect. The prototype was
previewed to key Jacksonville District
personnel in a series of workshops to obtain
feedback and further refine the application.
In the second phase of the project,
programmers connected the prototype to live
Jacksonville District project information . After
testing, the CorpsConnect team s lowly
expanded the user community and further
enhanced CorpsConnect in a spiral
development process .
In January 2004, CorpsConnect was presented
to the Jacksonville District 's Project Review
Board (PRB) for consideration . The district
commander for the Jacksonville District was so
pleased with CorpsConnect that he directed the
development team to create a module that
would allow the February PRB meeting to be
run in a paperless environment. The team
accepted this challenging task and, despite a
tight schedule, delivered the PRB on
CorpsConnect module to the district
commander in 20 days.
PRB on CorpsConnect has served as a catalyst
to he lp the Jacksonville District's PRB better
focus on the obstacles of operational execution
by providing real -time live schedule and
budget data in a consistent format. This new
way of looking at information allows problem
areas of projects to be more easily recognized,
providing enhanced decision support by the
Jacksonville District 's PRB.
However, PRB on CorpsConnect is just one of
five modules that will make up the entire
CorpsConnect tool. The remaining modules
are:
• An internal customer portal
• A public data portal
• A GIS portal
• A wireless portal
The internal customer portal and PRB on
CorpsConnect are the most complete modules
at this time . The navigation buttons currently
available on the site are Projects, Programs,
Sponsors, GIS , PDT and Reports. These modules
are a direct reflection of the information that
was obtained during the interviews and needs
assessment phases of the project
CorpsConnect's other capabilities include
transforming query information into Microsoft
Excel or Word format to allow external
processing of the data without affecting the
integrity of the data source. Additionally, all of
the data views in CorpsConnect can be sorted
by any column header. CorpsConnect also has
the flexibility to allow new columns of data to
be shown or new data views to be created with
minor programming that does not disrupt
online access. This allows the tool to be easily
adapted to the Jacksonville District's changing
needs. Future plans for CorpsConnect include :
•Enhance the GIS module with aerial
photograph layers and the ability to display
project locations based on criteria such as
funding sources, sponsors, etc.
• Deliver portions of CorpsConnect to wireless
devices such as a Blackberry
• Connect to additional Jacksonville District
databases such as the ORM regulatory
database and the RMS construction database
• Connect to P2, an integrated financial and
schedule database that is being deployed
throughout the USACE
Another key benefit of CorpsConnect is the
empowerment it creates by providing all levels
of the Jacksonville District access to the same
information at the same time . This effectively
links the entire organization , from top to
bottom. In doing so, CorpsConnect lays the
groundwork for enhanced customer confidence
by facilitating better responses to sponsor and
stakeholder questions .
Schedule data quality and completeness also
were improved by giving more Jacksonville
District personnel the opportunity to see schedule
data and work collectively to improve it.
Beyond providing better access , CorpsConnect
contains custom queries that allow the users to
quickly determine projects that are missing
important milestones or have the milestones
coded incorrectly.
Several circumstances have contributed to
CorpsConnect's success . One key factor was a
shift in business thinking within the Jacksonville
District. This was exemplified by the creation of
a new Program Controls Branch, which focused
on an integrated program management
philosophy. Combined with its move to a new
office, the Jacksonville District has established a
clear opportunity for its staff to make a fresh
start.
Finally, the adaptability of the project team had
a significant effect on the outcome . Entering the
project, the one surety was that the team would
need to evolve as work progressed . In the end,
it was the gathering of a diverse body of
individuals -ranging from Web developers to
forestry and geology experts -into a single,
cohesive unit that provided the
necessary resources to complete the
CorpsConnect project.
Summary
Knowledge management solutions such as
CorpsConnect have broad reaching applications
for many private and government entities. In
today's digital age, it is not a lack of data but an
A Closer Look
------··
. Figure 1
inability to sort and use the data in a meaningful
way that hurts overall organizational
effectiveness . Tools such as CorpsConnect
provide a mechani sm to link vast data from
divergent sources and transform it into usable
knowledge . In this case, it also provided
immediate cost savings of $450,000
annually with just the first of five planned
modules.
However, the magic of CorpsConnect is not
software or technology, but rather the
implementation of sound management consulting
principles that promote development of systems
that will enhance overall organizational
effectiveness. In the end, the process the
Jacksonville District used allowed it to determine
what types of data were important and how they
should be viewed -and from there it was able to
identify the best possible solution.
With the implementation of CorpsConnect,
the Jacksonville District has taken an important
step toward a totally integrated program
management philosophy and practice . With this
approach, the Jacksonville District moves closer to
the goals of the USACE's 2012 Plan of continued
success in the future.
Mark A. Tay lor, P.G , can be reach ed at HDR 's
Ja cksonville, Fla ., office at (904)224-7453 Ext.
22 3 or e-mail mark.tay lor@hdrinc.com
Mike Orne /la , Chief of Program Contro ls
Branch , Pro g ram s Projec t Manage ment
Division for USA CE -Jacksonville District, can
be reac hed al (904)232-1600 or e-mail
michael.a. ornella@s aj02.us ace.army. mil
Figure 2
Figure I is a screen capture of the CorpsConnect home page. The Projects button displays summary level and detailed project
schedule, budget and status information that can be sorted in numerous ways. This button will serve all modules of CorpsConnect. The
GIS button generates maps showing project locations and the maps are linked back to detailed project information (Figure 2). The
Sponsors button displays detailed project information sorted by sponsor names so that the external Jacksonville District customers can
see their suite of projects and drill down to schedule, budget and status information. The Sponsors button is part of the public data
portal. The Reports button of CorpsConnect contains features such as schedule performance graphs that compare scheduled vs. actual
milestones so that the overall progress of the District can be monitored. This button serves the internal customer data portal.
Grand Forks Area Proteds Itself Against Next Red River Surge
By Bob Bed uhn, P.E .
Residents of Grand Forks, N .D., and
East Grand Forks , Minn., will not
soon forget April 1997 -a month that
brought the worst flooding in the area's
recorded history.
With a population of about 60 ,000 , the sister
cities are located 90 miles south of the
United States-Canada border along the
banks of Red River of the North. The Grand
Forks area has endured at least seven floods
in the past 200 years. The surge of water
created by snowmelt in the spring is
compounded by the river's northward
course . As the water reaches colder
temperatures , the river becomes prone to ice
jams.
During the winter of 1996-1997, eight
blizzards hit the Red River Valley. The
Grand Forks /Ea st Grand Forks area received
more than 98 inches of snow -more than
double the 41-inch average annual snowfall.
The final blizzard came in early April 1997 ,
adding another 6 inches of snow to the
already overwhelming amount of water
being absorbed by the Red River. It proved
to be just one more ingredient in an already
brewing disaster.
In anticipation of the impending flood,
residents stacked sandbags and clay along
the river's shores . But as temperatures
climbed, the river seemed to rise even faster.
On April 18 , the Red River spilled over the
makeshift dikes , flooding both Grand Forks
and East Grand Forks. The water level rose
for three days -sometimes at a pace of an
inch an hour -before cresting at 54.3 feet
(more than 26 feet above the flood stage) on
April 21 . CNN quoted one witness as saying
the river behaved like "a steadily climbing
animal." The 500-year flood spread muddy
water over more than half of Grand Forks
and almost all of East Grand Forks.
Nearly every resident of the two cities was
forced to leave their home, and most
returned to find their property damaged. In
On e of three stepped hy draulic drop s tru ctures which co nvey water from the En g lish Coulee Divers ion
approximately 30 feel down to th e Red River of th e North. In set: example of previous drop s tructu res .
downtown Grand Forks , flooding triggered
an electrical malfunction in an historic
building. With firefighters hampered by the
flood , the fire spread to l l buildings.
In response to the flood , the U .S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) district office
in St. Paul , Minn ., worked with both
communities to formulate a plan to mitigate
the area 's flood risk. Their stated goal was to
"develop a permanent, comprehensive flood
damage reduction project incorporating
recreation and aesthetic features ." A General
Re-evaluation Report and an Environmental
Impact Statement were completed in 1999.
Numerous design options were considered,
ranging from taking no action at all to a
complete diversion of the Red River around
Grand Forks. The preferred alternative
USACE identified included a mu lti-phase
approach to widening the floodway and
constructing new levees .
English Coulee Diversion
Phase 1 of the levee construction program
began in summer 200 I and has since been
completed . HDR was called in by USACE
to assist with Phase 2 of the Red River flood
control project, the English Coulee
Diversion . Phase 2 included excavation of
more than 1.1 million cubic yards of
material in order to construct 4 miles of new
channe l and widen 3.5 miles of existing
channel. The project team developed a
hydraulic model of the proposed diversion
route using HEC-RAS to evaluate various
channel a lignments and alternatives. The
team also sized hydraulic structures and
prepared two design documentation reports
to track work progression .
Civil design for the English Coulee
Diversion included planning utility
relocations , evaluating which residences and
businesses would need to be relocated ,
raising major interstate freeways and
redesigning Interstate 29 and U .S. Highway
81 . Geotechnical design covered the
evaluation of slope stability and the
behavior of a lkali soils. Structural design of
deep pile foundations included considera-
tion of both soi l and hydraulic loading .
Design Challenges
One of the most significant obstacles in the
design of the English Coulee Diversion was
the existence of very soft and highly plastic
clays in the soil. Such unstable soil typica ll y
makes for poor levee material because it is
difficult to handle and weakens when
-
Building a Team of Experts
Engineers from multiple offices ond subcontractors colloborated on the English Coulee
Diversion, allowing each to focus on his or her area of expertise. The result wos o com-
plex ond comprehensive design pockage that included the following services :
• Prelim inary & Final Design • Alternative Assessments
• Contract Drawings & Specifications • Hydraulic Design
• Quantity Take -Offs • Interior Rood Control
• Design of Gates & Hoists • Foundation Design
• Computer-aided Design & Drafting • Steel & Concrete Design
• Geotechnical Design • Utility Coordination
• M-CACES Cost Estimating • Structural Design
• Local Flood Protection • Mechanical Design
compacted . The designers accounted for these unique , but les s than
favorable soil conditions by developing a massive embankment
section with flat side s lo pes and large crest widt h.
The task of managing a project with such a broad spectrum of
stakeholders and technical discip lines proved to be a formidable
challenge in its own right. The primary goal was providing flood
protection to the communities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks.
But the project team also had to satisfy requirements set forth by the
North Dakota Department of Transportation , USACE and the Grand
Forks County Highways Department. In the end , the design included
considerations for hydraulic , geotechnical, roadway, traffi c,
structural and safety issue s.
Typical channel crossing along th e English Co ulee Diversion. Each stmcture uses
fo ur 15-foot x I 0-foot pre-cast reinforced concrete box culverts.
Diversion we ir directs high flows to the Eng lis h Coulee Diversion. Lower flows
travel to a coulee system to maintain a natural channel ecosystem.
Conclusion
Today, as co nstruction of the Eng lish Coulee Diversion nears
comp letion and the next phase in the levee expansion plan gets
underway, the people of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks are
nearing the day when they no longer have to live in fear of the next
great flood. At a total estimated cost of more than $405 million , that
peace of mind may appear to carry a heavy price . But when
compared wi th the estimated $1 billion to $1.5 billion in losse s
incurred in the most recent disa ster alone , it could be argued that the
Red River flood protection program is as cos t-effecti ve as it is
reassuring .
Bob Beduhn can be reached at HDR 's Minneapolis, Minn ., office at
(763) 59 1-54 60 or e-mail bo b.beduhn @hdrinc.com
Visual Simulation Provides Glimpse into the Futures of Proieds
By Carl lhxzycbsky and Eric Ruby
Sa•ple of Additional
Applications that Mi9ht leneflt
fro• Visual Si•ulatlon:
• Post-development mrridor onolysis
• Arditedurol and IJ'bon desi,i sludies
• Grading design and slope
suitability models
• AlternotiYes ewluotion
• Public outreach and COll1llM1ily ilMllYement
• Entitlement ossislonce
• Shade and shadow analysis
• Oes9i guideline implementation
• Mitigation evaluation
View-s hed model for a water s torage reservoir project in San Diego County. Red overlay indicates areas where th e p roposed
tank would be vis ible. Pho tos below demons tra te how true 3-D models allow analysis fro m any p ersp ecti ve.
• Coosensus building
Whether it 's a critical public hearing to discuss the aesthetic
impact of a large reservoir or a topographic look at a
residential development site, visual simulation provides a
flexible and potentially comprehensive set of tools for analyzing a
broad range of engineering projects .
For example, the San Vicente Pipeline project in San Diego County,
Calif., involved placement of a series of access shafts adjacent to an
approved housing development for the purpose of completing
underground construction . Existing topography, grading elevations
from the residential development plan and the shaft designs were
used to create multiple 3-D elevation models . The process involved
seaming the three components into a single , complete topography ;
converting that topography into a 3-D Triangular Irregular Network
(TIN); draping an aerial photograph and polygons for the major
grading scars onto the TIN ; and , finally, adding structures such as
houses, the road and bridge design and the shaft structure . The client
used the final images to choose the most viable alternative for this
high-profile site .
Visual Simulation Use and Methodology
Project presentation can be a difference maker when it comes to
stakeholder buy-in and establishing community consensus. For this
reason , using visual simulation to create a model offers a powerful
mechanism for communicating specific project objectives to an
audience. In cases such as the San Vicente Pipeline, where public
perception was of vital concern, visual simulations also can be a
valuable tool for conveying complex technical concepts in a manner
that allows the layperson to understand the parameters of a project.
Utilizing true 3-D modeling that is based on geo-referenced data ,
virtually any view or direction can be achieved with minimal difference
in time or cost. This provides the added benefit of facilitating the
integration of design changes throughout the course of a project.
The mo st basic form of GIS-based 3-D simulation is digital terrain
modeling . Using data from a variety of sources, including Digital
Elevation Models from U.S. Geological Survey and survey-derived
CAD topography, analysts are able to create a bare-earth surface
image of the project terrain. By then draping an orthorectified
aerial photograph or satellite image over the model , it makes visual
referencing of individual project components dramatically easier for
the non-technical eye . An additional layer of sophistication comes
from including structures , vegetation and other project components
-resulting in an enhanced, realistic view that permits thorough
analysis of potential view-shed impacts.
Practical Applicatio ns
In a recent presentation to the Otay Water District in southern San
Diego County, HDR provided visual simulations of proposed water
reservoirs , in part to address concerns about line of sight issues. A
simulation was created from the perspective of a nearby re sidence,
and view-shed impact maps were used to define surrounding regions
-
that might have a clear line of sigh t to the proposed 2-million-gallon
water tanks. With the visual simulation technology available today,
analysts were able to produce these models in less than two days .
One private sector industry that has embraced visual simulation and
the correlating assessment tools is residential development, which
uses project models for a variety of applications. A clear example
would be fulfilling visual impact assessment requirements of
environmental laws such as the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Triangulated Irregular Network of proposed grading,
with fi1ture bridge and planned sing le-family residen ces
before "seam ing " th e model into project photos for
more reali stic simulations.
Developers also are
turning to GIS for 3-D
analysis that stretches
beyond modeling for
visual impacts . The
Saddleback Meadows
development in Orange
County, Calif., for
example, took a model
that originally was
developed for visual
purposes and used the
information to analyze
slope conditions .
When compared with compatibility guidelines from the county,
the data became a decision support tool that impacted the overall
design of the project.
In some instances , visual simulation plays a key role in determining
what action should be taken. The Canyon Lake Sedimentation Study
and Improvement Project, conducted for the Lake Elsinore and San
Jacinto Watershed Authority, is such a project. Using data collected
by field biologists , analysts generated 3-D models of the lakebed
surface and sediment surface of this several-hundred-acre body of
water. The models enabled a detailed assessment of sediment level s
and accumulation, which was used as the primary decision support
tool in determining whether dredging and sediment removal was
necessary.
Conclusion
Beyond environmental sciences and resource management, the potential
applications for visual simulation are as vast as the breadth of projects
that engineers delve into on a daily basis .
Carl Moczydlowsky can be reached at HDR 's San Diego office at
(858)712-8370 or e-mail carlm @hdrinc.com
Eric Ruby can be reached at HDR's San Diego office at (858) 712-8324 or
e-mail eruby@hdrinc.com .
A Stream Corridor
~ _.. ...........
1111111
Ut~lVERsITY
<!! VIRGINIA
for Local Governments
A Stream Corridor Protect ion Strateg y for Local Governmen t s
Production of this g uid e was made p ossib le b y a grant fr o m the Land , Growt h and Stewardship Sub co mmi ttee of the Chesapeake Bay
Program and by the Virginia Enviro nmental Endowment . Karen F ir eh ock is the author a nd exec utive editor. UVA G raduate
research associates and contrib uting authors a re David Tipson, Lynn Osgood a nd John Hoover. Illu strati o n s adapted by Lynn
Osgood . T im Lewis is the manuscript editor. We wish to thank the following individuals a nd organizations fo r contributing their
time and expertise to reviewing t h is g u ide.
Nancy Butowski , Natural Resource Biologist, Fisheries
Services, Maryland D epartment of Natural Resources
R ick Cooksey , Forest R esource Planner, USDA Fo rest Se rvi ce
Scott C r afton , Chief of Environ m enta l Engineering,
C h esa p eak e Bay Local Assistance D e partme nt, Virginia
Frank D awson , Director, Regional Chesapeake Bay Program,
faryland Department of Natural R esources
Pat Devlin , Director of In forma t io n Services, Alliance fo r the
Chesapeake Bay, Pennsylvania
Lee E p stein , Direct or of the Lands Program, C h esapeake Bay
Foundation , Maryland
Regin a Esslinger, C h ief, Project Evaluation Division,
Chesapeake Bay C r itical Area Commission , Maryland
D e l a no R . Graff, Director (retired), Bureau of Fisheries,
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commiss ion
Lee H ill , Shoreline Engineer , Dept. of Con servation and
R ec r eation , Virginia
D avid H ir schman, Wate r Reso urces Man age r, Albemarle
County Department of Engineer in g, Virginia
Lloyd W. H opkins, Jr., Chairm a n, Berks County Planning
Commission , Pennsylvania
R. Eric J a rre ll , Principal Environmental Planner,
Montgomery County Planning Comm issio n , Pennsylvania
Steve Koehn , Director of the Fo rest Se rvice, Maryland
Department of Natura l R eso u rces
L yn n Langer , Chief, Water shed Support Section , Bureau of
Watershed Management, PA Department of Environmental
P rotection
Sh ep Moon , Principal Planner , Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department, Virginia
Gene Odat o , C hi ef of the Rura l and Com munity Forestry
Sec t ion , Bureau of Fores try, Departm ent of Con servation and
Natu ra l Resources , Pennsy lvania
D o n Outen , Natural Resource Manager , Baltimore County
D ep artment of Environmental Protection and R eso urce
Management, Maryland
Colli n Power s , Former Tributary Strategy T eam Leader,
D ep a rtment of Environmental Quality, Virgi nia
R ichard R o th , Ph.D., Associate P rofesso r , Radford
Univ e rsity, Virginia
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governm ents
I
Introduction .......................... v
'Chesapeake 2 000' Bay Agreem ent . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Audien ce For and Use of This Gu id e .. .v
Appendices ...................................... v1
Cha_gter One:
The Benefits of Local Stream Protection ... 1
Stream Functions and Valu es ........................ 1
The Need For a Stream Corridor Protection Strategy .... 2
C lean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 2
Regional and Multi-State R est oration / Protec tion Goa ls .2
Local Valu es of Stream Protection . . . . . . .2
Why Adopt a Str eam Corridor Protection Strategy ? ... 3
..... 3 Loca l Planning Iss u es
Regional Planning I ssue s . . ..... . ........... 3
Fisca l Co nsideration s ........... . . ........... 3
Chapter Two:
Assessing a Stream's Current Condition
and Future Impacts Upon It ............ 5
Assessing a Str eam 's Current Conditi o n ............... 5
Co nsideration s For A ssessi ng a Stream's Co ndition ..... 5
H ealth of a Stream 's Aquatic Life .................. 5
Habitat Concerns ........................... 6
Use of Federa l S tandard s For Stream Qua lity ... 7
Assessing Future Impacts O n a Stream ................ 7
Chapter Three:
Deciding on a Protection Strategy ....... 9
Elements of a Stream Protection Strategy .............. 9
Determining the Strategy 's Approach ............... 10
Se tting Goal s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Setting Objectives ............................. 11
Timeframe .................................. 12
Project Scale and Scope ..... . .................. 12
Pi lot or D emonstration Projects ................... 13
Resources and Funding . . . . . . . . . ................. 13
C onsidering the Adequacy of Existing Programs ....... 14
Building Community Suppo rt ...................... 15
Concerns o f K ey Con stituencies .... · ................. 15
Chapter Four:
Tools for a Stream Protection Strategy ... 17
Too ls That Apply To Ev er y State .................... 17
D evelopment Ri g hts .............................. 18
Overlay Zon in g .................................. 19
W at er Qual ity Protection Ordinan ces ................ 19
Chapter 5:
Creating and Managing Buffers ........ 23
Id entifying the Stream -The Perennia lity Debate ...... 23
Methods for D etermining Buffer Width .............. 23
U niform Width ........................... 23
Stream Order M ethod ..................... 24
State-Designated Uses .............. 24
Landscape Features . . . . . ............. 24
Multip le Valu es ............................... 24
Stream Zones ................................ 25
Managing Buffe r s ................................. 25
D esign Options and R equ irements ................. 25
Management and Maintenanc e ................... 25
Managem ent Plans ............................ 26
Per mitted Uses ........................... 26
R es tricted U ses ............................... 26
Prohibited Uses . . . . . ................... 27
Best Managem ent Practices to Improve Buffer Performance .27
Selecti ng BMPs .............................. 28
In-Stream Management ........................ 28
Stormwater BMPs ...................... 29
Preve ntive Measure s ........................... 29
Chapter Six:
Monitoring and Maintenance .......... 31
Components of an Effective Monitoring Plan ......... 31
Mo ni toring BMPs ............................. 31
BMP Mai ntenance ................................ 31
Other Maintenance M eth ods ..................... 32
Evaluation and Enforcement ....................... 32
Fa cilities agree m ents ..................... .33
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments ii
Chapter Seven:
Case Studies ......................... 35
Mar y land ....................................... 3S
• Regu lations for t he Prot ect ion of Water Quality, Streams,
Wetlands and F loodplains, Ba ltimore County
• R esource Protec tion Overlay Zone, Charles County
• "L et 's Be Partners ... Water Poll ution: What We Can Do
to R ed uce and Prevent It ", B a lti more Co unty
• Ci ty of Gaithersbu rg Environm en ta l Standards,
Gaithersburg
Virgi n ia ......................................... 38
• S tream Assessmen t /Waters hed Management Program,
I-Jenrico Cou nty
• D ifficu lt Run Riparian Projec t , Fairfax County
• Green Infrastruc ture Plan, Loudoun County
• Wa ter Protectio n Ordinance , A lbemarl e County
• SWAMP -Southern Waters hed Management Program
Pennsy lva nia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ .41
• Citizen Voluntee r Monitori ng Program
• D onega l Creek R estoration Project , Lancaster County
• Guidebook for Riparian Corridor Prese rvation ,
M on tgomery Co unty
Appendix A:
Resource List ....................... .45
R iparian Con se r vation ............................. 4S
Land P lanning .................................. .4S
Str ea m Ecology and R estoration .................... .46
W etlands ........................................ 46
W e b Sites ....................................... 47
Map s ........................................... 47
Perio dical s ...................................... .4 7
Vi d eo ........................................... 47
Monitorin g ...................................... 47
Appendix B:
Federal, Regional and State Programs . .49
F ed eral Progr a m s ................................. 49
Co ns ervation R ese rve Progra m (C RP) . . . . . . . . . .49
Co ns ervation R ese rve Enhancem ent P rogra m (C R EP) .. 49
Co nse rv a tio n Buffer In itiative .................... 49
Wi ldlife H abi tat Incen tives Prog ram (WHIP) .49
S teward ship In ce ntives Progra m (S IP) .... .49
E nvironm enta l Quality Ince ntives Program (EQIP) .... SO
We tland R eserve Program (WRP) . . . . . . . . . . . SO
E m erge ncy Watershed Protec ti on Program . . . . . . . . . SO
Na tional Park S ervice, R ivers and Trai ls
Con se rvatio n Assistance Progra m ................ SO
R egional P rog r ams ................................ SO
C hesapea ke Bay Program ....................... SO
iv Tabl e of Contents
State Program s -Maryla n d ......................... SO
Mary land Stream l~eL e af Plan ................... SO
Mary land Critica l Area Commission ............... S l
Buffer In centive Progra m . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 5 1
fncome Tax Modification Program ......... 51
Forest Stewardship Program ..................... 51
Fore st Cons ervation and Management Program (FCMP) .. 51
Woodland Incentive Program . . . . . . . . . 51
Mary land Agricultura l Water Qua lity
Cost-S hare Prog ram (MACS ) ............. SJ
Small Creek s and E stuaries R eserve Program ........ 52
Chesapeake Bay Tru st . . . . ............. S2
State Co n tacts . . . . . .......... 52
State Progr ams -Pennsylvania ...................... S2
Growing Gre ener -State wide .................... 52
K eys tone Fund -DCNR ........................ S2
Stream R eLeaf -DEP . . . ................. S2
Stream Imp rovement Pro gram -DEP .............. S3
Penn sy lv ania Stream Bank Fencing Program -DEP ... S3
Pennsy lvania Rivers Conservation Program .......... 53
State No npoint Sourc e Pollution Program -DEP ..... S3
Citizen Volunteer Monitoring Program (CVMP) ...... 53
e~C~......... . ................ D
State Co ntacts ............................... 53
State Progr am s -Vi r ginia ........................... S4
Riparian B uffer Initiative ....................... 54
Water Quality Manage ment Plans ................ S4
Agricu ltura l Stewardship Program ................ 54
Nonpo int Source Progra m ....................... S4
Virginia Agricultura l B MP Cost-Share Program .. 54
Chesa pea k e Bay Restora tion Fund
(License Plate Progra m) ....................... 54
Water Qual ity Impro vem ent Fund ................. 54
Virgi nia's S tormwa ter Managem en t Prog ram (SWM) .. S5
Virginia S hore line Erosion Advisory Service (SEAS) ... 55
Coasta l No npoint Source Pollution Co n tro l P rogram ... 55
CBLA D and Virgi nia's B ay Act Progra m ........... SS
Virgi nia 's Ci tizen Monitoring P rogram ............. S5
State C ontac ts ............................... 5S
St ate Program s -Distric t o f Colu m b ia ............... SS
Federa l Agency P lans .......................... S5
District of Co lumbia Co n tacts .................... S6
O rganization s .................................... S6
Appendix C:
Legislation and Agreements ........... 57
Fed er a l Legislat io n ................................ S7
R egio n a l Agr ee m en ts .............................. S8
St at e Legislatio n .................................. S8
~f ts~~~;~ ?: .......................... 63
As efforts to protect the Chesapeake
Bay have expanded, there has been a
growing awareness that the fate of th e
Bay does n ot lie simply in the hand s of
the fis herm en who ply its ferti le waters,
the in dustr ies or power plants a long its
shores, or th e p eople w h o make th e Bay
and nearby environs their home. The
Bay's rivers and streams are its arteries
and se rv e as nursery gro und s for impor-
tant co mmer cial fishe ry stock, s uch as
ee ls or blu e crabs. Increasingly, it is rec-
ognized th at the rivers and streams that
feed the Bay mu st a lso be clean and
healthy, if the Bay is to regain much of
its fo rmer life and productivity.
'Chesapeake 2000' Bay Agreement
The C h esap eake Bay Program, fo rmed
in 1983 by the first C hesapeake Bay
Agreement , is a unique regional partner-
ship leading and directing the restora -
tion of the C hesapeake Bay. The Bay
Program partners incl u d e the states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania and Vi rginia;
the District of Columbi a; the
Chesapeake Bay Commi ssion, a tri-state
legislative body; the U.S. E nviro nmental
Protection Agency (EPA), wh ic h r epre -
sents the fed eral gove rnm ent; and par-
ticipating citizen advisory groups.
For n ea rl y twenty years the Bay
Program partners have so u ght to protect
and restore this unparall e led resource.
The second Chesapea k e Bay Agreement,
adopted in 198 7, esta bl is h ed a visio n for
the Bay's restoration. Its goals incl ud ed
proposed reductions of h armful nutri-
ents . In 1992, the Bay Program m oved
upstream , with strategies for attacking
nutrients at their so urces in the Bay 's
tributaries. The C hesapeake Exec utive
Counci l (CEC)-co mposed of the
Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania
and Virginia; the Mayor of Washington ,
D .C.; the EPA Admi ni str ator; a nd the
Chair of th e Chesapeake Bay
Commi ssion -sig n ed fi ve directives in
1993 that add ressed ke y areas to be
restored. These areas included the trib -
u taries, toxi cs, unde rwate r Bay grasses,
fish passages and ag ri cul t ural nonpoint
so urce pol lution. In 1994, the partn ers
o utl ined initiatives to restore aquatic ,
riparian and upl and habitats , reduce
nutrients in th e Bay's tributaries and
r edu ce toxics , emphasizing the preven -
tion of pollu tion .
Throughout the 199 0s, the Bay Progr am
developed programs to engag e local gov-
e rnments in the Bay restoration effort,
es tablished priorities for land, growth
and stewardship throu ghout the Bay
region, set goals to increase riparian for -
est buffer s, ren ewe d commitments to
red uce nutrients in the Bay, ex panded
wetlands protection and broadened its
support for community-based wa tershed
res toration efforts .
On June 28, 2000, the CEC sig ned
C hesapeake 2000 -a co mprehensive and
far-reach in g Bay Agreement that will
guide the Bay Program p artners through
the year 2010 in their combined efforts
to co ntinu e to res tore and protect the
C h esapeake Bay. Chesapeake 2000 out-
lines ninety -three co mmitm ents, d etail -
ing protec tion and r es toration goals criti -
cal to the h ea lth of the Bay wate rsh ed . It
pledges to in crease riparian forest
buffer s, preserve addi ti onal tracts of
land , restore oyster populations a nd pro -
t ec t wetlands . Chesa peake 2000 foc u ses
on improving water quality as the most
critical element in the overall protection
and r estorat ion of the Bay and its tribu -
taries.
In recognition of the importance of th ese
arteries, C hesapeake 2000' Bay
Agreement includes a number of goa ls
related to Bay trib utari es, su ch as: "By
2002, ens ure that measures are in place
to meet our rip arian for est buffer
restoration goa l of 2,0 10 mil es by 2010 ."
The agreement also calls for local water-
shed m anage m ent plan s to b e dev ised
and implemented by 2010 in two-thirds
of the Bay 's watershed. Goals for the
reduction of nutri en t loadings, standards
fo r aquatic liJe and other criteria ar e also
found in the n ew Bay Agree m ent.
(ommitmerlt 2.2 of
t~e (~es«pe«ke 2000
13«1.f A9reemerlt
"By 2010, work with local governments, commu-
nity groups and watershed organizations to
develop and implement locally supported water-
shed management plans in two-thirds of the Bay
watershed covered by the Agreement. These
plans should address the protection, conserva-
tion and restoration of stream corridors, riparian
buffers and wetlands for the purpose of improv-
ing habitat and water quality, with collateral
benefits for optimizing stream flow and quality."
Audience for and Use of This Guide
This g u ide is intended for local gove rn -
ment planne rs, engi neers , planning com-
missioners, boards of s upervisors and
city and town counci lors. Secondary
audien ces includ e environmen tal
gro ups, civic groups, n e ighborhood
associations and others who may use the
g uid e to plan projects or to s u ggest pro -
grams to their elec ted officials and gov -
ernment staffs . The guide may also b e of
interest to those engaged in funding
decisions, in or der to help them develop
funding priorities.
This g u ide was developed to help local
government staff and oth ers formu late a
protection strategy for th eir stream(s), in
order t o protect the h ealth of their co m -
munities a nd , ultimate ly, of t h e
C h esa peake Bay. It can a lso b e utilized
to help local gove rnments develop a
process for meeting Commitment 2 .2 .
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for Local G overnments V
for developing watershed plans. The
g uid e is intended as a reference tool, a
primer for project planning and a g uide
for the development of n ew too ls to pro -
tect and restore stream corridors.
Appendices
Some readers may want more back-
gro und on a particular state program or
on relevant regulations and management
approach es . To avoid the problems of
providing too much information to read -
ers who already have extensive knowl-
edge, the following background infor -
mation h as been placed in a series of
appen di ces at the en d of the guide:
• Appendix A provides a resources a nd
references for topics di scussed in the
guide.
• Appendi x B describes federa l, regional
and state programs.
• Append ix C cove r s relevant legislation
and agr eements .
• Appendix Dis a G lo ssary of Terms
used in thi s guide.
Vi Introduction
Strean1s serve as the circu latory sys-
tem for our land . The system (the hydro -
lo gic cy cl e) m oves water thro ugh the envi-
rorunent as surface water, gro und water
and vapor, and also stores it in vegetation.
Once water fa lls from the sky as rain onto
the land, it drain s from that land into a
particular riv er or body of water. That
land area is known as a waters h ed. Taking
care of our streams req uires taki n g care of
a watershed's land , sin ce land runoff is a
principal source of stream pollution. For
instance , th e U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that
more than half of all stream poll uti on
co m es from land runoff, which can con-
tain pollutants such as sediment, oil, fecal
material, fertiliz ers and pesticides.
Stream corridors provide vital n etwork s
fo r wil dlife and, in many urban areas,
streams are thei r la st remaini ng habitat.
Streams surrounded by a healthy mix of
native vegetati on incl udin g grasses,
shrubs and trees can b e buffer ed from
the effects of s urrounding land us es,
which might otherwise h arm the stream .
This chapte r pro vi des an overview of why
it is important to protect streams and the
valu es and fun ction s that they provide.
Under standing strean1 valu es (s uch as
flood co ntrol ) and ensurin g that their
functions (s uch as water storage and
transport) are not hindered are criti cal to
achievi ng a successful stream protec tion
strategy.
w~terslied:
An area of land that drains into a particular river
or body of water. The watershed includes its
associated groundwater. High land forms serve
as watershed divides. Several watersheds
together form a drainage basin.
I
I I
The Benefits of L ocal Stream Protection
Stream Functions and Values
Streams a nd floodplains are not onl y
land scap e features they also perform
important fun cti ons , s u ch as the s torage
and tran sportation of la nd runoff.
U nde rstandin g how streams function is
criti cal to the adoption of feasib le strate-
gies fo r th ei r management.
All too o ft e n , planne rs and elec t ed offi-
cia ls onl y con sider the n eed to more
effective ly manage str eam chan n els after
a fl ood event, when they mu st deal with
the costs associated with emerge n cy
repai r s and th e loss of p roperty and
li ves. They fail to reali ze that the ca u ses
of increased flooding a n d str eam damage
ar e often the resu lt o f changes to the
watersh ed 's land deve lopment patte rns,
which may have m odifi ed th e hy drologic
reg ime so that storm fl ows peak higher
and faster than befo re, ca u sing greater
in -s tream bank erosion, stream bed
sco uri ng and habitat d amage.
Streams normall y chan ge th eir co urse
over time, so m eti me s dramati ca ll y, du e
to natural causes su ch as hurri canes or
avalan ches. H owever , dram atic changes
can a lso b e wrought by the s udd en
p aving of portions of the wate rshed.
Increasing th e amount of pav ement in a
watershed, or eve n chan gi n g la nd use
from forests to fields, can greatly
in cr ease di sc harge to stream s, since both
of these greatly reduce land p e rmea bili ty
and soi l storage . Eventua ll y, a stream
will adjust t o a n ew eq uil ibrium, but thi s
may take many yea rs, or eve n d ecades ,
to achieve. A stream 's channel , se dime nt
load and phys ical patterns, suc h as it s
si nuosity (c urviness), mu st r e-adj ust t o
flows that are higher and / or sudden ly
carrying increased se diment and debris .
A stream wi ll work to gain a new equi -
lib rium to match alte red rates o f runoff
from the land .
The notion that streams perform physi-
cal functions ca n be understood by
thi nking about th e va ll eys ca u se d b y the
process of erosion, whereby streams
carry away the sedi m ent and organic
matter was h ed fro m m o untain s and se rve
to carve pathways through our land -
scap e, changi n g in response to floods,
geo logic uplift , h uman a lterations, cli -
matic changes and other factors. Events
such as floods also se rve an important
function in deposition of ri ch soi ls within
the fl oodplai n that nouri sh the floo d -
p lain's vegetation , whi ch in turn n ourish-
es wildlife . U nderstanding how streams
fun ction is key to devising a su ccess ful
approach to protec ting them. For ex am -
p le, an approach that does not facto r in
the n atural t endency of the stream to
flood may result in loss of prope rty a nd
even lives. In urban watersheds , people
A Stream Corridor P ro tec tion Strategy for Local Governments 1
may not have left roo m for a stream to
change its pattern becau se the floodp lain
has already been deve loped .
The Need for a Stream Co rridor
Protection Strategy
There are many reaso n s a lo ca lity may
decide to deve lop a st rat egy to protect a
particular str eam or t h e tributaries of an
entire wa t ershed. Regu latory drivers,
such as t he new Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) and Stormwater provi -
sions of the federal Clean Water Act, or
the need to provide clean water supplies
under provisions of the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act may heighten the
n eed to protect surface waters.
Alternative ly, the need t o conform with
state provisions, such as Virginia 's
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act or
Marylan d's Critical Area Act may
require local governments to engage in
watershed protection.
Cle an Water Act
Government agencies at the federa l ,
regional , st ate and local level have bee n
taking a greater interest in preventi n g t h e
impact of excess storm water, as new
requirem en ts for contro ll ing sto r mwater
come in to p lay. The fe d eral Clean Water
Act (C WA) requires that cities and
urbanized co u nties with populations
greater than 100 ,000 p eople deve lop
stormwat er managemen t plans and
obtain d ischar ge permits for stormwater
outfall s. As a result , municipalities wh ich
fa ll un d er these req uirem en ts are havi n g
to implem en t new co ntro ls for storm wa-
ter ru n off and can no lon ge r simply al low
runoff to fl ow directly in to streams
thou gh stormwater disc h arge pipes.
Other new regulatory requirements that
are now taking effect in cl u de the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Progr am un der the fe d eral CWA, which
requires th at states set p o ll ution co ntrol
pl ans fo r impaired rive rs and stream s.
(For more on TMDLs and other reg ul a-
t ions , see Appendix C).
These new programs may cost states and
m u nicipali ties millions of dollars to tack -
le. Plannin g n ow allows local and state
agencies to take a phased approach to
addressin g stream probl ems and wi ll not
onl y save mon ey over the long term , b u t
wi ll also a ll ow more c reative and effec-
tive solutions to these problems.
Examples of how potential solutions can
be applied are found throughout this
guide.
Regional and Multi-State
Restoration/Protection Goals
There are also regional and multi-state
requireme nts that drive watershed pro -
tection effo rts . With a 64,000 square
mile drainage basin e ncompassi ng
Maryland, Pennsy lva n ia , Virginia, the
District of Columbia and parts of New
York and West Virginia, the health of the
Chesapeake is directly dependent u pon
the quality of the streams that feed it.
Bay drainage map
The Chesapeake 2000 Bay Agreeme n t
signed by the Governors of Maryland ,
Vi rgi n ia, Pennsylvania and the Mayor of
the District of Columbia's establis h es
volu n tary goals for stream protectio n
across the basin . Fo r example, it ca ll s fo r
each jurisdiction to develop guidelin es
by 20 01 fo r t h e aquatic health of streams
and to develop stream co r ridor resto ra -
tion goals based on loca l watershed man -
agement planning by 2004 . This g u id e
can assist plann e rs, watershed managers
and elected officials effectively imple-
ment such p lanning.
2 C hapter O ne: The B enefi ts of Local S tr ea m P ro tection
Local Val ues of
Stream Protection
Apart from regulatory drivers , a locality
also may decide to improve stream pro-
tection measures to enhance or protect
eco nomic values. One ex ample of this
wou ld be if a town wants to promote
tourism using a riverwa lk promenade
that depends on a clean and healthy
waterway. Nature-based tourism, or
'ecotourism,' is another economic ration -
ale that can lead to efforts to protect
streams . For example, Virginia 's Nelson
County is a largel y rura l, mountainous
co unty that is continually seeking to pro -
mote its 'natural heritage ' as a way to
bring n ee ded tourism dollars to the
cou nty. A key aspect of promoting he r -
itage tourism in Nelson Cou nty is pro-
tectin g the health of the Rockfish River
for u ses such as fly fishing and canoeing.
Community values may serve to form
the pri nci pal driving force for stream
protection. For example, a community-
level initiative led to the creation of
Minimum In-Stream Flow (MIF) stan -
dard s for Virgi n ia's Mau ry River in the
mid 1990s, Citizens wa n ted to ensure
that fishing, boating and eco logical
health wou ld not be harmed by low
flows resulting from excessive water
withdrawals.
Pressures of development
While the C lean Water Act (CWA) has
done much to protect strean1s and r ivers
from the runoff of large ind u strial and
m un icipal dischargers, the rapid pace of
development in the Bay's watershed s h as
res ul ted in more paved s urfaces . T hese
have caused higher runoff, which ca rries
contaminants that are harmful to s u rface
and ground water . It is estimated that
the population east of Interstate 9 S will
continue to grow rapid ly on the lands
closest to the Chesapeake Bay. This pop -
ulation boom will make the goal of pro-
tecting and restoring the Chesapeake all
the more diffic ul t .
Protecting streams and rivers from t h e
impact of population growth will not
only help to protect the Bay, but also the
quality of life for loca l residents, busi-
nesses and stream-dependent fish an d
wild life. A s growth occurs, the demand
for drinking water supplies increases.
Streams that may not have been co n sid-
ered a priority are suddenly eyed as th e
key to n ew d eve lopment . Also , as com-
munities grow, groundwater so urces
may dissipate as limited aquifers are
tapped by more we ll s. A s our under -
standing about contamin a nts has
expanded , so have t h e standards
required to prevent the co ntamination of
public drinking water supplies.
Community strategies
Communiti es should look to implement-
ing protection strat egies n ow, in o rd er to
e n sure th e safety of futur e drinking
water supplies, fifty perce nt of which
co me from surface wa t er. In the long
run , it is much less ex pen sive to e nsure
that today's land uses do not harm the
futur e of the strea m as a source of drink -
ing than it is to try to restore the quality
of the stream afte r it has been d eg rad ed.
Whether a locality see ks to protect
streams for reg ulatory, eco n omic or eco-
logi ca l reason s, the approach taken mu st
incorporate a thoro ugh under standing of
the stream 's ecological fun ctions and the
val u es people place on those fun ctions.
Thi s is not only critical to e nsurin g that
the goals of a stream protection strategy
are met, but al so to d esigning projects of
an appro priate sca le, focus a nd
approach . Those co mmunities that
devise successfu l stream protec tion
strateg ies today wi ll not only reap the
rewards of healthy, desirabl e communi -
ties , but will a lso avoid expensive clean -
up cos ts in the future . Failure to plan is
planning to fail .
Why Adopt a Stream Corridor
Protection Strategy?
While federal and state programs man -
date requirements fo r stream protec tion,
su ch as prohibitions against dumping,
streams cannot b e protected adequately
simply through adheren ce to federal and
state regulations . Despite the protec tions
afforded by the CWA, en forceme nt of
statutes is often lacking b ecause of inad e-
quate staffing and resources to police vio-
lations. Also, probl ems may be caused,
not b y willful destruction or harm, but by
lack of awaren ess on the part of property
owners or local gove rnm ents.
An example of this was a se dim ent prob-
lem in a northern Virgin ia creek that was
cau se d by lack of req ui site erosio n control
m easures on th e part of a county utility
proj ec t . A nother example was when a
local creek s uffered a myst eri o u s annual
fish kill. It turned out to b e th e res ult of a
private sw imming club e mptying ch lori-
nated wate r directly to the creek without
using a holdin g pond to allow the water to
d echlorinate . I n both cases, t h e law was
adequ ate; it was enforcem ent that was
lacki n g. A stream protection strategy can
se rve t o build awareness and compli ance
wit h existing regulatio n s. In both cases
described above , com munity vol unteers
tr ained in stream regu lations fo und and
rep orted th e violations led to so lvi ng
these lon g -standing pollution problems .
When devising a stream protectio n
strategy, it is equall y importa nt to con -
sider the n eed to p la n for future protec -
tion. For example, a loca l Soi l and Water
Con se rvation District is currently la ying
p lans for the protectio n of a creek in the
Middle] ames River Watershed, so that
watershed d eve lopment will n ot pre-
clude u si n g it as a drinking water so urce
in the future. The distr ict is not seekin g
to halt development per se, but wo rking
to put co n se rvation m easures in p la ce
now, to miti gate excessive runoff from
futur e d evelo pment.
Local P l anning I ssues
Many loc al planning issu es are linked to
stream protec t ion , so lo cal groups n ee d
to under stand how these r elate to local
protection m eas ures. For example, in
C harlottesvill e, Virgi nia, th e debate ov er
wh ether or not to ban free -roam ing d ogs
from severa l ci t y parks was more co m -
pl ex than si mpl y an iss ue of public safe-
t y. Moore's cr ee k , which border s so m e of
the parks , is on the s tate's 303(d ) li st for
clean-up because it con tains feca l co n -
tamination in excess of state and fe d er a l
standards. Thus, proposals for 'dog
parks ' along the creek would need to
co n si der th e impact on the mandated
clean-up plan , in order to avoid adding
more fecal co ntaminants to the creek . In
the past, loca l gove rnm ent officials
might n ot h ave consid ered th e impact of
th e CWA on a city dog ord inance, but
this is not the case today.
In a s imilar ve in , local governments n eed
to coordinate their ac tivities across juris -
dictional boundaries. For example, rap -
idly developing areas in Virginia a re
inc reasingly looking t o fill water needs
via inter-basi n water transfers. One
co unty may eye a stream fo r future
drinking water suppli es wh ile an
upstr eam co unty may be planning to site
a futu re wastewater treatment plant on
the same str eam . Or, two states may
share a la r ge water basin, su ch as the
Anacostia Ri ver , whi ch drains a large
portion of Maryland and the District of
Colum bia , or the Potomac, which is
drain ed by D .C . and Virginia and por -
tions of West Virginia. Coop eration and
effecti ve steward ship are n ee d ed by a ll
states and lo caliti es, especiall y when
watersheds are shared . The future of the
C h esa p eake Bay depends on a shared
co mmitment and effective stream pro -
tection strategi es by all municipalities
within its drainage.
R egional Planning Issues
Regio nal approaches to government, such
as through Planning District
Commissions, cannot solve watershed
management n eeds, si nce these districts
don 't always match watershed bound -
aries. Moreover, as non -reg ulatory bod -
ies, planning di stri cts can only provide
ad vice; and the advice and related techni -
cal assistance they give varies greatly,
d e pendin g on available staffing and fund -
ing. C reati ve partnership s are often need -
ed b etween jurisdictions to ensure that a
watershed-level strategy is d eveloped .
Fiscal Considerations
From a fisca l st a n dpoint, the cost of put-
ting off anticipated problem s does not
defray costs but actuall y increases them,
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 3
sometimes far in excess of the amount
that would have been expended initially.
For example, the costs of treating d rin k-
ing water can be far less if a com munity
adequately zones areas for watershed
protection now, so that expensive water
treatment, land purchases and easements
can be avoided in the future.
Similarly, setting aside land now to allow
for natura l functions may cost less than
their man-made equivalent, such as
large flood control structures . An often-
cited exampl e concerns the wetlands
associated with the C h arles River in
New England. A cost-benefit analysis
performed in 1972 by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers show ed that pur-
chase and protection of existing riparian
wetlands on the Charl es River would
prevent $17 million in annual flood
damage costs, because the riparian wet-
lands were far more cost-effective for
flood co ntrol than the engineering alter-
natives originally proposed by the Corps
(1 ational Wildlife Federation , 1997).
The wetlands remain protected today
and co ntinue to abate flo oding, purify
the water and r echarge the drinking
water so urce aquifer, while providing
critical habitats fo r myriad plant, ani-
mal, fish and bird species.
4 Chapter One: The Benefits of Local Stream Protection
Approaches to stream protection
can either be comprehensive, encom-
passing all streams in a jurisdiction, or
they ca n be limited to addressing iss u es
in a part ic ul ar watershed. In both cases ,
it is important to understand the current
health of a stream, in-stream uses, land
u ses wit hi n the drai n age area and how
future p la n s may affect stream hea lth.
Assessing a Stream's
Current Condition
Unfortunately, when considering a
stream's cu rrent cond it ion, land man-
agers, regulators and scientists often lack
the data they need to make the best deci-
sions. If a str eam has n ot been moni-
tored r ece ntly, or at all , there may be lit-
tle or no data availab le about its condi-
tion . Even if there is annual monitoring,
it may n ot adequately identify the t rue ,
long-term health of the stream , or it may
be missi n g a contamin ant that is not
identified b y the us ual s u ite of tests .
The fo ll ow ing list provides an overview
of the types of data on e might assess in
co n sider in g stream health. While it
might b e tempting to m on itor eve ry-
thing in this list , there will be practical
realities of time, funds and staffing .
Which p aram eters sh o ul d be measu red
will depen d , in part, on the goals for
your strategy and what you deter mine
you need to kn ow before beginning.
Considerations for A s sessing a
Stream's Conditio n
The fo ll owin g aspects of a stream corri -
dor sho uld be considered , in order to
gain a pict u re of its current condition:
Physical and biological characteristics
• Drainage area: The la n d area drai n ing
to the stream(s ), which makes up its
waters h ed.
• I I
Ass essing a Str eam's Curr ent Condition
and Futur e Impa cts Up on It
• Stream health: Measurement of t h e
stream 's chemical a n d b io logica l
parameters, its habitat and water flow ,
and the characteristics of its riparian
vegetatio n .
• Wildlife and.fish: Animals and fish in
the stream, especiall y rare , threatened
or endangered spe cies.
• Riparian condition : Stream buffer
width, vegetation types , stream bank
stability, floodplain uses and co ndi -
tion , and tree canopy coverage.
• Channel stability: Measurements of
the stream 's channel and floodp la in,
including delineation of floodplai n s
and flood-prone areas, the degree of
sinuosity and chann e l type.
• Erosion potential : Locations and per-
centages of steep s lopes, especiall y
areas with highly erodable soi ls , w hi ch
may contribute to excessive siltation
of the stream.
Land uses and zoning
• Land uses: Watershed land uses and
zoning , including current land uses and
the potential for those u ses to impact
the stream; fo r exan1p le, an oil tan k
farm that may be subject to spills .
• Runoff potential: T h e percentage of
imperviousness, meas ured by paved
area and compacted soi ls in high u se
areas , which affects rates and vo lu mes
of runoff and water q u ality.
• Protected areas: The percentage of
land under permanen t protection; for
example, conservation easements an d
National Park lands.
• Disturbed areas : A r eas with disturb ed
land needing remediation, such as
abandoned surface mines that have
not been reclaim ed .
• Flood damage mitigation: The percent -
age of land within the 100 -y ear flood -
plain that is available to mitigate flood
waters , versus the percentage of devel -
oped land.
Cultural uses
• Significant sites: Historical or cult u r -
ally significant sites, such as historic
locks , dams and ative American
encampments.
• Recreational us es: Recreational uses ,
such as fishing, hiking , boating and
access points.
Health of a Stream's
Aquatic Life
There are seve ral factors than can affect
the health of a stream's aquatic life, su ch
as the makeup of the stream's water
chemistry. For example, acidity leve ls
may affect the type of algae present,
which in turn affect the type of aquatic
insects and fish that can thrive there.
Similar ly, lower oxygen levels and high er
temperatures can provide breeding
grounds for the development of water-
borne diseases. A sound monitoring pro-
gram should seek to combine measure-
m ents of the stream's chemical, biological
A Stream Corridor Protec ti on Strategy for Local Governments 5
stream cha 111el feature s
Edg e of floodplain
~~
.:•
and physical health, in order to accurately
assess problems with an d threats to the
stream, and to design an effective remedi -
ation or protection strategy.
Measuring aquatic life
The co m position and distribution of a
stream's aquatic life provides an indica-
tion of the stream 's health. Fish are a
useful indicator of this. The distribution
of juven i le fish within a stream can indi-
cate its h ealth, as can the distribution
and wealth of fish species. Other meth-
ods, such as fish tiss u e analysis, can also
be used to determine if there are sources
of toxic pollu tants in t h e stream.
T he Index of Biologica l I ntegrity is one
measu r e used to evaluate the diversity of a
stream's aquatic life. Organisms, s uch as
macroinvertebrates (aq uatic insects and
their larvae) and crustaceans, can provide
usefu l ind icators of a str ean1's conditio n.
Many, suc h as the wi nter stonefly, are
very sensitive to pollutants and some
agencies use their relative abundance and
diversity, or their absence, as an indicator
of stream health . Biological monitori n g of
aquatic organisms may also show im p air-
ments missed by other methods. For
example, a 1988 study done by the Ohio
Environm en tal Protection Agency states
that, whi le the presence of a water pollu -
tion imp airm ent in a st ream was detected
64 percen t of the time u sing just chemical
monitorin g, biological monitoring showed
impairment 94 percent of the time when
the stream was impaired .
Reference conditions
Water q u ality standards for a stream's
aquatic life are based u pon reference con-
.
ditions. A stream within the general area ,
though not necessari ly within the same
watershed , and which is considered to be
representative of optimal local ecological
conditions, is used to devise a standard,
against which other streams can be com -
pared . The advantages of this system are
that it allows different standards for tidal
streams, coastal plain streams and
mountainous headwater streams. These
three types of stream naturally vary in
terms of their population s of macro in -
vertebrates , fish , and plant species a n d
habitat conditions .
However, the reference condition
approach has limitation s. If there are n o
healthy str eams in the region , as may b e
the case in a heavily urbanized or subur-
ban area , standards may be set lowe r than
are desirable or possible. Also , human
interpretation of those r efe ren ce stan-
dards can vary and may b e erroneo us.
Habitat Concerns
In addition to the need to meet min imum
wate r quality standards, hab itat should
a lso be considered as a critical aspect of
stream health. A stream may meet chem -
ical water quality standards but lack the
req uisite habitat needed to support cer-
tain fish species, such as trout that
require deep pools, runs, riffles and over-
hanging roots and vegetation to provide
cover from predators. In addition, high
stormwater flows may be scouring the
stream bed and banks, preventing co lo-
nization by aquatic insects or the devel -
opment of fish spawning beds .
Morpho logy of the stream channel
A stream's habitat may also be impaired
by physical a lternations s uch as channel -
ization, armoring the streams banks with
concrete , metal or riprap, dredging the
stream bottom , or putting in road cross-
ings, culverts and stormwater outfalls.
While these uses may be legal, they can
impair water quality. Resource man agers
should consider options for their
removal, mitigation or replacement with
environmentally beneficial structures,
such as bioengineered approaches.
The morphology of the stream chan n el -
its shape, the percentage of its course con-
sisting of riffles and runs, its sinuosity
and the degree of stream entrenchment
(carvi n g of an over-deep chan n el and
steep banks )-can all be m easured to pro-
vide an indication of stream bank stabi lity.
The stability of the stream will affect the
rates of bank erosion, floo d ing and h a b i-
tat q u ality. There are h abit at restorat ion
floodplain diagram
._ . ..
. .. . ·. ·.· · ... .. · ...... ··.· ... ·.·: .· ..
l Bank full channel J f ~------------Floodplain ~
6 Chapter Two: Assessing a Stream's Current Condition and Future Impac ts Upon I t
approach es that can b e t a ke n to r ea lign
stream c h ann els t h a t h av e b ee n altered
b y wat er sh ed d eve lopment and h igh
st o rmwat er fl ows, o r by p rio r effort s t o
straig hten the channel. H owever , these
efforts to work in -stream should n o t b e
undertaken without a com p let e unde r -
stand ing of a stream's m or p h ology and
flow or w itho ut adequ at e engineering
studies. App lied River M orp hology (see
A p pendix A ) is an exce ll ent refer en ce
t oo l fo r u nde rstand in g and evalu at in g
r iver morpho logy.
Riparian corridor habitats
A co mpreh en sive a pproac h to stream
p rotect io n co n sider s, n o t o n ly in -str eam
health and h abitat , but a lso the ripari an
corrido r and r elated habitats. The r ip ar i-
an corrid or in cl u des :
• t he stream,
• it s banks and fl oodplain ,
• assoc iat ed veget at ion .
W ith in the fl ood p la in , existi n g r iparian
wetl ands m ay b e hydrological ly li n ked to
t h e stream and p ro vi d e critical nurse r y
grounds for a mphibian s p ecies, s u ch as
sala mander s and n ewts . St re amsi d e veg-
etatio n contributes leaf l itter t o t h e
stream , which is then u tilized as food b y
aquatic insects, know n a s macroinve rte-
brates, which then serv e as foo d for fish .
Str ea m veget ation oft en includ es tree
s p ec ies t h at requ ire moist en vironm ents,
s u ch as green ash, b u tton bush al d er and
basket w ill ow. Stream s that lac k ad eq u ate,
native veget a ti on wi ll s u ffer from ch an ges
in ass ociated r iparian an imal life.
U se of Federal Standards for
Stream Quality
A stream m ay m eet es tablish ed state and
fed eral standards , but t hese standards m ay
no t match optimum eco logical h ealth .
There can be several rea son s fo r this :
• St at e environmental ag en cies d es ign ate
stream s for p articu la r u ses; t h ese u ses
inform the standards th at age n cies
require for d isc harges t o those w at er s .
• A st r eam s ubject to h eavy indu strial
us a ge may h ave industrial permits that
ar e more lax th an those fo r a h ea lthy
trout stream o r fo r a so urce o f drink -
in g w ater.
• Gen er a lly accept ed standards fo r di s-
ch arge m ay be lower than a s trea m ca n
o ptima ll y su pport . For in st a n ce , it is
co mmo n t o set a limit of 5.0 mil -
lig r ams /litre (mg/I) of d isso lved oxy -
ge n (0.0.) as a minimum water quali -
t y level, w h ic h must n ot b e excee d ed
b y d isc h a r ges fro m a sewage treatmen t
pl an t . H owever, so m e fish req uire a
high e r di sso lved oxyge n level; tro u t ,
fo r example, req u ir e 7.0 mg /l 0.0 .
A dd it ionall y, t h ere a r e n o federal stan -
d a rds fo r so m e pollutants. Sedi m ent, for
exa m p le, d oes n ot h ave a st andard .
A ltho u g h streams n at ura lly t r an spor t
sed iment , excess sed im e n t in a stream is
a p ollutant , as it b lock s li ght to a qu at ic
vegetation , sm other s b e nthic aq uatic life
and fill s avai la bl e hab it at a reas. Color is
an oth er po ll utan t fo r w hi c h ther e a r e n o
standard s . A co lored di sc h a r ge that
clo u ds water v isibi lit y also blocks sun -
li gh t n ee d ed by aq u ati c p lants.
In add ition t o meeti n g legal req u ire-
m ents fo r wat er quality, a communit y
m ay wis h t o se t high e r goals for the
stream t h a n the st a tutory m ini mum
st andard s . F o r in st a nce, if th e co u nty o r
c ity's Compreh en sive P lan sets a goal of
protecting pot en tial water su ppli es, th en
protecti o n m easures, goals an d stan -
d a rd s m ay n ee d t o b e stren gth e n ed
b eyon d current m ini mum leve ls . The
co mmunity m ay al so d es ignate a st r eam
for additio n al p ro t ectio n b eca u se it is a
po pular tro ut fish ing stream , an ar ea
w h er e it pl an s to d evelop ecoto uri s m , o r
s imply a p lace of val u e to the co m mu ni-
ty, eve n if there are no intended u ses
b eyo nd prese r vat io n .
Assessing Future Impacts On
a Stream
In addition to p resent co nditi o n s, it 's n ec-
essary t o catal og t he pot entia l im pact s of
futu re d evel o pment or land u se c hoi ces
on a stream , in order to d et erm in e priori-
ty areas for p roj ects or to d etermine t h e
likelih ood of su ccess for yo ur prop osed
str a tegy. You wi ll n ee d to co n sider an y
reaso n a b ly fo reseeab le changes o r
plann ed d eve lo pme nts that m ay sign ifi -
cantl y impact lan d u se , st ormwater or the
str eam /corr id or system .
When assessin g fu ture im p acts on a
stream , the fo ll owi n g things sh o u ld
b e con si d e r ed:
• T h e perce ntage of wat ershed lan d that is
zon ed fo r fu ture d eve lo pment and the
typ e of d evelopment (e .g. p arks or shop-
p in g mal ls) all owed under t hat zo nin g.
• The poten tial in cr ease in impervio u s
s urfaces in t h e wat e r s h ed a r isi n g fr om
fu t u re develo pment, in cl u din g road s,
pa r king lo t s a n d rooft op s.
• F uture d em an d s on the water s upply
t h at might i m pact fl ows, s u ch as n ew
p ower p lants or pl a nned drinkin g
water impou ndment s.
• Estimated increases or d ec reases in
popu lation a nd em p loym en t, w hi ch
may or may n ot ch a n ge imperviou s-
ness , based on al lowed d eve lopm ent
patterns (fo r example, erecting tall er
buildin gs o r mor e den sely m ay r edu ce
the leve l of imperviou sness ).
The gatherin g of t his in fo rmatio n m ay
not be as d a u n t in g as it fir st ap p ears a nd
t h e fo ll ow in g chart is d es ign ed t o ai d in
locat in g thi s in fo rma t io n . It m ay no t b e
fe asible to co ll ect and anal yze all of the
su ggest ed d ata, nor m ay it b e n ecessary.
Fo r instance, in a relat ively undev eloped
water sh ed t h at is ex per ie n cin g little or n o
growth, d evelo pment p atterns or w ater
q uali ty d ata m ay b e of less co nce rn t h an
in a rural co unty that is b ein g r a p id ly
urbanized . Fin all y, th e lev el of d etail
r eq uired d ep end s upo n t h e p roject. (For
more on this see C ha pter Three .)
A Stream Co rridor Protection S trategy for Local Governments 1
State Environment State Fi sh & Soil and Water County or City US Fish & USGS or Hi storical society, Dept.of Local Govt. Dept .
or Nat ura l Game Dept. Conservation Planning Dept. Wildlife Service map store histor ic resources, Forestry of Engi neering
Districts local NGOs,
& land trusts
Water che mistry x
Biological data x x
Habitat x x
Endangered or x x x
threatened
species
Channel x x
Soils x
Land uses x x
Wetlands x
Floodpla in x
Forest cover x
Buffers x x
Topography x
Water flow x
Historica l use x
Land owne rship x
Ea semen ts x x
Zoning x
Future la nd use x
There are a range of ways you can
protect a stream. However, before decid-
ing which stream protection strategy to
adopt, it's important to understand two
key considerations that should be uti-
lized in devising yo ur strategy. Consid er
the degree to which yo ur strategy:
• protects and/ or restores native
species, n atural stream banks and
maintains or improves existing water
quality and quantity,
• protects existing non-harmful com-
munity u ses, such as access for fishing
or boating.
If yo u don't take these considerations
into account, your project probably
won't achieve its maximum potential
benefits and community support.
To create an effective stream protection
strategy, you need to consider every aspect
of stream restoration , not just one or two
aspects in isolation. For example, a co n -
servation group so ught to restore fish
habitats by adding additional pools, runs
and riffles to a suburban creek that suf-
fered from extreme stormwater flows.
However, the stormwater carried warm,
contaminated street runoff into the creek,
resulting in poo r water quality and stream
temperatures that were too high. Even
though fish habitats were improved,
water quality was sti ll inad equate to sup -
port fish. The project failed to consider
every aspect of restoring the stream.
If the group had fully considered all th e
necessary stream con ditions, it would
have realized that the proj ect was unfea -
sible and saved a lot of wasted effort.
The best approach wou ld have been to
address the need for improved sto rmwa -
ter management rather than to build fish
habitat structures.
If you're going to implement a success-
ful stream protection strategy, yo u n eed
to develop a sound understanding of:
• I I
D eciding O n a Protection Strategy
• existing baseline stream and riparian
conditions,
• existing regulations to protect o r
restore the stream,
• future land use changes that may
change watershed conditions by
affecting land runoff and resultant
stream flows or water quality,
• the effects of each change that yo u
might make on the stream and ripari-
an corridor .
These apply whether you are monitoring
the effectiveness of a n ordinance or reg-
ul atory framework or are monitoring the
success of a particular project or site
plan. If yo u want to en sure that you
understand existing baseline conditions
for the stream and its riparian corridor ,
you need to develop a monitoring m ech-
an ism to gather that data. The main way
to do that is to monitor the stream over a
period of time. There are a number of
ways you can do this, which are outlined
in Chapter Two. They will enable you to
d etermine how your stream is doing and
to assess progress toward any goa ls that
you set for the stream.
Elements of a Stream
Protection Strategy
Once yo u hav e assessed the base I ine
conditions for the stream, you need to
S<Ampje Project Go<Ajs
• To achieve certain water quality standards.
• To enhance economic value.
• To provide recreational opportunities.
• To protect sensitive watersheds.
• To protect current or future water supplies.
create a strategy for protecting it. A typ-
ical strategy lays out the general aims of
the protection program and its specific
goals. These goals are then broken down
into targeted objectives, which can be
monitored and assessed periodically to
see how well the goals are being
achieved. The objectives are then broken
down into particular actions; for exam-
ple, a project to replant a specific stretch
of river bank or a project to monitor out-
flow from a point source.
Thus, you have a strategy comprised of:
• Goals
• Objectives
•Actions
Your strategy will probably depend
upon the extent of the problem, the
resources you have available and the
number of streams and watersheds
affected. You may, for example, decide to
Elements of a Stream Protection Strategy
MiSsion/V"asion
/l\~
Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4
I I \ \
~~'//\'b\~
Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action Action
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 9
concentrate on all the streams in on e
waters h ed, rather than dissipate yo ur
resources over the whole area o f yo ur
jurisdiction. Alternatively, yo u may see
protecting drinking water supplies as the
number-one priority. So your strategy
will be to protect streams that are drink -
ing water sources.
Consider what yo u hope to achieve with
your stream corridor strategy. Are you
seeking to m eet regu latory standards,
protect hi storic or ecological re so urces ,
respond to increased flooding and prop-
erty dan1age, promote touri sm and
recreation, or possibly combine c urrent
legal statutes so that they achieve a com-
prehensive approach?
It is difficult to determine a strategy
without first collecti n g some baseline
data. You need to co n sider what data you
need to co ll ect. Yo u wi ll b e able to do
this once yo u 've deter min ed a strategy.
This is a bit of a Catch 22 situation, but
you do need to do preliminary data col-
lection first, before yo u can really decide
what your strategy needs to be. Once
you've establi shed yo ur strategy and
goals, yo u can then return and foc u s fur -
ther data-gathering aro und those goa ls.
D etermining the
Strategy's Approach
When yo u are working out you r strea m
protection strategy, yo u should ask yo ur -
self questions to determine the most
effective strategy for achieving yo ur
objectives such as:
• Will the approach be site-specific?
Will we design gu id e lin es or reg ula -
tions to achieve watershed protection
for land-disturbing activities or pro-
posed developments ?
• Will we u se zoning to protect specific
areas such as developing overlay
zones fo r n ear-stream areas an d
critical habitats?
• What do current regulations req uir e ?
Do they require specifi c best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), such as stream
buffers or areas where some, o r a ll ,
development is restricted ?
Omn ibus approach or retro -fitt ing?
An omnibus approach to stream manage-
ment employs regulations that apply to all
development permits. It may be usefu l for
areas experi encing rapid growth, where
additional environmental requirements
for new development may be the most
effective. On the other hand, retro-fitting
existing sites will have th e greatest impact
in areas that have already been developed.
Voluntary approach
Regulations that apply to n ew develop-
ment permit re qu ests are li kely to have
little impact in d eve loped urban areas.
Requests for variances, planned unit
development (PUD) applications or re-
zonings are ways for municipalities to
influence land management practices,
but these approaches are "hit or miss."
In already developed areas, it may be
critical to apply a voluntary approach .
(See the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
in set box.) This requires a system of
incentives and partnerships and may
r es ult in the greatest gain . Additionall y,
working with individual landowners
who have po litical influence may
increase program effectiveness.
Current initiatives and proposals
As yo u develop your strategy, it is criti -
cal to thorough ly understand what has
already been studied, proposed a nd
impl emented fo r the watersh ed. You
need to learn about oth er ini tiatives and
decide whether you want to partner with
them. You may be able to use findings
from their studies and plan s. There may
be research conducted by a local co m-
munity or resou rc e agency that yo u
co uld utilize. Taking t im e to conduct
this analysis will prevent predictable
10 Chapter Three: D eciding on a P rotection Strategy
Atia.(ostia. Wa.terfrotit
ltiitia.tive
The District of Columbia is coordinating the
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative to engage ten fed-
eral agencies in a voluntary clean-up and redevel-
opment strategy for the Anacostia. Since two-
thirds of the Anacostia River's shores in the District
are owned by federal agencies, over which the
District has no legal jurisdiction, the District coor-
dinated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
among the agencies, to engage in clean-up and
coordinated development.
For example, the Navy is implementing a plan to
retrofit its parking lots to add biofilters, which fil-
ter and clean runoff while also making the site
more attractive.
problems, such as losing support for a
good initiative because it didn't
acknowledge prior work or studies.
On the other hand , if you choose not to
take the approach of prior initiatives or
studi es, yo u should be careful to say
why. Explain yo ur rational for yo ur n ew
approach. For example, that reg ulatory
requirements have changed or that yo u
have a more effective so lution for pro-
tecting the drinking water supply.
Setting Goals
You should set the goals for your strategy
bas ed upon the outcomes you are seeking .
For example, if your strategy is to protect
drinking water, one goa l may be to pro -
tect and improve the health of every
stream in a particular watershed . Another
goa l maybe to preserve a certain level of
flow in every stre am. Another may be to
protect the quality of water recharging
the aquifer. On the other hand, if your
strategy is to promote tourism and recre -
ation on healthy stream s, your goals may
incl ud e enhancing the eco nomic value of
the stream by improving its access fo r
tourists or hikers.
Your goals might incl ude meeting statu-
tory requirements, providing substantial
cost savi ngs to protect future water sup-
plies, meeting compreh e nsive plan goals,
improving community safety by pre-
venting downstream flooding, and so on.
This justification will be important, not
only for the community, but a lso for the
preamble to an y new ordina n ces that
have to be passed.
Mandated programs
Many programs begin in re sponse to a
mandated program from th e fe deral ,
state or local level, such as Virginia's
Chesape ake Bay Preservation Act, or take
advantage of availab le funding , su ch as
Clean Water Act, Sec tion 3 19 funding .
(See Appendix C.)
For example , Baltimore County's
Departm ent of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management's
Article IX: "Protec tion of Water Qua lity,
Streams , W et land s and Fl oodp lain s,"
cl early sets out legislative findings of
fact , s uch as statutory autho rity under
the federa l C lean Water Act (CWA), state
statutes and the co unty's com preh en sive
plan . It also set s out oth er r elevant codes ,
su ch as Sec. 26-278 of Article TX that
covers the preservation of n atural or his-
torical features . In this doc ument, leg-
islative intents are clearly spell ed out.
One intent is to: "Provid e infiltration of
stormwat er and maintain base flow of
streams ." The scope to which these regu -
lations apply is also clear. For example,
the regulations apply to all proposed
deve lopments that did not have building
permits prior to 1991.
While these are standard ordinances, the
clarity with which they are articulated
allows them to hold up to legal challen ges
and provides a d efensible rational that
can be understood by planners, develop -
ers, regulators and the gen eral public .
Model ordinance language can be found
on the Center for Watersh ed Protection's
web site at http:/ /www.cwp .org / and b y
searching the web sites of other municipal -
ities and state agencies. If you hope to uti -
lize language from another lo cal entity, it's
always worthwhile to interview a local reg-
ulator or planner to learn how they might
have modified or improved it in hindsight .
You'll also want to co nsid er how the lan -
guage conforms with yo ur own stat e and
lo cal statutes and take into account practi-
cal and political considerations when it
co m es to adoption and implementation.
Community-initiated programs
Other initiatives are the result of strong
co mmunity support for environmental
protection . Water quality and r ec re -
ational opportunities alon g our water -
ways are increasingly b eco m ing major
co n ce rns for many co mmunities, es p e -
cia ll y in urba n or suburban areas . Many
of these p eo pl e wan t to protect their
streams and provide enhanced rec re-
ational access to them.
Wheth er yo ur strategy is the result of
legal r equirem ents or a community ini-
tiative , it s ho uld attempt t o address a
ran ge of stream protection issues, rathe r
than limit itself to only one. This n ee d -
n't be m or e expen sive or time -co n s um -
ing, b ecau se an holistic approach to
str ea m manage m ent may save you a lot
of money in the long run . If your coun -
ty 's land u se zoni ng r es ults in a sever e
drop in water quality and pollution of
th e aquife r , it co uld cost yo u a lot more
to put right than if yo u had consi dered
the full ran ge of effec t s and potential
benefits that a compr eh en sive a pproach
may have achieved. Similarly, a lo cal
co mmunity may have equal conce rns
that co uld be m et at the same time, pro -
viding lo ng -t erm cost cutting and co m -
munity support. For ex ample, the
stormwater program might include
buffer zones that provide much -need ed
rec r eational facilities for a su burban
area. Whatever the case , you should
take the time to fi nd out all the potentia l
co mmunity goals that co uld be met by
yo ur strategy. There co uld be all so rts
of added b e n efits that yo u haven 't
thought of.
As a result, your strategy should be flex -
ible and open . The methods yo u employ
should aim at achievin g multiple goa ls,
rathe r than a single goal. This wi ll allow
yo u to be more r es ponsive to local com -
munity input and to altering yo ur objec-
tives and actions if you ne ed to. For
exampl e , you might initiate a program in
ord er to improve stormwater manage-
m ent, but then find tha t local people are
just as concerned about habitat enhance-
m ent and fish restoration. You can then
alter your actions to e n compass all three
co n cerns . An example of this approach
is in Albemarle County, Virginia, where
the stormwater ordinance includes
g uid elin es for applying bioengineering
techniques that improve fis h and
wi ldlife habit at.
Your goals will determine a p roject's
specific objecti ves, its timing and the
reso urces (e .g. st aff, time, studies, and
con stru ction ) n eeded to achieve it. For
example , if yo u are drafting new regula -
tions, clearly articulated goa ls are critical
both to building s up port for your initia-
tive and to e n s u ring that relat ed obj ec-
ti ves and actions wi ll ultimately meet
those goa ls .
Setting Objectives
The n ext question to co n si d er is, "Based
on yo ur project goa ls (e .g. protec t water
qua lity ) what are the objectives that will
achieve those goals?" For example, are
yo u seeking to protec t water qua lity
throu gh r es torati on, enforcement, new
zo ning? One objective m ay be to develop
a process for responding to future crises,
s uch as ch emical s pills . Another might
b e to prevent your stream 's li st ing under
th e fed eral Clean Water Act, Sectio n
303(d) as not m eeting d esignated uses .
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for L oca l Governm ents 11
Whatever objectives you choose, they
can go beyond simply responding to
potential crises or statutory require-
ments. For example, if a stream is on
your state's impaired waters list and
requires the establish m ent of a manage-
ment plan to clean it up , you might take
the opportunity to identify and achieve
r elated objectives , s uch as the restora-
tion of riparian wetlands or establish-
ment of riparian buffers. These other
objectives are compl imentary to the pri-
mary obj ective , becau se they wi ll se r ve
to clean the water, provide wildlife habi-
tat and create opportuni ties for public
recreation, visual enhancement a nd
stormwater management.
project timetrame
Identifying key riparian protection
objectives
The fo llowin g list of key objectives will
help yo u determine what specific objec-
tives yo u may wish to adopt to achieve
your goals. These objectives may not all
be met by any one project. However, if
you do consider them all , it will help
ensure that you take a comprehensive
approach to stream protection.
There are a numbe r of k ey riparian
objectives that every stream project
n eeds to consider, especially when water
quality protection or r estoration is a pri-
mary goal:
• Native communities: Protect and
restore native ecologi cal communities
-plant, animal and fish species
indigenous to the str eam.
• In-stream habitat: Protect and restore
natural in -stream habitats -str eam
banks, in-stream substrate, vegetation ,
r iparian vegetation and stream cover.
• Stream form and function : Preserve or
restore the natural str eam morphology
consistent with local conditions, to
ens ure that stable stream banks and
habitat are preserved.
• Riparian hab itats: Protect and restor e
stream buffers .
• Water quality: Set standards for allowed
uses or discharges that will maintain or
improve existing water quality.
• Stream .flows : Ensure adequate stream
flow for animals, fis h and recreation,
that w ill prevent extreme stormwater
flows b y keeping impervious cover to
Year 1 Year 2
Action A
Action B
Action C
Action D
less than 2 5% (ideall y, to less than
15%) and that seek to provide addi -
tional infiltration areas.
• Access: Identify, protect and improve
existing, appropriate access poi nts and
provide new access points, where
appropriate, for people or animals .
• Floodplain: Restrict or prevent devel-
opment within the 100-year flood-
plain and protect floodplain habitats .
• Wetlands: Protect and restore riparian
and non -tidal wetlands, in order to
ensure that water fi ltering, water stor -
age and habitat functio n s are preserved.
Timeframe
Your strategy should identify clearly
when you plan to achieve specific
actions that will achieve your goals and
objectives as we ll as a tim eframe for
assessing your progress and modifying
your project as needed. If you are taking
a pilot or demonstration phased
approach, be clear as to when yo u wi ll
take the project to full implementation
(the whole watershed or county) and
how it wi ll b e monitored and adapated
as needed.
Mounta in or hill tops ~1 /1
I
Wetlands
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/.,,,,.----....
12 Chapter Three: D eciding on a Protection Strategy
Year 3 Year 4
Project Scale and Scope
In order to work out an approach to
stream protection , you need to decide
whether the scope and scale of the proj-
ect are appropri ate. Will the approach
seek to protect all the streams in a partic-
ular jurisdiction, for example, a co unty?
Will it be limited to str eams in eco logi-
cally sensitive areas? Or to locations set
aside for preservation or new develop-
ments?
Whether you decide to take a broad
approach that addresses all the streams
in yo ur locality or limit yo urselves to a
particular strean1, it's still necessary to
take a watershed-wide approach to any
protection strategy. Watersheds vary in
scale. The watershed of a small headwa-
ter stream could be as littl e as a few
ac res, but it may be part of a much larger
river's water shed, say of 150,000 acres.
Another consideration is the size of the
stream itself, which is defined by the
size of the stream's watershed. Streams
are often referred to by their relative
position in the drainage network . Small
headwater streams are.first-order streams,
larger streams fed by two or more first-
o rde r tributaries are second-order
stream order diagram
Fi rst Order
Third Order
Fourth Order
streams , and so on . Watersheds can a lso
b e re ferred t o in term s of their rank.
First-order waters hed s, for exam pl e, are
e mpti ed b y fir st -order strea m s; seco nd-
order wa tersheds e n co mpass the drain age
area of a second-order stream and its
tributaries. Different approaches may b e
needed to protect firs t -order headwater
str eams than t o protect fifth-order
rivers, which drain a much larger area .
A whole-watershed approach requires
consideration of the watershed's
drainage a r ea, land u ses, land cover ,
geology and hydrology. For instance, if
a com munity decides to co nduct a fish
habitat restoration project, b u t does n ot
con si d e r the impact of stormwater
runoff from a large shopping m a ll in th e
upland porti on of the drainage, the proj -
ec t may fail. Similarly, a stream buffer
enhancem e nt program will not achi eve
water qua li ty goals if st ormwater pipes
that discharge d i rec tly into the stream
are not addressed.
Local co mmunities n eed to consider
whether the stream to b e addressed
flows throu gh more than one j uri sd ic-
tion, which is often t h e case. Regio n al
entities, such as the M etropo litan
Washington Counci l of Governments,
which se rves the Washington Metro
region , can b e helpful in coordinating
j oint initiatives. Howeve r , applyi ng
leg al tools across jurisdi ctions is more
complex and the best approach will
probably b e to utilize voluntary initia -
Ian. ProllClioll ~ Water
quality
Vegetated stream buffer x
Stormwate r ordin ance x
Overlay zones
Clustered deve lopment x
Boat/fi shing access
Critical slo pe regulations x
Erosion /se diment regulations x
Tax credits (open space, new tech nologies} x
Conservatio n easements x
Greenway tra ils x
tives. In cases where a str eam flows
fr om on e juri sdiction into another , you
may need to work together to en sure
effective management of the river. For
example, if the downstream locality
plans to utili ze the wat er for drinking,
fishing or recreation, the d ownstream
jurisdiction might offer in centives to the
upstream jurisdiction. It might offer to
purchase development ri ghts, share
resources o r r evenues, p lan joint to uri sm
ventures or offer other incentives fo r
cooperation.
Pilot or D emonstration
Proj ects
You may wish to conduc t a stream pro-
tection project on a pi lot scale to tes t o ut
n ew technologies o r r eg ul ations before
yo u begin the main project. For exa m -
ple, consider applying a n ew storm water
ordi n ance to one priority watershed
first , or demonstrate a r iparian ease m ent
program j u st fo r headwater str eams
before taking on the entire watersh ed .
This wi ll enabl e yo u to work out techni-
cal , legal an d political iss ues on a sm all er
scale and en sure su ccessful implem enta-
tion of the full program in the future.
Another a pproach may b e to co nduct
d emon strati o n projects to provide
r e plicabl e models or to fi eld test
approaches b efore implem en ting them
throughout the watershed. A demon -
stration project can a ll ow localities to
ex p erim ent with imple m e ntatio n strate-
gies and to direct limited resources to the
most cr itical or endan gere d water sh ed s.
If yo u take this approach , conduct an
assessment of th e water sheds within the
cou nty or region to determine which
stream s wo uld most benefit from a tar-
geted approach . It's important to note
that targeting the most endan gered or
po lluted watersheds may not yield the
greatest return, nor necessarily be a p rac-
ticable model. For example, a water shed
t hat has experi en ced some development,
but where impervio u sness is not yet
exceeding leve ls that ca n support sen si -
tive fish , such as trout, may be a more
s u ccessful choice for a pilot approach
than one which is already suffering from
ex treme development pressures .
The following table wil l help you decide
w h at approach is appli cable to yo ur situa-
tion . There are some approaches for situa-
tio n s where time investment is high but
technologica l resources are low . There are
other s where the opposite is true . And
other s where both are high . When review-
ing th e chart , keep in mind that X s refer
to potential objectives . A stream buffer
may improve water quality, but if hi gh
storm water flows are n ot a b at ed then the
buffer m ay be large ly ineffect ive in pro -
tecting or maintaining water q ual ity.
Resources and Funding
The next q u estion to co n sider is what
r eso urces w ill b e n eed ed. Will a low -
Potenlill Obieellves ICbleved
Protect Fi sh Wildlife Water Scenic Reduce Recreation
sen sitive areas sup ply views floods
x x x x x
x x
x x x x x x
x x x x x x
x
x x x
x x
x x x x x
x x x x x
x x
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for L ocal Governmen ts 13
maintenance solution , such as riparian
forest buffers, provide a long-term so lu -
tion to water quality problems, or not? It
has been estimated that riparian buffers
can remove twenty-on e pounds of nitro-
gen per acre each year , at a cost of 30
cents per pound, and rem ove approxi-
mately four pounds of phosphorus per
acre annu ally, at a cost of$1 .65 per
pound. Contrast this with a cost of$3 to
$5 per pound -$10 mi ll ion annuall y -
spent by wastewater treatment facilities
in the Washington D.C. area (Chesapeake
Bay Riparian Handbook, A guide for
Maintaining and Estab li shing Riparian
Fores t Buffers, May 1997).
You also need to co n si der how to "pick
the lowest-hanging fr uit ," at least initial-
ly. You may be able to achieve some easy
tasks re latively quick ly. These wil l hel p
you demonstrate early su ccess and build
community support.
You'll want to begin by considering the
results of your resource inventory. For
example, which areas are the most endan -
gered and n eed to be protected before key
habitats are lo st? Which areas wo uld it be
cheaper to protect now, through purchas-
ing fee-simp le easemen t s today, when
land val u es are lower? The costs and
potential benefits of each strategy should
be documented before you begin, to help
make the case to plann ing commissioners
or boards of supervisors.
Considering the Adequacy of
Existing Programs
A key question to co n sider at this junc-
ture is wh ether you need to:
• create a new program
• strengthen an existing program by
adding additional coverage or enforce-
ment mechanisms
• create an overarchi n g ordinance that
applies to myriad related ordin a nc es
This question can be answered in part
by considering your objectives. If the
streams you wish to protect are located
in a rapidly developing watershed, it
may be very effective to create an ordi-
nance that applies to new developments.
In an already developed watershed,
however , this approach is unlikely to
have far-reaching effects.
You may d ecide that it 's more politically
feasible to impl ement a n ordinan ce on a
pi lot basis, in order to work out potential
problems or to gain community accept-
ance . For example, you could apply a
county stormwater ordinance or buffer
program to a limited watershed or town
in its first year, then expand it once the
pilot stage has been completed.
You may find that, over time, yo ur
municipality has enacted piecemeal
environmental protection regulations
that leave gaps in coverage or, in so me
cases, provide conflicting guideli n es or
requirements. Rather than pass yet
another piece oflegislati on, consider
whether these myriad ordinances can b e
folded into one omnibu s regulation,
which can provide both universal cover-
age for relevant activities and a clear
statutory authority for monitoring and
e nforce m ent. In states such as Virginia,
yo u will need to ensure that yo ur ordi -
14 Chapter Three: D eciding on a Protection Strategy
nance does not exceed the authority
granted by the Legislature , as required
by the Dillon Rule.
Assessing existing conditions
Whether or not the existing approach
needs to be modified depends on how
we ll it's doing. If the streams are sti ll
polluted, fish populations are not recov -
ering and silt and sediment runoff are
sti ll high, then a new approach is clearly
needed.
You can find this out by making a com-
prehensive review of existing regula-
tions. The state of Pennsylvania, for
example, created the June 2000 Growing
Smarter initiatives. These amended the
Municipalities Planning Code to con sider
land -use plans and zoning ordinances
when issuing Department of
Environmental Protection permits. This
was because they felt that a more com-
prehensive approach was needed .
Additionally, you should see whether, in
fact , you already have good ordinances
in place, but they are not fulfilling their
promise because variances are often
granted . You can work with elected offi -
cia ls to amend the ordinances and delete
the number and kinds of special use per-
mits or varian ces allowed .
Staffing
A final consideration is whether you
have the staffing to implement the intent
of an ordinance. For example, an ordi -
nance that has clear enforcement
requirements will not be effective if
there are no staff to carry out inspections
or enforce penalties for vio lators, es p e-
ciall y for those who are repeat vio lators.
You should also consider what require-
ments you need to site, manage and
monitor your approach. For example, in
the case of stream buffers, although
com pl ex formulas involving slope, soil
ero dability, stream order and other fac-
tors can be u sed to determine ideal
buffer widths, a lack of adequate staffing
to apply these criteria may n ecessitate
the us e of a less scientific, but more
practicable, uniform stream buffer
width. If resources are low and political
support for new ordinances is difficult to
obtai n , consider putting your energies
and staff time into ed u cating riparian
landowners about the benefits of censer-
vation easements a nd sponsoring work-
shops to get vo luntary participation .
Building Community Support
Agencies charged with strea m protec-
tion, such as state natural r eso urce man -
agement agencies and reg ulatory enti -
ti es, are aware of the n eed to protect
streams . H owever , county b oard s of
supervisors, planning commissions, ci t y
counci ls, and other government entities
may not hav e a visio n or clear set of
o bjec tives for protectin g lo ca l water
reso urces. Although some co mmunities
are becom ing aware of the need for
st ream protection as public wate r sup -
plies dwindle and private well s dry up
b ecau se of excessive withdrawals, it may
b e too late to consider a ri ver as a drink -
in g water supply o nce it h as alread y bee n
contaminated.
In addition to water supply and regula -
tory concerns, there are other u ser s and
constitu e n cies you ca n look at, su ch as
recreational users, river landowners,
farmers, tourism bureaus, and lo cal con -
servation groups, all of whom have con-
cerns about how the river is used and
protected. Sometimes, good ideas fail to
move forward simply because the re has -
n't been an effort made in advance to
engage the community.
You also n eed to talk to people who may
be opposed to yo ur ideas, to understand
and deal with the ir co ncerns. Yo ur com-
munity is likely to be made up of dis-
parate interests , some of which may be in
conflict with yo ur proposals and some of
which may b e in ag ree m ent. Si n ce mu ch
of the strean1 corridor and its watersh ed
are likely priva t ely ow ned , yo u n ee d to
m eet with these landowners and add ress
t h eir needs and concerns as well.
See k co mmunity buy-in to yo ur pro -
p osed strategy or conce pt . Develop a
strategy for full publi c parti cipation that
includes:
• community forums
• surveys
• leafl ets or a n ews lette r
• pho nin g local lan down e r s and asking
their o pini on
• writing letter s to your local newspaper
The re are m a n y other ways in w hich yo u
ca n involve the com munity in yo ur
process. Be imaginative!
You may gai n gr eater co mmunity s u p -
port by co mbining multipl e project
goals . You can also ex p a nd yo ur b ase by
m eeting with other agencies and organi -
zation s to determine th ei r n eeds a nd see
whether a co mbined approach wo uld
m ee t eve r yo n e's objectiv es . For exam -
ple , yo ur loca l Parks and R ecreation
D ep a rtment may n ee d easements for a
future gr ee nway trail , or want boatin g or
fishing access to the stream.
One of your objectives should be to
engage the whole community in the dis-
cussio n . You may find unexp ected new
angles on your strat egy. For example ,
yo u may di scover that boatin g access is a
key concern and that adding so m e canoe
launches will h elp build support for the
proj ect in the recreational community.
You might achieve yo ur water quality
goals by lim iting access to just a few pro -
tected access points , as opposed to multi -
ple , unimproved access points throu gh -
out the strea m corridor . Or you might
find that a local historical society wants to
emphasize historic locks and t ow paths
a long the river. Expand in g the project to
include interpretive signage for cultural
re so urces may help gai n support from
these groups, as well as provide addition -
al educational ben efits for the public .
Broad ening yo ur goals to include a wide
range of co n cerns can brin g in additional
funding . For example, a proj ect that
includes a r ive r trail may qualify for
fund s from the Fed eral Highway
Administration under the Transportation
Equity Act for the 2 1st Cen tu ry. Adding
h is tori cal interpretive signage may a ll ow
you to use o ther fun ding sources, perhaps
fr om a state hi storic resources age n cy.
Yo u also stand a better chan ce of gaining
the p artici p ation and respect of key ripar -
ian landowners by doing this . For exam-
pl e, the Rivanna River Greenway and
Trail in Charl ottesville, Virginia , was
made possible through the combi ned
vis ion of homeowners who li ved along
the river a nd w h o donated permanent
ease m ents across their land , and the city's
Planning Department. These two groups
work ed together to m ake the vision a r ea l -
ity. The Rivanna River now for m s the
boundary for Riverview Park, a wonder-
fu l community asset flowing throu gh the
city's most visited park.
Holding a public even t , s u ch as a water-
shed for um , builds awaren ess of issues
s u ch as water supply, stormwater pollu-
tion, zon in g, low impact d eve lopm ent
and other concepts that the community
needs to und er stand . It can then help
diverse int er ests to co n si d e r the commu-
nity 's priorities and approaches for
addressing them. In the Rockfis h River
wat er s h ed in Nelson County, Virginia, a
co mmunity watershed forum helped
build community support for a
stormwate r o rdinance -something the
cou nty didn't have b efore . D esig ning
s u ch an eve nt and process is covered in
th e h a ndbook "Community Watershed
Forums , A Planner 's Guide" (See
Appendix A.)
You also may want to co nduct a co mmu -
nity survey of issues and concerns, a
foc u s group , or an interview process with
key stakeholder gro ups to eval uate areas
of conce rn , misunderstandings and dis-
agreement, as well as areas of con se nsus .
Concerns of Key Constituencies
A s you co nsid er your strategy for stream
protection , b e aware of common con -
cerns voiced b y key co nstituencies, such
as farm e rs and urbanites. Agriculture
occupies thirty p erc e nt of the land in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and is of crit-
ical conce rn for many stream buffer pro-
grams. However , many farm e rs are
apprehensive about these programs and
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 15
regulations. They fear mandatory
requirements for a one-size-fits-all
buffer width. So, when you create ripari-
an buffer regulations, it's important to
realize that farmers can impl ement other
BMPs beside riparian buffers to achieve
watershed protection goals. These
include nutrient-removing cover crops
and nutrient management plans.
For urban constituencies, pollutant
removal is frequently cited as the main
reason for installing urban stream
buffers. However, for forested buffers
to work effectively, water must cross
them either as sheetjlow or through shal-
low groundwater . Research has shown
that it is difficult to maintain sheetflow
over distances greater than 150 feet for
pervious areas and 75 feet for impervi-
ous areas. In urban areas, impervious
surfaces cause water to run off quickly
into stormsewers or open channels that
discharge directly to the stream, cau sin g
stream banks to erode and defeating the
purpose of the buffer.
The primary reason why rural forested
buffers work is that large pervious areas
bordering a stream help water se ttl e
more evenly into the gro und , allowing
soi l and vegetation to remove a greater
amount of pollutants. Usually, so m e
type of structural BMP is n eeded to help
stormwater settle slowly and remove
pollutants before they enter the stream.
Although urban stream buffers are not
as effective in removing stormwater pol-
lutants which reach streams through
storm sewers that discharge directly to
streams, they are importan t for wildlife
habitats , to stabilize eroding stream
banks, and to provide aesthetic values
and urban gree n space. If the urban
buffer encompasses a headwate r stream ,
spring or wetland area, it can signifi-
cantly protect water quality at the
source. For example, a small tributary
of the Anacostia River in Washington
D.C ., whose spring and h eadwaters are
bordered by fo r ested national park
lands , contain s stoneflies -a pollution-
sensitive aquatic insect that few people
would expect to find in such a highly
urbanized c ity.
When it comes to the creation of forest-
ed stream buffers, dense urban areas
bring another set of concerns. In the
District of Col umbia's Department of
Health, Watershed Protection Division 's
Riparian Forest Buffer Strategy, the fo l -
lowing concerns were raised:
• Insufficient communication with, and
training of, maintenance crews res ults
in tree fatality and the mowing of pro-
tected areas.
• Vandals remove signs designating no-
mow lines, remove trees and break
fences.
• Animal herbivory was often over-
looked and as a result, trees were not
16 Chapter Three: D eciding on a Protection Strategy
protected from animals at their most
vu ln erable stage of growth.
• There was an outcry that n atural or
"wil d" areas provided habitat for
criminal activities.
To address these issues, the Watershed
Protection Division proposed the fol -
low ing solutions:
• Employ contractors for large riparian
forest buffer restoration sites that are
being establi shed in the final phases of
a contracted stream or wetland
restoration. The b enefit of this is that
many contractors provide a time-lim-
ited warranty that protects their work .
Since the first one to two years after
p lanting is the most likely period for
p lant mortality, survival through this
period ensures higher long-term sur-
vival rates.
• Where riparian forest buffer plantings
border res id ential areas, employ plant-
ing designs that cater to community
desires for a landscaped "look" and a
landscape design that discourages
criminal activity.
• Encourage volunteers to routinely
monitor riparian planting sites for
vandalism and other maintenance
issues. The need for watering, weed ing
and replanting will provide yet anoth-
er opportunity to involve the commu -
nity in riparian stewardship.
The following tools are intended to help
lo cal gove rnment staff, planners and oth-
ers co n si d er which ap proach es and strate-
gies will be mo st effective in their locality.
So m e approaches require greater fundin g
or technical ca pabil ities, while others may
r eq uire the adoption of new reg ulations or
r equire a voluntary approach .
Advice on the effec tiveness of the tools
is derived from the advisory co mmittee
for this g u ide , as well as finding s in the
relevant technical literature. The
approach, or combination of approach es,
chosen depends upon legal require-
ments, staffing and t ec hni cal capabili -
ti es, and politica l co nsiderations.
Detailed specifications for design ar e n ot
co ntained h erein , as they a re abundant
in other literature and are outside th e
sco p e of this guide. Howeve r , the fol-
lowing list of tools avai lable in each state
within the Chesapeake Bay drainage can
h e lp yo u determine which ele ment or
co mbination of approaches will h elp you
r eac h your goals .
Of the three states that contain the
C hesapeake Bay wate rshed , Pennsylvania
provides the cleares t authority for lo cali-
ties to create local stream protec tion ordi -
nances. It does this through its
Municipalities Planning Code (MPC).
This code gives primary res p on si bility for
reg ulating land u se and de velopm ent to
local municipal it ies. U nder it, land can
be zoned and d esignated for appropriate
u se. Section 603 of the MP C specificall y
authorizes local governments to reg ulate,
p e rmit, prohibit, restrict and detem1ine
u ses ofland , including wetl a nds and
npar1an zones.
Amendments to the MP C in 1988
ex press ly gave local governments the
authority to plan and zone for the pro -
tection of river s. The cod e states that
zoning ordinances must b e designed to
"promote, protect and facil itate ...
preservation of the natural , sceni c, and
I I
Tools for a Str eam Protection Strategy
historic valu es in the environment and
p reservation of forests, wetlands,
aqu ifers and floodplains." (MPC Article
VI, § 603). Al so in 1988, th e
Environmenta l Rights Amendment o f th e
Pennsylvania Constitution (Act 1 ,
Section 27 and 28 ) was adopted. This
amendme nt express ly gives local gov-
ernm ents the authority to regulate the
protec tion of streams and riv er s.
In 2000, "Growin g Smarter" initiatives
were sig n ed into the co d e throu gh Acts
67, 68 and 12 7, which provide state agen-
cies with add iti o nal lega l authority to
consider loca l zoning ordin ances and
compreh en sive plans when making ce r -
tai n perm it and fundi n g d ecisions , such
as fo r NPDES Sto rmwater Constru ction .
In Virginia, under the Dillon Rule, local -
iti es can only u se the powers expressly
granted to th em by the state legislature.
While t hi s e n ab les so m e d egree of con-
sistency in p lanning, it may al so hinder
application of so m e p lannin g tools, su ch
as the tran s fer of d eve lopment rights,
which is n ot allowed b y the legislature .
H owever , the Com monwea lth of
Virginia d oes provi d e a uthor ity for zon-
ing by lo caliti es.
In so me instan ces, there can be co nfu -
sio n whe n differ ent state agencies over-
see diffe re nt reg ul atio n s for simi la r
iss u es. Often, these regulati on s co ntain
different d e finitions fo r th e sa m e iss u e
or process . For exam p le, in Virginia
"land d evelo pment" is d efined one way
unde r the Erosion Con trol L aw, w hi le
"d evelopm ent" has a differ ent definition
unde r the C hesapeake Bay Preservation
Act . It can b eco m e administratively dif-
ficult for legal s taff to so rt out all the dif-
ferences. Although this doesn't make
th e creati o n of str ea m protection ordi-
nances imposs ibl e, it doe s require a
stron g co mmitme nt on be h a lf of lo ca l
st aff to en sure they have the required
a utho rity fo r implementation.
Tools That Apply To Every State
There are a number of tools that apply to
eve ry state in the Chesap eake watersh ed .
These include easements, covenants,
proffer s and fee-simple purchases.
With a ll of them, there are monitoring
needs , but yo u can meet these needs
partnering with a local non -profit
age n cy or local vo luntee rs.
Easements and covenants
A stream-protecti o n ordinance may
in co rpo rate methods of perpetual land-
use protection , s uch as easements or
cove nants. Ba ltimore County, Maryland ,
for example , requires dedication of a
b uffer either by easement or cove nant.
This dedication is requ ired for construc -
tion permits in riparian a reas. If, as in
Baltimore County, buffer s are dedicated
free of charge to the local government,
they can provide an economical way of
providing protection to critical stream -
si d e areas. Usuall y, su ch easements or
covenants do not provide for public
access to the dedicated portion of land .
Although they co uld b e written to ensure
public access, s uch a pol icy would proba-
bly ca u se substan ti a l r esistance from pri -
vate landow n ers.
Easements tailored for streams
While there are mechanisms and stat e-
sp on so red programs for easements , an
easem ent program tailored fo r streams
may be a u se ful approach. The nee d for a
str eam -based easement program is likely
to arise b ecau se some ease m ent programs
seek large tracts of land (g reater than 100
ac res) and sm all er , narrow, stream-corri -
dor easem ents m ay not fit within the pro -
gram's g u idelin es. In r ecogniti on of this,
Virginia's Thomas J effer so n Soil and
Water Con se r vation District holds ripari-
an ease m ents fo r stream s to improve and
protect water quality.
Non -p rofit river co n servation organiza -
tio n s may be interested in h old ing nar -
row easem ents along ri vers. Local gov-
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for L oca l Governments 11
ernments may consider partnering with
these co n servation groups to obtain
easements a nd monitor them. For exam-
ple, both the ational Committee for
the ew River and Friends of the Rivers
of Virgi ni a hold conserv ation easements
on the ew River.
Continual monitoring
Local governments sho uld be aware that
simply holding an ease ment on a piece of
land is not sufficient to ensure its protec-
tion -even if the easement was written
expressly to provide for environmental
protection. Local governments holding
easements on land need to continual ly
monitor them to co nfirm that landowners
are complyi n g with the term s of the ease-
ments. The drain on staff time required to
monitor sites can be prohibitive. An alter-
native is to partner with a local non-profit
agency, which will sho ulder some, or a ll , of
the responsibility for holding and monitor-
ing easements. It may be necessary to pro-
vide them with grant funds to cover their
time and for appropriate legal services .
Proffers
In Virginia, although buffers cannot be
required of n ew developments unless
under an existing ordinance, they can be
offered as proffers by a d eveloper.
Proffers are only allowed in cases of
rezoning and cannot be required by the
government . Rather, they must be
offered voluntarily by the developer.
The community sho u ld m ake the case
that the buffer would serve the public
and spell out its purposes and gui de-
lin es, so that a developer is aware that he
can proffer a buffer i n exchange fo r
exception s to development restrictions.
Fee-simple purchase
In some cases, a local government may
find it beneficial to purchase stream-side
land outright. It mig ht want to create a
linear park with publi c access or a strate-
gically important site with a high degree
of environmental sensitivity or publi c
va lu e. The local government can pur-
chase land from a vo luntary seller.
An advantage of this approach over ease-
ment purchase is that the local govern -
ment has complete co ntrol over the giv en
parcel. Disadvantages are raising the
funding required for the purchase an d
potentially needing to apply lo cal govern-
ment powers of eminent domain over
un willing sellers who hold key parcels.
Development Rights
There are two ways development rights
can b e used to protect str eams and their
buffer zones. The first is through
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs)
and the second is throu gh Purchase of
Development Rights (PDRs).
Transferable Development Rights
TD Rs occ ur between two entirely sepa-
rate parcels of land. They are allowed in
Penn sylva ni a, under its 2000 amen d -
ments to Act 24 7 and they are allowed in
Maryland. For example, Montgomery
County, Maryland, has implemented a
TDR program since 1980 that has pro-
tected 39 , 180 acres. However, TD Rs
are not presently allowed in Virginia.
Since TD Rs can cross municipal bound-
aries, municipalities can agree to set up
sending and receiving areas from one
jurisdiction to another. In this kind of
system , development credits are sold by a
landowner in a sensitive area (also ca ll ed
a sending area ), in order to reduce the
deve lopment potential for that land.
They are given to a landowner in an area
designated as appropri ate for addition a l
density (a receiving area). Local gove rn -
ments may choose to use TD Rs if a
required buffer is very wide and its regu -
lations very strict.
While TDR programs are effective in
preserving natural resources, they have
been primarily used in urban settings.
According to a study, their use has not
been without problems or controversy.
There must be clear sendin g and receiv-
ing areas. Where considerabl e sprawl
exists within the sending area , it may be
too late for a TOR program to be s ue -
5amPl8 criteria lisl for Ille PW'Chase of develoPment riVhlS for stream corridors
Award 3 points if the land fully meets a criterion, 2 points if it mostly meets a criterion, 1 point if it somewhat meets a criterion and 0 points if it does not meet the criterion at all.
The land is adjacent to a waterway that is significant for one or more of the following reasons:
• It conta ins threatene d or endangered species .
• It contains critica l reso urces, such as drinki ng water or trout habitat, a se nsi tive headwate r stream , and so on.
The land represents a diminishing resource; for example, it is the last remaining wildlife habitat along a creek.
The land contains unique cultura l and historical aspects; for example, it has historic locks and dams or Native American burial mounds.
The land is subject to environmental hazards, making it a poor candidate for development ; for example, it is subject to frequent flooding, poor drainage or unstable soils.
The land is located far from an available or adequate infrastructure; for example, there are no adequate roads, sewe r or septic systems, or water supply.
The lan d repre sents a signifi cant com munity resource; for examp le, it is currently being used by the community (e.g. for environmental education , fieldtrips or fishing).
There is a high likelihood that the land wi ll be developed in the next ten years .
*Opt iona l: Development ri ghts can be purchased at an affordable (or be low market ) price.
Tolal Points
TOTAL: 17 or more points= high priority for the purchase of development rights .
10-16 points= medium priority for the purchase of development rights.
Less than 10 point s = low pr iority for protection.
18 Chapter Four: Tools for a Stream Protec tion Strategy
cessful because residen ts withi n the
receiving areas may object to the higher
density n ecessary for a TOR program.
Purchase of development rights
PD Rs are allowed throughout the Bay
states. Their use is appropriate whe n it's
not possible or politically desirable to
remove development rights in buffer
areas. This may be the case in areas
where a more restrictive buffer is neces-
sary to achieve environm ental or social
goals, su ch as protecting endangered
mussels or I ative American sites.
States vary greatly in the funding they
provide for PD Rs an d some lack ade-
quate criteria or funds to assess whether
or not a site is suitable , or strategic
e nough , to acquire its d eve lopment
rights. If limited funds are availab le,
development rights for riparian lands
should not be based simply on who
applies. Rather than responding to
applications, criteria should be devel -
oped for environmental goals that are
clearly delin eated and ranked, so that
most the appropriate si tes are protected
first. The table Samp le Criteria List for
Purchase of Development Rights for
Stream Corridors lists the criteria you
can utilize to develop your own ranking
system for a PDR program.
Overlay Zoning
One of t h e most common ways to pro-
tect streams through local government
law is to incorporate water protection
provisions into an existing zonin g ordi-
nance . Usually, the protection measures
are written in to an overlay zone that is
geographically specific to the stream. A
local government can write this overlay
district to in corporate values it wishes to
promote. A ri ver-based overlay district
might include provisions for protecting
historic, scenic and natural values. It
could also create a new buffer by requir -
ing buildings to be set back a certain dis-
tance from the stream or by placing
restrictions on uses allowed by the
"underlying" zones.
Mitigating set-backs
One way to m itigate the impact of set-
backs and make them more attractive to
developers is to allow them to include
the buffer zone in their calculation of
build-out potential, so that they are
compensated for land protection with
higher density allowa nces. On a large
tract of land, removing a 200-400 foot
strip of land along a stream from the
calculation of the tract's buildable land
can r epresent a significant loss to the
developer.
Although such a regulation is likely to
pass a legal "takings" test, it will be
more politically acceptable if it includes
such a compensatory benefit to the
developer. By allowing the developer to
include the buffer area within his calcu-
lati on of total buildable land (for the
purposes of determining build out), a
local government can protect streams
without limitin g a developer's financial
yield from a tract of land . Development
rights are effectively transferred inter -
nally from the buffer area to the rest of
the tract.
Also note that many lo ca l governments
have landscaping ordi nances for sites
both near and distant from streams.
Su ch ordi nances could effectively
require the planting and placement of
appropriate native species within
buffers.
Critical areas
When water-protection is not written
into a zoning ordinance, the ordinance
can provide for the protection of critic a l
or sen sitive areas , in much the same way
that Maryland's Critica l Area Act or
Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Protection Act
define critical areas. Loudoun County,
Virginia and Montgomery County,
Maryland u se this approach. This lega l
tool probably requires a larger staff to
define and review plans for specific criti-
cal areas and to monitor and enforce
implementation.
In-stream habitat protection
Some local ordinances co ntain specific
provisions d esigned to protect valu es
located in the stream itself. Albemarle
County, Virginia, for instance, has in-
stream restrictions for the removal of
woody debris, the creation of access
points and for channel modifi cation -all
activities that could have a dramatic
impact on in-stream habitats . In-stream
regulations ca n also require bioengineer-
ing to restore disturbed habitats .
Water Quality Protection Ordinances
There are many different types of ordi-
nances that can be used to improve
water quality in local streams. The guid-
ance offered here focuses primarily on
the creation of stream buffer ordinances.
However , other types of ordinances,
su ch as stormwater management, open
space development, and erosion and sed-
iment control , bear mentioning. The
Center for Watershed Protection offers
helpful model and example ordinances.
(See http://www.cwp.o rg )
Combining existing regulations
In some localities, there are existing reg-
ulations that restrict floodplain develop-
ment and tree removal, or that protect
criti cal habitats. These can result in the
esta blishm ent of a de facto buffer zone.
However , these regulations ge n erally
provide only piecemeal protection for
the river system . For examp le, while
floodplain development may be restrict-
ed, a lack of woody vegetation withi n the
floodplain may reduce its ability to
buffer the stream from land-use
impacts. Alternatively, if the floodplain
is protected but the stream's banks are
severely eroded or have become chan n el-
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 19
ized and armored, goa ls for water quality
and h a bitat protection m ay not b e
achieved .
Stand-alone ordinances vs. Zoning ordi-
nances
When u sing ordinanc es to protect water
quality, a fundamental question arises.
Shou ld protection m easures occur
through zo nin g or should there b e a
stand-alone ordinance? For most locali-
ties, the answer to this question n eeds to
be based on the structure of the local
governme nt. In some areas , the creation
of an overlay zone s ubj ect to the zo nin g
review process might be the stro n gest
means to en sure a n effective ordin an ce.
For other localities , individual regula -
tions mi ght be more effective.
Level playing field
Another question localities will need to
ask when they create an ordinance is,
does it create a level playing fie ld ? Often ,
efforts to mitigate problem s such as
urban stormwater create a situation where
de velop ment b ecomes easier in outl yin g
rural areas that are less reg ul ated. When
creating any ordinance, input fro m all
affected parties, su ch as farm ers , en gi -
neers and developers, is essential to
en sure that the regulations address com-
munity values and do not unintentionally
protect one area at the ex p ense of anoth er.
Enabling authority
Does your local gove rnm ent have the
necessary authority to impl ement ord i-
nances or is there already state legisla-
tion that yo u can utilize? Each state
within the Chesapeake Bay drainage has
a di ffe rent m echanism by which it grants
enabling authority to local ities .
Stormwater management
However well planned, d evelopm ent
increases the total area of roads, rooftops
and si d ewalk s . These impervio u s sur-
faces all contribute to the vol ume of
stormwater that reaches local stream s
during storms. Yet new d evelopmen t
n ee d not necessarily equate with greater
runoff if creative methods are employed
to prevent it.
Decreasing the effects of s tormwater
runoff is vital to maintaining the health
of all waterways . Concentrated
stormwater not only contributes grea tl y
to erosion and flooding, but also carries
with it greater amounts of dissolved and
undi sso lved pollutants, such as oil , road
sa lts and fertilizers .
Stormwater can be controll ed either
through prevention or through structural
methods that help to hold the water in
place before it flows to the stream .
Sto rmwater manageme nt facilities are
designed to prevent water flowing directly
into the stream, to remove pollutants and
to allow water to filte r more slowly back
into the ground. However , this approach
is often impractical , especiall y in devel -
oped urban areas, such as Washington
D.C., Baltimore and Richmond wh ere
more creative approaches are needed to
trap and filter stormwater.
There are ot her ways to tackle this issue
than building la rge stormwater manage-
m ent ponds (large regional ponds, often
made by damming s mall streams) o r
p u tting in m ul tiple small ponds . Instead ,
consider stormwater plans that foc u s on
source prevention. T h ere are many cre-
ative tools avai lable for slo wing or pre -
venting runoff caused b y construction .
Rooftops , especially those on larger
commercial stru ctures, ca n be em plo yed
as storage a nd filter areas. They can b e
designed to hold water and slowly
release it, mimicking n atural rates of
run off. Also, they can b e planted with
vegetation to store and filter water and
provide bird a nd butterfly habitats. For
exa mpl e , in retrofittin g an old pump
h ouse to serve as a n enviro nmental edu -
catio n ce nter, the Earth Con servation
Corps in Washington D.C. ad d ed a "liv-
in g roof." This d emon strates that eve n
old er buildings can be modi fied to
reduce runoff. When creati n g sto rmwa -
ter m a nage m ent ordinances, both design
and maintenance sho uld be considered.
Because Best Management P r actice
(BMP) techno logies change as time goes
on , all cr iteria affecting design , sizi ng
and performance should b e written in a
design manual that acco mpanies the
o rdi nan ce, rather than bei n g in the ordi -
nance itself. This design manual can b e
kept up -to-date by the local stormwater
management agen cy, negating the n ee d
to go through a legislative approval
process when changes are made.
Storm wate r B1v1Ps can be expensive to
create, but are relatively inexpe nsive to
20 Chapter Fou r : To ols for a Stream Protection Strategy
maintain . However, the low degree of
co ntinu al maintenance ca n res ult in neg-
lect. Stormwater ordinan ces require
post-construction management plans
th a t outline responsible parties and n ec -
essary maintenance practices. Some
localities might want to consider ordi-
n ance language that enco urages the u se
of maintenance easements .
Erosion and sediment control ordinances
Erosion and sediment co ntro l ordin ances
ca n serve as a primary way of addressing
the problem of increased sedimentation
caused during constr uctio n clearing and
gradi n g. However, co mmunication an d
enfor cement are central to an effective
ordinance. Designers, en gi n eers and
con tractors n eed to be ed uca t ed about
the importance of erosion control prac-
tices . This can be accomplished through
technical documentation that accom p a-
nies the ordinance, alo n g with other
education methods such as workshops .
In Montgomery County, Pennsylvani a a
Sediment Contro l Pre-Construction Notice
is sent to all contractors . This notice out-
lines the co un ty 's basic erosion control
and stormwater requirements . Althou gh
it doesn 't replace the actual p e rm it and
plan language, it serves as a reminder of
basic r esponsibilities and obligations .
A lon g with strong communication a bout
the necessity of erosion con trol comes
the n eed for strong enforcement. To
effectively enforce a ny ordinance, staff
need to be able to inspect construction
sites on a regular schedul e.
Open space and cluster development
ordinances
Open -space or conservation-based
development ordinances address the
need for natural and cul t ural resource
protection by creating zo n es for both
housing and undeveloped ar eas of the
stream corridor. This type of concentrat-
ed development greatly reduces the
amount of impervious cover on a site
and h elps to redu ce t h e amo unt of clear-
ing and grading needed during the con-
struction process. Land areas that are
left undeveloped can serve as recreation-
al areas, storm water management faci li -
ties and natural preserves.
Local governments experien cing devel-
opment pressures can foc u s growth pat-
terns to protect stream and water
resources. However , any ordin an ce
n eeds to effectively bal an ce eco nomi c
and e nv ironm ental factors, so that
responsible d evelopm ent can be en cour-
aged, not h indered.
Don 't forg et that any open spaces yo u
c reate will req uire so m e d eg r ee of m ai n -
tenance. Ordinance r equirements sho ul d
reflect the n eed for the future manage-
ment of a ny natural ar eas se t aside b y
compact d eve lopment plans .
Additionall y, planne rs should wo rk with
developers to link o p en spaces b et ween
developments, es p ec ially along strea m
co rridors, so that wi ldlife passages ar e
maintained and forested tracts a re large
en ough to maintain eco logical diversity.
Stream buffer ordinances
The abi lity of a riparian buffe r to fun c-
tion to it s full potential d e pends on h ow
well the buffer is planned and d es igned.
The fo llowing chapter d escribes the gen -
eral co mpon ents necessary for a stream
buffer ordin ance. This is an overview of
the cu rre nt literatur e. When designing
buffer o rdinances, environmental and
e n gineering staff should always be co n -
sulted on the best ap proaches fo r strea m
buffer design for the lo ca lity.
Since local p oliti cs and land-use issues
often change, it is important to have a
fl exible ordinance. Since, on ave rage,
ninety perce nt of buffer land is privately
owned , it is essential to maintai n fl e xi -
bility, if you're going to m eet different
co nstituency needs and also protect
water and habitat quality.
The following are general features of
many effective stream buffer ordinances:
• Measurable criteria to d elineate the
origin and b o undari es of the buffer.
• The es tablishment of a minimum
stream buffer wid th : 100 feet , includ -
ing the fl oodplai n , is t ypically recom-
mended.
• Clear delineation of the buffer, both a t
the site and in a ll land records .
• A zo n ed approach to land uses within
the buffer (if appropriate).
• The abi lity to expand th e middle zo n e
to include steep s lopes, wetlands a nd
100-year floodplains.
• Man agement guidelines for current
and future owners of prope rty in the
buffer.
• C lear la n gu age delineating require-
ments fo r all development plans in the
buffer.
Fo r more on st ream buffer design a nd
reg ul ation see Chapter Five .
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 21
22 Chapter Four: Tools for a Stream Protection Strategy
The first step in enacting a buffer
ordinance is determining which streams
will be affected. You can take any of a
variety of possible approaches, based on
project objectives, avai labl e staff and
resources, and enforcement and legal
consideration s.
In this guide, buffer generally designates
a forested buffer. A lth ough forested
buffers might not be the best solution in
every area of the country, they wer e the
original ecosystem found along the
waterways of the Chesapeake Bay water-
shed and a re thus the most appropriate
habitats for addressing its water quality
issues. (See the box Why Forested
Buffers?)
In general , the inner ed ge of a buffer can
be defined from the ce nterline of sm all
first-or second-order streams. With
wider, higher-order streams, buffer
measurements usually b egin at the top of
each stream bank.
Ident ifying the Stream -
The Perenniality Debate
One of the first things a local govern -
ment must decide is w hi ch streams to
include in the buffer program. One cr i-
terion is to include streams that flow
year-round -p erenn ial streams. Stream
perenniality ca n either be determined
according to USGS maps, field-deter-
mined eva luations, or a stream layer
derived from a Geographic Information
System (GI S). Another approach is to
designate streams by watershed acreage;
for exam ple, all streams of at least X
number of acres wi ll be included in the
buffer program.
It's important to note that some of the
smaller headwate r stream s (first order)
may not show up on USGS topographic
maps, yet it's critical to protect them.
Identifying and delineat in g these small er
streams may r equire time from local
• I I
Cr eating and Managing Buffers
government field personal or in partn er -
ship with state agencies, such as the
Department of Forestry or your local
Soi l and Water Conservation District.
Methods for Determining
Buffer Width
There are several methods for determin-
ing the width of a buffer. You can e ither
choose a uniform width or a buffe r that
changes along with stream order.
Alternative ly, you can employ state-d es-
ignated uses, landscape features or mul -
tiple val ues that take a ll factors threaten -
ing water quality into account.
W.,1-f Forested BtAffers?
Uniform Width
One method of defining buffers
throughout a locality is to establish a
single, required width for all stream s.
This is probably the easiest method for
local governments and the regulated
community to adhere to, inasmuch as it
doesn't require scientific knowledge
among staff members, complicated legal
regu lations, or an inventory of landscape
features. It 's also easy to spot violations.
On the other hand , the method's lack of
scientific specificity with regard to
width and landscape features may be
difficult to defend. Furthermore, it may
Forests trap and hold sediment, filter surface and groundwater flows and shade streams to keep temper-
atures lower and dissolved oxygen higher. In addition, they contribute leaf liner as food for aquatic
insects, which in turn are eaten by fish.
Overhanging tree roots provide fish with cover from predators and habitat for other insects. Streamside
forests are also vital habitats for wildlife such as kingfishers and beaver.
Historically, the Chesapeake Bay drainage area was primarily covered by forests. Native Americans used
trees for firewood and canoes and maintained some lands as fields, but it was during the population
boom of Colonial settlement that massive forest clearing took place. Colonial lumber exports for ship
building, clearing lands for agriculture and the later use of charcoal for steam engines led to a dramati-
cally altered landscape. In the early 1900s only 30 to 40 percent of the land was covered in forests.
However, during the last century, much of the forests base has recovered. By the late 1970s, forested land
had risen to 60 percent of the land cover.
While forest area has increased since the turn of the century, the condition of that forest needs to be
considered. Fragmentation -the breaking up of forest lands into ever smaller parcels for subdivisions,
shopping malls and roads disrupts wildlife corridors and changes the ecosystem, altering tree species
and forest health. More edges are created which allow greater opportunities for invasive species to
encroach on the forest. Forests are also suffering from disease and invasions from pests such as the pine
beetle and the gypsy moth.
Additionally, while more land is forested today than during the turn of the century, forested land along
streams is often lacking because farmers use that land for grazing or crops. In Nelson County Virginia for
example, while the vast majority of the mountains are forested, most of the Rockfish River's buffer is one
tree wide and root systems are inadequate to hold banks in place resulting in severely eroded 10-foot
high steep, slumping banks which contribute tremendous sediment loads to the creek and fill in spaces
used by aquatic insects and fish. This is one reason why the Bay agreement calls for 2,010 more miles of
forested stream banks by 2010 in the Bay' watershed.
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for Local Governments 23
not provide effective stream protection
in areas with steep slopes, erodable soils
or other sensitive habitats.
A uniform width approach co uld be
u sed to establish a minimum for a ll
streams, along with "drivers" that auto -
matically require a larger buffer.
Examples for these 'drivers' are tro ut
streams, the presence of threatened
species and nearby higher-density devel-
opments.
Width is a key consideration in whether
or not the buffer can be counted towards
meeting the Bay Agreement's goa l of
2,010 miles of additional stream b u ffers
by 2 010. Under the Bay Agreement, the
buffer should be at least 35 feet wide
from the top of the bank to the b u ffer's
uphill edge and contain at least two tree
species, shrubs or a combination of both.
In Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act requires 100 -foot wide
buffers fo r the eighty-fo ur tidewater
localities that are covered by the Act and
provides enabling leg islation for stand-
alone ordinances for the remaining lo cal -
ities . In Maryland , the Critical Area Law
requires a minimum one hundred -foot
buffer for all new development. This
buffer must consist of natural vegetation
and must stretch from the mean high-
water line of tidal waters, or the edge of
tidal wetlands and tributary streams.
Stream Order Method
A second method of defining buffer width
is according to stream order, employi n g
wider buffers for higher -order streams.
This method requires a lo cal government
to provide information to landowners in
the form of a map identifying streams by
their order. This may cau se disputes
about those identification s.
This method for defining buffer width,
lik e the s in gle-width method, fai ls to
take specific landscape featur es into
account. Furthermore , it doesn't al low
fo r lesser -order streams that have more
potential to harm water quality than
some higher -order streams, because of
surroundi n g land uses, proximity to
drinking water intake suppli es, water
uses, s lope steepness , and so on.
State-Designated Uses
Another method for determining appro -
priate buffer width relates to existing
state-designated water u ses. This
method appli es the legall y-designated
use of the water resource, rather than the
potential for harm, as th e basis for defin-
#1
butter on edge
of subdivision _____ _)_ ------
24 Chapter Five: Creating and Managing Buffers
ing buffers. For example, a stream
which serves as a drinking water so urce
would require wider buffers.
This method has no rea l scientific
underpinning , other than the notion that
"wider buffers offer more protection ."
It pays no attention to the actual compo-
sition or use of the land around the water
resource. This method also fails to
address the way in which streams and
water sheds work together as part of a
larger system. However, this method is
relatively e asy for a local government to
implement , since it does not require
exte n sive research . It may require map-
ping different stream designations for
stream usage in the watershed .
Landscape Features
Using features in the landscape, such as
soi ls, slopes, wetlands and floodplains is
another method that is often used to
determine the width of a buffer zone, in
conj un ction with other approaches.
Sometimes , land features add extra
width to the buffer , as in the case of wet-
lands and floodplains , which can be u sed
to define the limits of the buffer.
This method requires careful inventories
and violations may be difficult to spot . It
also makes for a compli cated review
process . To achieve intended goals, this
method should be implemented in tandem
with other methods, such as single -wi dth,
stream-order or drainage -basin methods .
Multiple Values
The most scientifically based buffer d ef-
inition method is a multiple-value
approach that us es a mathematical for-
mula to take all of the factors threatening
water quality into acco unt. Since this
method also happens to be the most
time -and r eso urce-inten sive, it is best
suited to a well-staffed planning office.
Baltimore County, Maryland , employs
this m ethod of buffer-delineation . It
combines slopes and uses to determine
buffer width. For example, a slope of 0-
15 p ercent for trout -use waters req uires
a buffer of 150 feet, while the same
str eam -u se classification with a slope of
greater than 25 percent requires a 200 -
foot buffer. Montgomery County also
has established recommended buffers
srream zones
Zone l
for wetlands, springs and seeps that fall
outside their stream protection areas .
Stream Zones
One approach to defin ing stream buffers
and allowed uses is to have zones with
defined functions and u ses :
• The first zone (the streamside zone) is
closest to the stream and almost no uses
are permitted except mature fores t .
• A seco nd zone allows for some reg u -
lated uses in the buffer, such as selec-
tive harvesting of some trees, as lon g
as best management practices (BMPs)
are followed .
• A third zone allows for somewhat com-
patible uses, such as reside ntial and
recreation uses or stormwater retention.
The zone approach is used as a way to
acknowledge existing uses while provid -
ing for a wider buffer, in return for some
use of the buffe r space in the oute r
region (zo n es two and three). It's impor-
tant to note that, as trees age, they
become less effective at nutri ent uptake,
which is why some programs advocate or
allow the harvesting of mature trees in
the second zone. However, some forest
ecologists note that the presence of
mature trees that eventuall y fall and
decay provide an important nutrien t
source for the forest. While their co ntin -
ual harvest may improve nutri ent uptake
by leaving only yo unger trees, it harms
other functions provided by decaying
material.
Usually, the actual wi dth of the buffer is
m ore important than whether or not it
incorporates a zoned approach, especial ly
for the undisturbed portion closest to the
stream. If the stream is unstable and suf-
Zone 2 Zone 3
fering from failing banks and high rates
of bank undercutting, then trees may be
lost at a high rate , necessitating a wi d er
buffer to maintain even minimal canopy
coverage. It's also important to note t h at a
buffer will be largely ineffective in so lv -
ing stream over -enrichment problems if
high vo lum es of stormwater are piped
directly to the stream , as is often the case
in urban and suburban areas.
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, calls
for Zone Two to be a minimum of SO feet
wide from the edge of Zone One, or to
extend to the edge of the 100-year flood -
plain, whicheve r is grea ter.
Zone widths and uses vary
Although a three-zone b uffer system is
s u ggested by the Chesapeake Bay
Program, the widths and specific uses
all owed in each zone vary between local-
ities . For example, w hil e the state of
Pennsylvania recommends the use of
three zones in its statewide Stream
ReLeaf Program, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania , recom m ends only two
zones in its guidance for a Riparian
Corridor Con servation District
Ordinance , with Zone One designated
as a minimum of 2 5 feet of undisturbed
forest and Zone Two designated for pas-
sive uses, such as wild li fe sanctuaries,
passive areas of park lan d and trails that
adhere to state trail design codes . It a lso
a ll ows conditional use permits fo r liv e-
stock crossings, public utilities , cam p-
grounds, go lf courses and several other
uses. Baltimore County, Maryland, also
follows the two-zone approach , rejecting
a passive, o r third , zone. Their guidan ce
concentrates on manag in g for multiple
valu es beyond nutrient removal and
includes wate r quality, heterogeneity for
aquatic and terrestrial communities, and
maintenance or enrichment of biological
diversity. As a result , their management
objectives require that a buffer generall y
remain undisturbed .
Managing Buffers
Effective management of the buffer is
just as important as proper siting. A
forested buffer that allows inappropriate
uses that impair its functionality can ren-
der it largely useless. If the buffer is not
monitored and maintained it may suffer
from high rates of tree disease, encroach-
ments, livestock trespass, harvest o r
moving of vegetation that impede or
negate its ability to protect the stream.
D esign Options and
R equirements
It is a good idea not to include many
design details, such as vegetation types
and placement, in a stream buffer ordi-
nance. This information is subj ect to con-
tinual change based on local experie nce
and emerging technologies. As described
earlier, an accompanying design manual
or design guidan ce document, which does
not require a formal ordinance revision
when technical items are added or delet-
ed, may be more practical. Ju st as federal
and state level agencies adopt acts, and
then regulations, local governments can
utilize two tiers -ordinances (equivalent
to acts) and design manuals (equivalent to
g uid elines ).
Management and
Mainte nance
Though forested buffers are relatively
inexpensive to maintain, they do require
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 25
care once es tabli sh ed. New seedlings
n eed to be t ended , invasi ve species n ee d
to b e removed , eros ion gullies n ee d to b e
fixed , and at times , se lected harvesting
ca n be d on e. Thu s, when creati n g buffe r
ordinances, it's important to identify a
specific li st of stru ctures, practices and
activities that sho uld and should not b e
permitted in a forest buffer within th e
ordinance.
Management P l ans
A local government may r equire man -
agement p lans fo r ce rtain disruptive land
u ses within a riparian buffer . Common
u ses for which a management plan m ay
b e r eq uired a re silvic ulture, agric ulture
and mining, tho u gh others exist as we ll.
A loca l government with limited
r esources may n ot be able to handle th e
r eview process necessary for t hjs require-
ment . An alternative is to req ujre that
su ch uses m ee t the standards of a state
agency -such as the local Soil & Water
Con se rvation District office or the
Department of Forestry. Tills removes
the respon si b ility of rev iew from the
lo cal government, whi le still providing
so m e level of oversight for p ot entiall y
harmful activities. Even with the h elp of
these agencies, however, responsi bility
for monitoring and enforcement m ay fall
to the local government. Thus, the
m echanism and funding for oversight
must be d etermined prior to be ginning a
new program .
P ermitt e d Uses
Buffers may accommodate the following
u ses with out a substantial loss of effec -
tiv en ess, provided that the impacts of
such u ses are m itigated.
limited harvest of trees, berries, and other
non-timber forest produds
Even though a forested bu ffer is more
effec tive than buffer s with other types of
vegetation, a local gove rnment may
choose to a ll ow the selective harvesti n g
of trees, berries a nd o ther forest prod -
u cts without sig nificant damage to water
qual ity. C learing of dead trees and non -
indigenous plant species may also be
unde rtaken . Clearing of trees fo r
"views" should be disco uraged, unl ess it
can b e shown that such cl earing wi ll n ot
sign ificantl y redu ce water quality.
Local governments with proper
reso urces for r eview may r eq u ire a s ilvi -
c ulture management plan or may require
that a plan m eet approval from the local
Soil and Water Conser vation Distri ct.
Stream crossings
Most buffer o rd inances allow for the
placement of esse ntial utilities withi n the
buffer ar ea, su ch as storm sewer inter-
ceptors o r oth er pipes. An effective
buffe r ordinance req ui res that care b e
t ake n when doing this, so that thei r
impact d oes n 't work agai n st the purpose
of the buffer. For ex ampl e, a wide swath
ca u sed by a power lin e that is sprayed
wi th he rbi cides m ay h ave a major impact
on the buffer 's function.
Other cross in gs, s uch as fo r cattle, ca n
be employed using approaches t h at
restrict the crossi n g to an adeq u ate, but
narrow p assage and require some a rmor -
ing of the crossing, s u ch as logs
anchored in the stream b ed to prevent
g ull ying. Con sult the Natural
Resources Con se rvation Se rvice or a
local Soi l a nd Water Con ser vatio n
District fo r technical g u idelines and
so urces of grants fo r co n stru ction .
Recreational uses
Depending on its goals, a local govern -
m ent may wis h to allow recreational u ses
within the buffer space. These may
invo lve docks , piers, boat access an d
trails . These types of buffer incursion s
should be d es igned with m aximum sensi-
tivity to the purpose and function of
buffers . Trails sho uld b e lim ited in scale,
to provi d e access a nd rec r ea tion wi thout
deleterious impacts on water quality, such
as eros ion and accelerated runoff. Six -
foot -wide trai ls constru ct ed of crus her
run, which is somewhat perm eab le, may
be u se d to minimi ze t ra il impacts and
m eets ADA requirements for projects
fund ed by the Federal Highway
Adrrunistration's Transportation Eq uity
Act for the 2 1st Century .
R estricted Uses
The following practices and activ iti es
sho uld b e r es tri cted w ithin Zones 1 and
2 of a forested buffer , except with
approval by loca l natural r eso urce o r
planning age nci es.
26 Chapter Five: Creating and Managing Buffers
Vegetation removal
In Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Local
Assistance Department (CBLAD)
ad mini sters the Chesapeake Bay Act and
provides a manual with r eq u ir ements for
a buffer's com p osition. Fo r example, it
must be p lanted in woody vegetation or
m a n aged to lead to s u ccessio n by woody
vegetation; also, it must be p lanted with
a var iety of vegetatio n of indige nous
trees, shrubs and gr asses to enhan ce the
q u a lity and q uantity of cove r , erosion
co ntrol , pollution reduction and wi ldlife
food value . It also p rovides a list of
acceptable native plant and tree species,
w h ic h is usefu l fo r land managers . This
approach co uld be used alongside tax -
cr edits or reimbursements, su ch as the
those provided by the Conser vation
Reserve Enhan cement Progra m. (See
Programs in Appendix B .)
If a locality wishes to create a particular-
ly far-reaching ordinan ce that delin eat es
the types a nd p lacemen t of vegetation , it
should also allow for the removal of n ox-
io u s weeds . It's recommended that this
infor m ation be included in an accom pa -
nying d es ign manual. To do so, the ordi-
nan ce sho uld spell o ut what consti tutes a
weed , in order n ot to provide an exc us e
for pullin g o r mowing b eneficial, native
riparian plants, such as boxel d er or bas -
ket willow. The general rul e of thumb is
that, if so m e work or maintenance is
allowed in the buffer, the ty pe of work
s hou ld be s p ell ed out. For example ,
Section 9VACJ0-20-130.b.1 ofVirginia's
Bay Preservation Act allows for tree
removal or pruning in order to provide
fo r lin es of sig ht, "as long as they are
replaced with other vegetation t hat is
equally effective in retarding runoff,
preventing erosion and filtering non-
point so u rce pollu tion ... "
Agriculture and livestock
Agricultural u ses within the buffe r are
ge n erall y not compati bl e with sou nd
buffer fun ctionin g, but may exist if th ey
are pre-existing and are a ll owed thro u gh
a "grand fathe r " provision . Appropriate
a ppli cation of BMPs m ay allow agricul -
ture to coexist with healthy str eams if
adequate set-backs from the water are
implemented . Many loca l gove rnm ents
are working to protec t agric ulture wi thin
their juri sdic ti on and loca l governments
ca n require the s u brrussion of an agric ul -
/------
, " v / f .,
I
I
/
('
I
I
J
I
I
/'
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
"' ',
,
/
v
"
"" #2 \'
subdivision ,
butter with \,
BMP DI -......
blollher 10 \ '
reduce \
rooon 10 lhe I
I •
stream L ----
tural con servation and management plan
that includes BMPs, either to the local
governm ent or to the local Soil & Water
Conservation District.
A buffer ordinance sho uld require that
appropriate measures are taken to manage
cattle access to streams. I deally, access
should be only at certai n points and those
points sh o uld be managed to preve nt t h e
dispersal of manure into the stream. In
many cases, controlled and stabilized
access points improve cattle safety.
Prohibited Uses
The following uses shoul d be expressly
prohibited within the buffer. These pro-
hibition s are in addition to those which
are already illegal. Fo r example, d u mp-
ing fill m at e rial into a fl owing stream is
a violation of the federa l Clean Water
Act, so the b u ffer ordinan ce need not
mention d umping restrictions.
Mining
Mining and its by-products represent a
process wholly inconsistent with the
p u rpose of b uffers. Pre-existing m ining
operation s within a proposed buffer
should be mitigated as m u ch as possible.
Neither n ew mining n o r expansion of
existing mines should be allowed within
a stream b u ffer.
In Virginia, the Department of Mines,
Minerals and Energy allows sand a n d
gravel mining in the b u ffer. However,
most development reg ul ations do not
al low mining within an established
buffer zone.
Commercial uses
In most cases, local governments have to
accommodate pre -existin g commercia l
uses -water-related and non-water-
related; pre-existing and new-by-right -
within the buffer area. A n effective
ordinance plans for mitigating the
impact of such uses. I n general , howev-
er, non-water related uses should be pro -
hibited within the buffer space .
Residential uses
As with commercial uses, a local govern-
men t may have to accommodate man y
pre-existi ng hou ses and lot divisions in
the buffer area. Local governments may
wis h to consider fee-simple purchase,
the purchase of easements or the use of
eminent domain to acquire strategic
b u ffer land when regu lation is not possi -
ble . However, the purchase of land may
not be an affordable option and eminent
domain carries unavoidable political
problems and requires proof that all rea -
so n able avenues for purchase have been
exhausted.
A more feasib le approach is to discour-
age, or not allow, new residential con-
struction within the buffer. Clearing
trees for lawns and "views" should be
prohibited, unless it can be proven
(preferably by a trained landscape archi -
tect, biologist or other professional ) that
such clearing will not reduce the overall
ability of the buffer to protect water
quality. If a ce rtain area of open space is
required, the buffer area can be desig-
nated as common space.
Best Management Practices to
Improve Buffer Performance
Some agencies that require buffers don 't
allow credit for the buffer as a Best
Management Practices (BMPs). For
example, Virginia's Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Department does not
provide credit for the installation or
maintenance of required buffers .
However , adding BMPs to improve
buffer performance, such as enhancing
tree and shrub density or adding native
species within the buffer, may be eligible
for credit.
Best Management Practices are used to
mitigate the effects ofland development
or agriculture. The ones discussed in t h is
r Attach filte r fab ric snugly
· to soil surfac w ith 6"
sties (or long nails and
washers)
placement at toe
rip rap tor proleClinD •eas
subiecl 10 extreme erosion
Place large roc k at toe (ba se ) of slope
in a t rench
A Stream Co rridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 21
gab ions
c. top is wired into
'""~P"l'"' basket once soil
and rock have been
placed inside
s how n to remove X percent of po llutants.
While the effectiveness of a BMP varies
depending on site co nditio n s and proper
instal lation , specifying which one is
acce ptable is an easy way to provide an
enforceable guid ance to local developers
and other land managers.
wire gabion basket
When selecti ng BMPs, carefully identify
the desired remediation effect for the
stream corridor (for exampl e , an expected
percentage reduction in stream ban k ero-
sion , or expected decrease in nitrate lev-
els). Next, identify the causes of the
problem. This can be a difficult tas k,
especiall y in urban areas wh ere nonpoint
so urce pollution can come from diffu se
so urces. However, eve n a general idea of
the sources w ill help yo u select an appro-
priate BMP. You sho uld also decided
whether a technology-or a standards-
based approach is most appropr iate .
start first h
gabion below channel
place a layer of rock and
soil and contin ue layers in
wire basket
gu ide fa ll i n to two main categori es:
stream buffe r BMPs and stormwate r
BMPs. Stream buffer BMPs are those
which directly effect the form a nd func-
tion of the stream buffer. Stormwate r
BMPs are those which h elp counteract
the forces of st ormwater runoff. There
a re many exce ll ent handbooks and a lot
of tec hnical assi stan ce on the selection,
p erformance and install ation of BMPs.
The following provide so m e basic prin -
ciples to co n si d e r in devising yo ur strat -
egy, but yo u will still need to co n sult
technical manuals, agency staff and con-
sultants when choosin g or requiring spe-
cific approaches.
When d ealing with high stormwater
flows, consider that buffers generall y
have the capacity to treat only ten p er -
cent of total runoff since m ost stormwa-
ter runoff flow s directly into stream s
through stormwater pipes and smaller
tributaries . Stormwater runoff impacts
streams by causing bank erosion as well
as carrying sediment from overland
runoff into str eams. Stormwater from
streets, parking lots and rooftops, als o
rai ses stream t emperature and ca rries
harmful stree t p ollutants , s u ch as oil,
into streams.
Selecting BMPs
There are two approaches to applying a
BMP. It may b e performance-based ,
which assumes that a BMP wi ll remove
a certain percentage of runoff, sedi m e nt,
and so on. O r it may b e outcome-based,
where m easurements en sure that the
impact o n a stream o r wetland meets
pre-determined sta ndards .
An outcome-based measure is more likel y
to en sure that the BMP is having the
intended effect. However, most local gov-
ernment and state age nci es don't h ave
resources to co nduct the necessary moni -
toring to ensure standards are being m et.
So m e stat es sp ecify whi ch BMPs can b e
u sed to meet program goals , based o n th e
assumption that certain BMPs have been
---
Once these issues have been identified,
co n sult the local government's eng in ee r -
ing department or an engineering firm to
determine the most appropriate BMPs
for your approach .
In-Stream Management
Although creatin g stream buffers is a
BMP in itse lf, there are BMPs specific t o
the stream channel. If a stream has been
damaged by excessive flows from over -
land runoff or stormwater piped directly
to the stream, a buffer wi ll not solve the
bank regraded
erod ing over-steep to 2: 1 or shallower
bank
K.._ I . I . p antings or po e cuttings
""' geotextile fabric
ground
surface
as specified
tf buds will
point up
trim off branches
live stalles to restore
riPartan vegetation
insert 2/3rds
of total pole
cutting into soil
28 Chapter Fi ve: Creating and Managing Buffers
problem by itself. Stormwater manage-
ment requires a comprehensive approach,
which includes trapping and filtering
stormwater before it reaches the stream in
stormwater ponds, biofilters, grassed
swales and other stormwater measures.
Once stormwater problems are mitigat-
ed, in-stream techniques can help to
repair prior damage. These techniques
require careful application of engineer-
ing principles by consulting with a qual -
ified geomorphologist and hydrologist.
You also need to get all applicable per-
mits from state and federal agencies for
work in the stream channel or on its
banks. These in-stream BMPs help
enhance and protect any buffers that
have been put in place.
We have li sted numerous bioengineering
and stru ctural techniques that are used
for str eam bank restoration projects,
such as fascines, live cribwalls, or riprap.
Bioengineering combines biological (liv e
plants) and engineering (structural)
methods to provide a stream bank stabi -
lization method that p erforms natural
stream functi on s without habitat
d estruction. These techniques have
existed for hundreds of years, but were
abandoned with the advent of concrete
and large machines, which were u sed to
channelize and pave streams .
In the past twenty years, bioengineering
methods have been gaining in popularity
in the United States as a way to repair
degraded streams, protect land structures
••llhods
Landscaping
Preserving existing vegetation
Stormwater management agreements
Clearing limits
Prevent eros ion on temporary an d private roads
Terraces
Diversions
Cover crop pi ng
Conservation tillage
Contour plowing
Crop rotation
close to streams such as power lines, and
restore stream habitat. These BMPs are
best used for direct stream restoration
projects over seen by an engineer or geo-
morphologist who is familiar with ripari -
an evaluation and desig n . There are sev-
eral u sefu l reso urces covering these meth -
ods in Appendix A. They are listed here
to provide the reader with a basic famil-
iarity of some of the m ethods available:
• Brush layering : Live branch cuttin gs,
crisscrossed on trenches between s u c-
cessive benches of soi l .
• Gabions: A wire rectangular basket
filled with rocks and anchored against
the stream bank to prevent erosion .
Gabions are best covered with soi l and
grasses or shrubs to avoid harm to
wildlife and improve aesthetics .
• Live cribwalls: A hollow, structural
wall used for bank and slope stabiliza-
tion formed by mutually perpendicu-
lar and interlocking members (usually
timber), into which liv e cuttings are
inserted, along with soi l to stabi lize
roots.
• Live f ascines: Sausage-like bundles of
riparian woody plant cuttings used to
stabil ize stream banks, generally
planted and staked into trenches par-
allel to the stream.
• Live staking: Cuttings , u sually at least
one inch in diameter, from living trees
that are inserted into str eam banks to
stabi li ze the slope.
• Riprap: Stones of varying sizes that are
u sed to stabilize the stream bank. They
can be used at the toe of the bank in
conjunction with methods mentioned
above. Riprap should be hand -placed
(not dumped ) and stones should be
somewhat larger than those generally
transported by a two-year storm flow.
Stormwater BMPs
Other types of BMPs can help address
the effects of stormwater runoff These
incl ude such practices and structures as
stormwater management ponds, co n -
stru cted wetlands, grassed swales and
public education programs, all of which
can help retard and filter runoff prior to
it reaching the buffer.
There are two different types of
stormwater management practices. The
first uses preventive measures -source
control and nonstructural practices -to
mitigate stormwater pollution. The sec-
ond uses control measures -known as
treatment practices -such as bioreten-
tion basins, sand filters and wet ponds.
As stated previously, control measures
should be specified within accompany-
ing design manuals to ensure that the
scie nc e behind the BMP is up-to -date.
P reventive Measures
Preventive measures, sometimes cal led
source controls , are management tech-
niques that reduce the exposure of m ate-
rials to stormwater, thus limiting the
General Conshucllon Aartculbn
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 29
am ount of p ollu tan t s and sed iment t h at
ar e p ic k ed up durin g a st o rm . The cr e-
atio n o f st o rm wat er o r buffer ordinances
is r eall y th e fir st line of preve ntive
m eas ures . This is b ecause it's ge n era lly
easier and less expensiv e t o reduce th e
a m o unt of co n tami nated s tor m w at er
en ter in g the system than to p r eve nt h igh
st ormwat er fl ows o r to r epair a strea m
aft er d a mage has been d on e .
30 Chapter Fi ve : Creating and Managing Buffers
Monitoring and maintenance are
critical components of any stream protec-
tion strategy, as they are the mechanisms
for determining and eval uating its s uc cess.
For exampl e, if a goal of the strategy is to
protect fish habitat, an evaluation of exist -
ing fis h habitat and fish species should be
conducted before the strategy begins,
before goals are establi sh ed for enhancin g
or increasing that habitat, and before a
timetable is drawn up for monjtoring fish
and their habitats . Targets for habitat
protection or improvement should be set ,
along with benchmarks to evaluate s uc-
cess along the way and contingency p lans
if those goals are not met.
Components of an Effective
Monitoring Plan
There are a number of specific compo-
n ents fo r monitoring the success of the
projects or objectives of your stream
protection strategy. These are:
• Specific management objectives for
the project or program.
• Monitoring methods tied to achieving
management objectives; for exa mpl e,
conducting in-stream biologi ca l and
chemical testing for projects intended
to improve stream health .
• A clear methodology and schedule for
conducting m onitoring of the si te (or
sample sites).
• A reporting mechanism: Who con -
ducts the monitoring, and who
receives and evaluates r esults?
• Milestones for achieving project objec-
tives.
• A process to reassess or repair failing
projects.
Monitoring BMPs
If specific management practices, s u ch
as forested buffers, are installed as part
I I
Monitoring and Maintenance
of a stream protection strategy, then staff
shou ld monitor the performance of the
BMP to ensure it is working . For exam -
ple , if trees were planted to restore a for -
est buffer , the survival rate shoul d be
measured at least ann uall y, and prefer-
ably at least biannuall y -say in spring
and fal l. Plans and funds should be
available to replace lost trees or do site
repair work.
Fifty percent of trees and shrubs should
s urvive lo n ger than two years . If the
government is funding a private site, it
may be necessary to provide funds or
technical assistance for monitoring and
reporting. For example, if a stream
restoration project is protecting one side
of the stream while causing the other
bank to erode, new en gineering and
installation s may be n eeded. O r , if the
project is designed to fence cattle from a
stream, so m e annual docum entation
should be supplied that fences are intact
and the project is o n -going. Depending
on the scope of the project, inspection s
and enforcement may b e needed to
e n sure that project goals are met.
Using intermediate indicators and
milestones
One approach to monitoring is to use
intermediate indicators and milestones
to measure a strategy's success. If an
indicator species is used , it should be
one that can be clearly linked to the
management strategy. A sample goal for
a river habitat restoration plan might use
the presence of brook trout as an indica-
tor of success and the number of addi-
tion al trout spawning in the creek by
Spring 2 004 as a milestone for its
achievement.
As an example of including indicators
and milestones in your strategy, consider
the following. The goal of the strategy is
to improve water quality to Muddy
Creek by 2 005 . A specific objective is to
"Restore 200 miles of riparian forest
buffer to Muddy Creek by 2002." One
of the milestones of the strategy is an X
increase in the number of brook trout
per mile by Spring 2004. Indicators of
success are water quality and in -stream
habitat, which are monitored to ensure
that they are maintained or increased. If
benchmark indicators are not achieved ,
there should be predetermined remedial
actions to ensure that the goa ls are m et
in the future.
BMP Maintenance
When working with private landowners,
it's important to include a maintenance
schedul e along with "allowed and
restricted activities." For instance, if
grant funds have been provided by a
government entity for planting trees or if
tax reductions (use-value taxation) have
been provided , it's reasonable to require
that the site be maintained. In the case
of Licking Hole Creek in Albemarle
County, Virgin ia , the landowner did
allow a steam buffer and bioengineering
project to be installed properly.
However, he had previously had a lawn
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 31
s~mpie Steps
for p~~ririirig
l.f01.tr str~tegl.f
1. Name of the project
Happy Trout Watershed.
2. Establish a goal for the project
The following project goal is based on an
assessment of current conditions: To improve
water quality in Happy Trout Creek.
3. Establish a specific objective
Objective A. of this project is as follows: To restore
100-feet-wide forested buffers on both sides of
the stream with native species of trees and
shrubs on twenty linear stream miles.
4. Establish specific tasks to achieve
objective
• Implement riparian easement and planting
program with county landowners.
• Purchase lands from those unwilling to donate
easements.
• Assess and plant buffers as needed, to improve
pollution removal and wildlife habitat.
S. Establish an implementation and
monitoring plan
• Monitoring Baseline: Measure and establish a
current baseline of trees and shrubs for each
project area. Devise a plan to restore trees and
shrubs (with review and approval by project
sponsors, as required).
• Implementation: Install planting project and
record location, number and species of installed
trees and shrubs.
• Ongoing monitoring: Revisit site at six-month
intervals and record survival rates (this can be
done for the entire area or for predetermined
sample plots intended to represent the entire
plot).
• Maintenance plan: For losses greater than 60
precent, repair and replant as needed, according
to buffer maintenance manual.
6. Consider providing funds or contingency
plans to provide repair or reinstallation if
the project is found to be unsuccessful.
Establish a project endpoint, as appropriate. For
example, will five years of successful buffer
revegetation be considered a success, or is the
project to be inspected in perpetuity?
down to th e stream 's edge and h e co n sis-
tently mowed the yo ung trees after
install ation . Fortunately, this did not
kill the trees, but it did preve nt growth
of suffici ent canopy to shad e the stream.
A m ai nte nan ce agree m ent, which
restricted mowing , co uld have prevented
this probl e m .
O t h er Main tenance Methods
Ther e are seve r al other techniques you
ca n empl oy to monitor and maintai n
a stream.
Posting a bond
You can post a bond to e n s ure that the
goals of the proj ect a r e m et . For exam -
ple, the bond may requi re that a certain
number or percentage of trees su rv iv e t o
a specified yea r and that, if not, remedi -
atio n or replanting ca n b e required of the
d eve loper or r esponsib le landowner.
Pre -assessment and post-assessment
For goals related to wat er quality, the
quality of water in the stream should be
assessed b efo re and after th e project.
There are many methods that can be
employed to do this. It may take ye ars for
a sever ely impaired waters hed to recove r.
Con sult with state environm ental moni -
toring agencies to find out what data
t h ey have for yo ur stream and whether
they are willing t o incl ud e monitorin g of
yo ur strea m in their regu lar inventory.
For exampl e, while yo ur local gove rn -
ment or co unty m ay not have fun d s to
impl em e nt a fish-monitoring program,
you may b e able t o coo rdinate with yo ur
stat e's Fish and Gam e D e partment to
include yo ur stream in their next moni -
toring cycl e. Alternatively, yo u may be
able to partner with a lo ca l university
that has equipment and laborato ry faci li-
ties to assess yo ur strea m. For exampl e,
entomol ogy students at the Virginia
Polytechnic a nd State U ni ve rsity pro -
vi d e bi o logical sampli ng assistance to
lo ca l str ea m con se rvation groups.
Clearly recorded buffer boundaries
Strea m buffers can face tremendou s pres-
sure fr om en croachment and disturban ce .
These disturbances include tree removal ,
co nv ersion to lawns , fi ll ing and dumping.
Often , these practices happen becau se
buffer boundaries are invisible to local
landowners, contractors an d local govern -
32 Chapter Six: Mo nitoring and Maintenance
m ent officia ls. This is due in great part to
the lack of recorded boundaries on official
maps a nd the la ck of landowners who are
educated about the stru cture and function
of stream buffer s.
Designers and planners are often to
blame for this oversigh t . Frequen tly,
during the creation of site plans, buffers
are d elin eated on fi n a l or conceptual
plans but n ot on construction docu-
ments. This greatly increases the ri sk
that contractors wi ll en croach upon or
disturb b u ffers in the co urse of their
work. Local governments a lso often fail
to record buffer boundaries on official
maps. Without this information, local
governments cannot look systemicall y at
the current system of buffers or eas il y
eva lu ate the impact of future develop -
ments on stream systems. Within an
ordina n ce , lang u age shou ld be incl uded
that specifies how buffers are recorded
on a ll plats. This information should
inc lude the dimensions of the buffer.
T o address problems ca u se d by co ntrac -
tors, maintenance crews and the public in
gen eral, some localities a re n ow using
sig n s in the fie ld to mark off buffers . The
sign lets people know that it is an e nvi -
ronmentally se n sitive a rea and gives a
contact fo r more information . In Virginia,
Albemarle Coun ty 's Department of
Engineering and Public Works used
funding from the state 's Chesapeake Bay
Lice ns e Plate Grant to help support a
Buffer Sign Program. Virginia's
Chest erfi eld and Henrico Counties use
R eso urce Protection Area sign age to
id entify buffer protection areas.
Evaluation and Enforcement
Although riparian buffers are u sually on
private property, it 's still recommended
that ordinances specify proce dures for
esta bli shi n g protective covenants, such as
a co n servation easement where a
landowner does not wish to take respons i-
bility for the maintenance of the buffer.
This is particularly true in the case of sub -
divisio n s , whe re a cluster development
might create a "no-man's-land ," where
management issues are not clear once the
lots are sold . It 's also important that all
land lease agreeme nts co ntai n information
regarding the location of and management
requirements for the buffer.
If th e proj ec t is n ot succ ess ful -for
ex ampl e, if wat e r qua lity goals ar e not
m et o r tree s u rvival rates ar e b elow a
s peci fied b en c hma rk -th er e sh o uld b e
require m ents in pl ace fo r r e m edi a l ac t iv-
ities . A s m entio n ed earli er , a bo nd could
be post ed , in which ca se p roject s u ccess
(fo r exampl e, the t ree survival rate)
wo uld n eed to be m et for a period o f
years. Al ternatively, if t he proj ec t is
i n stalled b y governme nt co n t r actor s, t he
mai n ten a n ce sch ed ul e sho u ld spec ify
repair and r e pl acement rates.
Facilities agreements
When a proj ect is in st a ll ed b ecau se it
was requ ir ed by a n o rd in a n ce, then a
faci lities agree m ent can b e impl em ented .
A fac il iti es ag reement call s fo r th e prop -
erty ow n er or m an age r t o m ai ntai n the
site according to d es ign s p ecificati on s
and p er fo rm ance . I t stipul ates t h e co n -
d it io n s for insp ect io n and en fo r ce m e nt,
as well as th e st e p s n ecessar y fo r rem edi -
at io n and r es po n si biliti es fo r any n eces-
sary re p alfs.
A S tream Corridor Prote ction Strategy for Loca l G overn m ents 33
34 Chapter Six: Monitoring and Maintenance
There are many a pproaches to d eve l -
oping a plan to protect streams and, as
mentioned earlier , m y riad reasons for
n eeding or choosi n g to d o so. The fol-
lowing case studies d e monstrate how
differ ent jurisdiction s in the Bay
Watershed have approa ch ed strea m pro -
t ection. In r eviewing these case studies,
yo u are likely to fi nd situations, issues
and co nditions simi lar to your own ,
whether you are a small local govern -
m ent or a larg e municipality.
Each proj ec t is broken d own into the fol -
lowing sections:
• Trigger issues: The concerns or legal
requirements that led to the project.
• Process: The ste ps that involved
groups took to imple ment the project.
• Contact information : Information to
contact the project's su p er viso rs .
The following case studies are found in
this chapter:
Maryland
• Regu lations for the Protection of
Water Quality, Streams, Wetlands and
Floodplains, Baltimore County
• Reso urce Protection Overlay Zone,
Charles County
• "L et's Be Partner s ... Water Pollution:
What We Can Do to Reduce and
Preven t It", Baltimore County
• City of Gaithersburg Environm ental
Stan dards , Gaithersburg
Virginia
• Stream Assess m ent/Watershed
Jv1anagement Program, H enrico
County
• Difficult Run Riparian Project ,
Fairfax County
• Green Infrastructure Plan , Loudoun
County
• Wate r Protec ti on Ordinance,
Albemarle County
• SWAMP -So u thern Watershed
/[a nagement Program
P ennsylvania
• Citizen Volunteer Monitoring
Program
• Donegal C reek Restoration Project,
Lancast e r Coun ty
• G uid e book for Riparian Corridor
Preservation, 1\/[o ntgo m ery County
Regulations for the Protection of
Water Quality, Streams, Wetlands and
Floodplains, Baltimore County,
Maryland
Trigger I ss u es
Over 2000 miles of streams fl ow through
Bal timore County, h a lf of which flow
direc tly into drinkin g water reservoirs.
These stream s feed Baltimore City's three
drinking water r eservoirs , which supply
over 1.8 mill ion ci t izens in th e Baltimore
region . To protect their re so urces, the
co unty esta blished a n Integrated
Waters hed Management Program
(IWMP). This program focuses effo rts
on seven key IWMP elem ents: land
preservation and growt h management;
res ource protec ti on (regu lations ); envi -
ronmental resto rati on; facility mainte-
nan ce; water quality monitoring; wat er -
sh ed managem ent planning and ecosys-
te m research ; and ed ucation and ci tizen
partici pation . Stream buffers play a key
part in th e county's res toration projects
and regulatory efforts. The IWMP has
evolv ed to provide a framework for inte-
grating watershed scales, agency func-
tions and federal /st ate mandates.
Process
W etland and stormwat er issues in the
co unty in the mid -1980s d em onstrated
the n eed fo r a regulatory approach to
stream protection . In 1988, the County 's
Water Quality Steering Committee made
recommendations for a regulatory pro-
gram . In 1989 , staff crea ted an Exec utive
O rd e r which was developed into fo rmal
regulations under the Regulations for the
Protection of Water Quality, Streams,
Wetlands and Floodplains in January
1991. The development industry was
invo lved in the negotiation s and this
helped to gain County Counci l approval.
The goal of the regulations is to protect
the county's riparian and aq u atic ecosys-
tems, thereby protecting water quality.
These regulations help maintain stream
health because they apply to all land
development in the county (specificall y
land subdivision, land clearing fo r d evel -
opment and co n struction ) and agri cul -
ture, forestry an d mining. The regula-
tions apply t o :
• all n ew developments
• timber harvesting activities that are n ot
in an approved Fo rest Management
Plan
• all land s that are ca u si ng , or co n -
tribute to , stream pollution, erosion
and sedimentatio n , or th e degradation
of stream habitats (unless the land is
agricultural and has an approve d Soil
and Water Con se rvation Plan)
The county's reg ulations call for specific
design standards fo r forested buffer s and
building set-backs. Forested buffers are
defined as:
" ... a forested strip of la nd extending
a long both sides of a stream and its a dja-
cent wetlands, flo odp lain, and slopes. Th e
forest buffer width shall be adjusted to
include contiguous, sensitive areas, suc h as
steep slop es or erodible soi ls, where devel-
op m ent or disturbance may adversely
affect water quality, streams, wet lands, or
other water bodies. This adjustment shall
be accomplished by eva luating the paten-
A Stream Co rridor Protec tio n Strategy for Local Governments 35
tial of a si te for impac ts that result from
runoff, soi l erosion, and sediment tran s-
port." Sec. 14-341
Buffer width is determined by strea m
classification and fo rmu las fo r evaluat-
ing stee p slopes and erodible soils. The
minimum buffer wi dth is between 75
and 100 fe et on each sid e of the channel.
The default width for each stream is set
based on its water use classification.
Buffers are d escribed b y 'm etes and
bounds' on recorded p lats and restricti ve
use covenants are recorded in the official
land records .
In addi tion to requiring the demarcation
of ri parian buffers on d evelopment pl ans,
the regulations also require the manage-
ment of ex istin g buffers by restricting
activities su ch as soil or vegetation distur-
bance, filling, dumping , u sing motorized
vehicles and pesticide u sage (except for
the sprayin g of noxious weeds ).
When asked about the advice he wo uld
give to other lo calities, Don O uten of the
Department of Environmental Protection
and Resource Managem ent said that two
key ele m ents of the project we re :
• Looking at functions that streams pro-
vide and u sing buffers as a tool to pro-
tect those fun ctions.
• Working closely with the development
community to cr eate the program and
ensuring that the stan dard ization ,
convenience and certainty that d evel -
oper s r equire we r e included .
Contact:
Donald Outen , Baltimore County
Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management,
401 Bosley Avenue, Towson, MD 21204
(410) 887-5683
Resource Protection Overlay Zone,
Charles County, Maryland
The C harl es County, Mary land , zoning
ordinance was changed to create ove rlay
zo n es fo r the protection of stream s and
adjacent se nsitive areas.
T rigger I ssu es
In response to d evelo pment pressures,
the Charles County Comprehensive
36 Chapter S even : Case Studies
Plan C iti ze n 's Advisory Committ ee
id entified stream va ll eys and natural
r eso urces as an area of primary co ncern
fo r their 1990 Compre h en sive P lan .
P r o cess
The Citizen 's Advisory Committee rea l-
ized that, in order to protect stream val -
leys, it would need to create a number of
additional regulatory mechani sms . To
this end , it determined th at the lang uage
in the Coun ty zoning ordi nance should
be updated and sho uld include deve lop -
m ent standards necessary to protect envi-
ronmentally sensitive areas and esta b lish
a stream va ll ey protection program.
In 1992, the county implemented a
R esource Protection Overlay Zone
(RPZ) in the revised County Zon ing
Ordinance. The main goal of the RPZ is
to protect water quality. It functions by
creating a zone for all the major str eam
va ll eys, which is superimposed on coun -
ty zoning maps. This overlay zone iden-
tifies the streams and the ir adjacent se n -
sitive areas, incl ud ing fl oodplains, non -
tidal wetlands, steep s lopes and habitat
areas. The RPZ sets performance stan -
dards for all n ew develo pments an d se t s
buffe r widths based on stream order.
Several u ses are allowed within the
buffer zo n e , provided that certain co ndi-
tions are met a nd the buffer zone is not
co mpromise d . These incl u d e :
• agricu ltural u ses
• timber harvesting
• recreation a l access
• n on-motorized trails
• utility lines
Contact :
Karen Wiggen, Charles County Office
of Planning and Growth Management,
C harl es County Government B u ildin g,
P.O . Box 2150, La Plata, MD 20646
(301) 645-0540
"Let's Be Partners ••• Water Pollution:
What We Can Do to Reduce and Prevent
It'; Baltimore County, Maryland
This co unty-w id e effo rt by Baltimore
County, Maryland , is designed to ed u -
cat e it s citize n s abo ut the importance of
strea m corridor protection.
T ri gger I ssu es
The Baltimore County Department of
Environmental Protection and Reso urce
Management (DEPRM) is very proac-
tive in stream buffer protection. T h eir
Regulations for the Protection of Water
Quality, Streams , Wetland s and
Floodplains were some of the earliest
examples of proactive planning
approaches to stream buffer q u ality.
However, DEPRM also realizes that the
task of reducing water pollution is
greater than the gove rnment alone ca n
handle. Citizen -based education is a key
p art of any large -scale str eam preserva -
tion effort .
P rocess
To address the need for education on
water quality and stream buffer preser-
vation , the DEPRM has created a multi -
media environmental edu cation program
call ed "L et 's Be Partners ... Water
Pollution: What We Can Do to Reduce
and Prevent It." It is offered free of
charge to schools and citizen community
gr oups throughout the county.
The program is tailored specifically to
Baltimore County and frames a water-
shed approach for local str eam aware-
n ess. The goa ls of the program are to
address the ca u ses of water quality
degradation in Baltimore County, to
outlin e the current efforts that are b ei ng
made to address pollution and to ex plain
effo rts that citizen and business groups
can undertake to address pollution in
lo cal streams, drinking water reservoirs
an d the Chesapeake Bay.
To m aximize the program 's audie n ce,
the program was designed to b e adapt-
a bl e for a variety of ages, abilities, inte r -
ests and time constraints . It also is
gea r ed to cit ize n reduction of nutrie nt,
toxic, and sediment pollution that reach-
es local streams, drinking water reser -
voi r s and the Chesapeake Bay via num-
ber of reaso nable , cost-saving ideas that
anyon e can employ.
The program addresses the followi n g
topics:
• Water Pollution: wh at it is, and how it
enters the waterway (point and non -
point so u rces).
• Effects of pollution: loss of valuable
resources.
• What specifically can b e done:
• by government ag e ncies at all
leve ls ?
• b y individual citizen s, families and
school groups?
• b y businesses, neighborhoods, and
communities?
• Where to get further information .
Contact:
Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management,
401 Bosley A venu e, Towson , MD 2 1204
(410) 887-5683
City of Gaithersburg Environmental
Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland
The City of Gaithersburg oc cupies ten
sq uare mi les in Montgomery County,
Maryland, and is situated thirteen mi les
north ofWashington D .C. It has a pop -
ulation of approximately 54 ,000.
Parties and Roles
An Environmental Guidelines
Committee was created to d evelop the
city's environmental standards. The
committee consisted of staff and citizens
from a variety of city departments and
committees, as well as represe ntatives
from the neighboring city of Rockvi ll e,
regional governmental agencies, local
engineering and development firms and
local non -profits.
City staff perform ed most of the research
and development for the environmental
standards. Other regional organizations
provided technical expertise and guid-
ance during the d evelo pment process .
Such organ izations incl u de the
Maryland-ati onal Capital Park and
Planning Commission, the Forest and
Wetland Conservation Association ,
Environmental Quality Reso urces,
Montgomery County Department of
Environmental Protection , the City of
Rockville, Quadrangle Deve lopment
Committee, Rodge r s & Associates, th e
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, the Montgomery So il
Conservation District and the Izaak
Walton League of America.
Trigger I ss u es
In 1994, city planning staff were stru ck
by the fact that, although the city had
many environm ental ordinances for
issues s uch as fo rest con servation, sedi -
m ent and e ro sio n co ntrol , stormwater
m an agem ent and floodplain manage-
m ent, a resid ential development propos-
al that met these deve lopment st andards
still threatened an impaired stream. In
response to citizen co ncern s over thi s
issue, the C ity Co uncil directed the city
Planning Department to create en viron -
m ental guidel in es fo r d eve lopments .
P r o cess
In 1994, th e cit y start ed a series of
bi week ly m eetings to create environ -
mental guidelines. At the table were
local d eveloper s, Planning Com mi ss ion
re presentatives, City Council members ,
environm ental con sultants, regional and
county environm ental professio nals and
city staff.
Using other authorities' ordinances as a
guideline
During the m ee tings, environmental
guidelines that had been deve loped by
the surrounding jurisdiction of
Montgomery County were u se d as a
mod e l. It was felt that these guidelines
were co mprehe n sive and that they
wou ld help d eve lopers who operated in
both Montgomery C o unty and the City
of Gaithersburg.
After five months, t he committee is su ed
the fir st draft of the C ity of Gaithersburg
Environmental Guidelines. The docu -
ment was di vi d ed into two sections:
• Natural R eso urces Inventory (N RI)
• Standard s for Development
Natural Resource Inventory
Environmental information about a pro-
posed d evelo pme nt si te is fir st gathered
during the Natural Resources Inventory
(NRI ). The RI is a co mplete analysis
of exist ing natural reso urces and
includes a map a nd a submitted narra -
tive r eport describing:
• stream s and fl ood plains
• strea m b u ffe rs
• topography
• soi ls
•wetlands
• forests a nd trees
• dan ger r eac h / dam break analysis
• threatened and endangered specie s
• species in n eed of conservation
• ex isting wildlife
• s p ecia l protec ti on areas
• cultural resources
• stream quality
• n oise pollution
• sig nificant views and vistas
The environmental standards are
applied in the site plan review process,
in order to protect the enviro nmental
features identified in the N RI. They are
also considered in the formulation of
staff reco mme ndations to the Planning
Commissio n .
Standards for Development
The stand ard s for development r eg u la -
tio n is based on the principles of com-
prehensive watershed managem ent and
protection and include the following
managem ent strategies:
• The encouragement of judicious use
of land to limit i mpe rvious surfaces
and m aintai n wetlands, floodplains ,
seeps, b ogs, and so on, in thei r natu ral
condition.
• The establishment of protected slope
a reas that address slo p e gradient, soil
erodability and proximity to stream
channels.
• The u se of strea m buffers, the widths
of which d e p end on the stream 's state-
use d esig natio n , the gradient of adja-
ce nt s lopes , and the prese nce of erodi -
ble soils.
• New o r creati ve t echniques that can be
d e mon strated to accomplish the same
goals as the s pecific standards can b e
con sid ered, in conj uncti on with waiv-
er r eques t s .
A Strea m Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 31
• The protection of both uplan d and
ripari an forest reso urces .
• The recog n ition and protection of the
ecological significance and functions
of headwater areas.
• Baseline monitoring to understand
and protect the city's stream systems.
• The provision of healthy forest and
tree cover for the p u rpose of mai n tain -
ing water quality, preserving wi ldlife
habitat, preventing erosion, mitigating
air poll ution , controlli ng water tem-
perature and enhancing community
amenities in an urban izing environ -
ment.
• Adherence to the state's erosion and
sedimen t control standards.
• The provision for stor mwater man -
agement structures, storm drainage
systems and other facilities in a man-
ner that respects the in tegrity and t h e
natural eq u ilibrium of stream systems.
• The in corporation of BMPs into land
disturbance activities.
Environmental standards
The 1995 E n vironmental Standards fo r
Regulation was incorpor ated into the site
plan review p rocess an d were relatively
successfu l. The standards have been a
beneficial too l for iden tifying problems
and opport u nities during the deve lop-
ment process. They offer a clear and com -
prehensive m ethod fo r d evelopers an d
staff to eval u ate important natural fea-
t ures of a site and the poten tial impact s of
development. In addition , the stand ard s
incorporate mitigation m easures, in order
to create flex ibility and b alance growth
with natu ral resource protection .
However , since the stan dards were n ot
adopted as r egu lations, t h ey did not h ave
the weight of law and we re not fu ll y
enforceabl e . In addition , althou gh t h e
original stan dards had an implementa-
tion section, a waiver p rocess was not
clearly iden ti fied and t h erefore waivers
were granted on an ad h oc basis.
In 1998, an independent consultant
reviewed t h e city's enviro n mental stan-
dards an d r ecommended they be written
as a regulatio n , to allow fo r enforcemen t.
Staff and the Environmen tal Affairs
Committee began a comprehensive
38 Chap ter Seven: Case Studies
review of the Environmental Standard s
and proposed several changes to stren gth -
en t he city's environmental protectio n
measures . In addition, the process
involved an outside review by the
Maryland National Capital Park an d
P lanning Commission, the City of
Rockville , the City of Bowie , the U n ited
States Humane Society, the Izaak Walton
League and several engineering firms.
The Environmental Standards for
Development were rewritten as a regul a-
tion and were adopted in ovember
2001. They incorporate a comprehensive
waiver process with a detailed description
of instances for when a waiver is requ ired ,
specific criteria that m u st be fulfilled for a
waiver to be granted and compensation
requirements for gran ted waivers.
Contact:
Erica Shingara, City of Gaithersburg, 31
South Summit Avenue, Gaithersburg,
MD 20877 (3 01 ) 258-6310 or
www.ci.gaitherburg.md.us
Stream Assessment/Watershed
Management Program, Henrico
County, Virginia
Henrico Coun ty borders the city of
Richmond on the west, north, and east
and lies between the J ames and
C h ickahominy rivers. O n e third of
Richmond's metropolitan area is located
in the cou n ty. The co unty's Assess m e nt
and Watershed Management Program
began with a co u ntywid e stream q u a li ty
assessment . The assessment led to t he
establishment of a stormwater quality
ge n eral fund and a meth od for prioritiz-
ing stream restoration projects in
Henrico County, Virgi n ia .
Trigger Issue s
I n 1993, Henrico County decided to
apply the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area (C BPA) Designation and
Management Regulations to the enti re
county to satisfy PDES requirements.
After worki n g with Bay Act criteria fo r a
number of years, many different and
varied best management practices
(BMPs) began to be uti lized in deve lop-
ment projects. Some of the BMPs were
found to be more effective than were
others. In fact, an early study showed
that eighty nine percent of pollutant
removal from the streams was achieved
by j ust 65 percent of the BMPs .
This led the county to conduct a review
of the 35 percent of BMPs that were
ineffective. These were primarily locat-
ed in subdivisions and redevelopment
sites and were some of the most costly to
instal l. The county concluded that a new
program was needed to better use the
resources spent on water quality.
Process
To he l p maximize resources for water
quality enhancement and to satisfy regu -
latory r equirements mandated by the
CBPA, Henrico County developed its
Stream Assessment/Watershed
Management Program in two phases:
• Phase One d evelo ped protocols for
stream assessment and implemented
them on two pilot watersheds.
• Phase Two entailed a county-wide
stream assessment.
The countywide assessment was target-
ed at streams with drainage areas greater
than 100 acres. A total of 440 stream
miles were assessed -a job that took
eig ht two -person teams five weeks to
complete in fall 2000. In addition s u r-
veyi n g habitat, each team took an inven -
tory of the uti lity lines, pipe discharge,
erosion problems, channeli n g and so on .
Digital photos of these were then sites
and data we re then added to the co u nty
GIS system.
Management area s
The assessment efforts resulted in the
designation of specific management
areas which allow the county to target
variou s stormwater man agement meas-
ures for different development activities.
One su ch measure was the establish-
ment of a county stream restoration
fund, which is funded by development
fees levied on certain management areas.
Identifying areas in need of restoration
Additionally, the assessment resulted in
a countywide identification of more than
900 stream segments in need of restora -
tion. T o help prioritize restoration
efforts, the impaired segments were
ra n ked using criteria such as develop-
ment within the watershed, the condi-
tion of upstream and d ownstream seg-
ments and overall stream condition .
As in mos t counties, o n e of the stu m-
bling b locks to restoration efforts is that
most cr itical stream segments identified
by the program fall on private land .
Restoration efforts we re possible on ly
through cooperation between the co u nty
and land owners. It's hoped that funds
collected through development fees will
help the cou n ty resto re these streams.
Contact:
Keith White, P.E., Henrico County
Department of Public Works,
Environmental Division, P .O Box 27032,
Richmond, VA 232 73 (804 ) 501 -4393
Difficult Run Riparian Project, Fairfax
County, Virginia
Difficult Run and its t r ibutaries define
the largest watershed in Fairfax County
and cover a total of 56,566 acres. Its
waters flow in to the Potomac Rive r ,
which is a major tribu tary of the
Chesapeake Bay. The co u nty was
fo u nded in 1742. Hist or ically, the rive r
was used by the Dagu e Indians a nd has
an extensive history of u se by ea rl y set-
t lers fo r milli n g grai n a n d l umber. The
Difficul t R u n project is tar geted
throu gh out fo u rteen m il es of the u r b an
stream's watershed.
T rigg er I ssu es
Like m an y co u nties, Fai rfax is under
in creasi n g d evelopm ent pressu re. The
co unty's popu lation is p rojected to
increase by 216,510 over t h e next twen ty
years. T h is growth has led to a host of
water quality problems. One such case
was Difficu lt Run, whi ch began to show
symptom s of stress from nonpoint so u rce
runoff cau sed by an increase in impervi-
ous surfaces su ch as roads, roofs, side-
walks an d parking lots. T hese symptom s
included increased str eam water tempera-
tures and severely eroded stream banks.
Process
The Difficul t Run Ri p arian Project was
created as a means, not onl y to address
the stream's problems, b u t also to raise
awareness within the co un ty abo u t the
importance of u rban ri par ian buffers and
t h eir conse rvation. Since its inception ,
the project has developed into a water-
shed-wide reforestation effort that fos-
ters part n erships between federal, state
and loca l agencies and the citizens of
Fairfax County. The project's imple-
mentation includes:
• identification of target sites
• reforestation of the chosen areas
• a watershed-wide ed u cation and o ut-
reach program
To aid in site identification , a workgroup
including the Virginia Department of
Forestry, the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governmen ts, Fairfax
County Park Authority and the Soi l and
Water Conservation District deve loped
a protocol for evaluating riparian
buffers. The protocol developed a scor -
ing system based on fifteen land -u se and
environmental characteristics that are
used to prioritize refo restation and
restoration needs .
Identification and reforestation efforts
began along the Difficult Run mainstem
and included planting 15,000 tree a n d
shrub seedlings on 140 acres. The proj -
ect has since expanded to include
Difficult Run's tribu taries.
Community education
Edu cation effort s incl u ded a Water
Quality Tips mailing t hat was sent to
civic and homeowner association presi-
dents. The list was for mul ated in
response to a suggestion presented at the
Diffic ul t R un Roundtabl e Meeting.
Contact:
Ju dy Okay, Coordinator, Difficult R u n
Riparian Restoration Project, Virginia
Departmen t of Forestr y, 12055
Governmen t Center Parkway, Suite 904,
Fairfax, VA 22035 (703) 324-1489
Green Infrastructure Plan, Loudoun
County, Virginia
As part of a nineteen-mon t h r evisio n to
its Comprehensive Plan (adopted 23
Ju ly 2001), Loudoun County integrat ed
protection measu res fo r its "Green
Infrastructu re" in the Revised General
Plan. These measures include the pro-
tection of an in tegrated stream corridor
system and the creation of a River and
Stream Corridor Overlay District.
Trigge r Issue s
Lou doun County is the home of D u lles
International Airport. Since the 1960s,
the population has increased from
20,000 to 185 ,000, ca u sing tremendous
pressures on the county's natural
resources and infrastructure.
Loudoun County's tremendous growth
rate mandated that earlier planning strate-
gies undergo a critical reevaluation.
Former policies were no match for the
market dynamics that were quickly erod-
ing the county's rural character. Although
the county's (1993) Scenic Creek Val ley
Buffer and Floodplain Overlay District
ordinances were already in place , planning
officials realized that a new comprehen -
sive approach was needed if the county's
natural resources were to be protected.
Process
Loudoun Cou nty's new ly approved
Revised General Plan outlines a frame-
work for comprehensive natu ral reso urce
protection by organizing the county's
environmental, natural and heritage
reso u rces into one related system call ed
the Green Infrastructure .
T he Green Infrastructure comprises
four groups:
Group One: Natural Resource Asset s
• river and stream corridors
• scenic rivers a nd the Potomac River
• surface and ground water resources
• geo logic and soil resources
• forests , trees and vegetation
• p lant and wi ldlife habitats
Grou p Two: Heritage Reso u rce Assets
• historic and archaeological resources
• scen ic areas and corridors
Grou p Three: Open Space Assets
• greenways and trails
• parks and recreation
• p u b lic school sites
• open space easements
Group Four: Complementary Elemen ts
• air quality
• lighting
• the night sky
A Stream Co rridor P rotec tio n Strategy fo r Local Governments 39
Identifying environmental infrastructure
The aim of the Revised General Plan is to
look at the Green Infrastructure first and
then appl y conservation d esign to all
development and redevelopment in the
co unty. This is accom pli shed, in part, by
guiding d evelopers to first identify the
environmental infrastru cture of a piece of
land before outlining where struct ures ,
roads, and lot lines wi ll b e located.
Den sity credit is provi ded for all G ree n
Infrastructure elements , so those areas of a
site that are n ot identified as part of the
co un ty's G r een Infrastructure can be
developed at full density, equal to the den-
sity potential of the gross area of the site.
River and stream corridors
The P lan clearly establi sh es river and
stream co rridors as the largest ele m ent
of the County's Green Infrastruct ure .
The plan targets rivers and strea m s that
drain areas of 100 acres o r more a nd
have corri dors that i nclud e the fo ll owi n g
compon ents:
• Associated 100-year fl oodplain s and
adjacent steep slopes: a SO-foot pro-
tective management bu ffer is estab -
lished to protect the corridor, the
floodplain and adjacent steep slopes.
A 100-foot m inimum stream buffer
protects the streams when the 100-
year floodplains, adjacent steep s lope
areas and the SO-foo t Management
Buffer are not great er than the mini -
mum str eam buffer.
• Riparian forests .
• Wetlands.
• Historic, cultural and archaeological
reso urces that fall w ithin the co rridor.
River and Stream Corridor Overlay District
To protect these river and steam corri-
dors, the county plans on revising its
zoning and subdivision ordinances and
facility standards manual, and adopting
a River and Stream Corridor Overl ay
District (R SCOD).
Density development transfer
L oudo un County also contains two sce-
nic rivers, a s d esignated b y the Scen ic
Rivers Program of Virginia . These are
Catoctin C r ee k and Goose Creek , both
of whic h flow into the Potomac River.
These two cree ks and the Potomac River
will be protected by a 300 -foot no-build
40 Chapter Seven: Case Studies
buffer , or the RSCOD, whichever is
greater. The co un ty will also protect its
water supply reservoirs with a 300-foot
no-build buffer or the RSCOD ,
whichever is greater. The plan allows for
a density development transfer from the
no-build buffer. To en sure the protec-
tio n , conservat ion and restoration of an
integrated stream system , the plan also
looks to the source of its streams and
call s fo r the protection of headwaters
originating in the coun ty's mountains .
Contact:
Mark J. Moszak, Loudoun County
Department of Planni ng, 1 Harrison Street
SE , 3rd F loo r , P.O. Box 7000 , Leesb urg,
VA 20177 -7000 (703) 777 -0246
Water Protection Ordinance,
Albemarle County, Virginia
A lbemarle County had a lr eady esta b -
li shed a long history in water quality
management when they undertook t h e
creation of a co m prehen sive wate r pro-
tection ordinance.
T rigger I ss u es
Beginning in the 1970s, Albemarle
Coun ty protected its drink ing wate r
rese rvoirs, introduced stormwater rete n -
ti o n provisio n s, implem ented state-m an -
dated erosion control m easu r es and cre-
ated a stream buffer program based on
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act . As
a r es ult, there were a co n fu sing number
of standards and o rdinances that d esign -
er s, developers and co unty staff had t o
r eco n cile. In addition , water quality
treatment practices we re not applied
uni formly to development sites an d
innovative stormwater practices we re
not being util ized .
P rocess
To help strean1line its water q u ality man-
age m ent program, the county embark ed
upon the task of creating a single, com-
prehensive ordinance that would:
• Stream lin e the process of development
review for water-related items.
• Promote the use of a wider range of
t r adition a l a nd innovative BMPs a nd
stormwater techniques.
• Provide a template fo r regional
sto rmwater management, involving
n eighbori n g jurisd ictions .
• Provide a framework for complying
with NPDES regu lations and develop -
ing a watershed-based approach to
stormwater management.
Befor e it cou ld develop a new ordinance ,
it was critica l for the county to have an
in -d epth understanding of the need for
improved water management. To meet
this need , studies where undertaken ,
which showed that urban streams car -
ried high pollutant loads after storm
events. These results indicated a n ee d to
update and improve current water quali-
ty strategies.
Focus group
The study also provided the county with
baseline data, against which future
improvements and changes could be
measured. In 1994, the county's Water
Reso urces Committee decided to fo rm a
foc u s group to assist in the development
of a new ordinance. The gro up consisted
of developers, designers, environmen tal
gro ups , governm ent agency staff a nd
other local decision-makers. The group
met for almost two years and assisted
sig nificantly with efforts to develop a
broad-based consensu s for improving
storm water management.
Public review
The first draft ordinance was presented
fo r public review and comment and was
reviewed by co unty legal staff. umerous
subseq u ent drafts were creat ed to inte-
grated reviewers' comments. It was finally
presented and adopted by the Board of
Superv isors in early 1998.
Design manual
Sin ce adoption of the ordinance, all n ew
development plans have incorporated
stormwater BMPs, including stream
buffers. To help designers understand
a nd choose different BMPs and perform
the necessary calculation s, a Design
Manual was cr eated.
The co un ty is now worki n g on a series of
stormwater master plans that will adopt
a wat e rshed-based approac h . In addi-
tion to on-site BMPs, the program will
include stream buffer and stream bank
restoration, regional BMPs, and ed uca-
tion and outreach. These measures wi ll
be a co mponent of co mpl ying with n ew
PDES Phase II Regu lati ons.
Contact:
Dave Hirshman, Water Resources
Manager, Albemarle County
Departm ent of Engi n eering, 401
Mcintire Road , Charlottesville, VA
22902-4596 (434) 296-5861
SWAMP -Southern Watershed
Management Program, Virginia
The So uthern Watersh ed of Virgi nia is
located along the south ern coastal regio n
ofVirginia and is approximately 325
square miles .
Trigger I ssues
The effo rt to create a r egio n al ap proach
to watershed management was not new.
Other cooperative initiatives in the area
date back to the 1960s, '70s and '80s. In
the mid-90s, however, the Hampton
Roads Planning District Commission
began to see an increase in pressure
cau sed by the many e nvironmental,
economic and r egu latory interests in
the watershed.
Process
To help align these disparate interests, the
Southern Watershed Management Program
(S WAMP) was created . The goal of the
project is to develop a cooper ative local
govern m ent approach for the manage -
ment and protection of th e Southern
Watershed Area, with the intent of b al -
ancing environmental resources with eco-
nomic development opportunities.
Six-phased plan
The SWAMP project has been organ -
ized on a yearly basis according to a six -
phased plan . The first phase developed a
framework for the cities of Chesap eake
and Virginia Beach to work together on
watershed management issues . This led
to the creation of a Local Governm e nt
Advisory Committee, which consisted
of technical reso urce p ersonnel from
each locality and a repr esentative from
the Virgi nia Dare Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Phase Two ta sks incl uded the comple-
tion of a survey of age n cies workin g in
the So uthern Watershed Area and the
creation of a Water Q uality Task Fo r ce
(WQTF). The WQTF was charged
with analyzin g existing water quality
data, eva lu ating current methods an d
procedures u sed to monitor water quali -
ty, and making recommendations fo r
future actions.
In 1996, during Phase Three, the project
b ecame eligib le for fu nding as a Spec ial
Area Management Plan from the Virginia
Coastal Program. These fund s enabled
the SWAMP project to continue co ll ect -
ing both technical and stakeholder-related
data, create an Agency Roundtable and
review development co ntrols used by th e
cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach .
During P h ase Four, t he partnership con-
tinued to work on the programs estab -
lis hed in Phase Three, s uch as wate r qual-
ity data analysis , BMP research and edu -
cation, s u stain able eco n om ic develop -
ment initiatives and publi c involvement.
Phases Five and Six focused on applying
the research done in the first four phases
to program initiatives. Two such initia-
tives were a mapping project to show
options for the area's Mitigation Strategy
and its Rural Area Preservation Program .
Memorandum of Agreement
Today, the m ajo r efforts in SWAMP are
focused on developing policy based on
the research in earlier phases of the proj -
ect. In particular, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) has b een completed ,
which deals with water-u se conflicts on
the North Landing River. Project staff
are also currently in the process of devel -
oping a similar agreement for Back Bay
and are developing an MOA that deals
with wetland mitigation issues in the
Southern Watershed.
E ric Walberg, principal planner on the
project, suggests that other localities wish-
ing to use a sim ilar approac h should start
by attempting to build communication
and a good working relationship betwee n
local, state and federal agen cies involved in
land use and m anagement decisions . H e
adds that mapping and data collection are
also criti cal to the management process.
C o ntact:
Eric Walbe rg , AICP, Principal Physical
Planner, Hampton Roads P lanning
District Commission, 723 Woodlake
D r ive, Chesapeake, VA 23320
(757) 420-8300
Citizen Volunteer Monitoring
Program , Pennsylvania
This is a stat ewide effort by the State of
Pennsylvania to help citizens take part in
stream monitoring programs .
Trigger Issues
The n eed for stream quality data in
Penn sylvania is extensive; no one gov-
e rnment office can gather all the infor-
mation it n ee ds to identify the critical
a r eas in its jurisdiction. Data ne eds are
es pecially strong after large storms an d
for assessing water resources in remote
areas. By partnering with local ci tizen
groups, government agencies are better
equ ipped to effectively manage and pro -
tect state water resources.
Process
The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) creat-
ed the Citizen Vo lu nteer Monitoring
Program (CVMP). This program is
geared to help organizations and indi-
vid ual s understand water quality iss u es
and the techniques needed to collect
q u ality data .
The goals of the CVMP are:
• T o foster stewardship b y giving com-
munities the tools they need to meet
their ow n goa ls related to water
resources .
• To give the DEP a better understand-
ing of water resources by receiving
quality -ass ured data from volunteer s.
The CVMP has also created partner-
ships with other organizations, includ-
ing:
• The Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Panel (VEMP)
• The Keystone Watershed Ietwork
• The Alliance for Aqu atic Resources
Mon itoring
• The Pennsylvania Organization for
Watershed and Rivers
• River Network
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 41
• The Stroud Water Research Center
• The Delaware Riverkeeper
• The Canaan Valley Institute
• The Environmental Alliance for
Senior Involvement
These partnerships are d esigned to facil-
itate the set up of stat ewide networks
and databases for monitoring results.
The aim of the partnership effort
between VEMP and River Ietwork was
to create a handbook to help citizens
with their monitoring efforts . The hand -
book offers citizen gro ups a unique
study design process, which supports a
choice of monitoring m ethods based on
each gro up's goals.
Additional services offered by CVMP are:
• Training programs for volunteer mon-
itors.
• A services information clearinghouse
for vo lunteer monitors .
• Identification of partnership opportu-
nities with DEP programs.
• An annual, Statewide Snapshot of
Water Quality that takes place over
ten days during which time groups
can send their data to the DEP for
inclusion in an annual report .
Contact:
Diane Wilson, Citizen Volunteer
Monitoring Program, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection ,
Bureau of Watershed Management, P.O.
Box 8555, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
(717 ) 787-3730
Donegal Creek Restoration Project,
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Located thirty-five miles from the
Chesapeake Bay, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, is an agricultural area
comprise d primarily of dairy farms,
many own ed by Amish. Donegal Creek
is a limestone trout stream located in the
northwest corner of the county. The
Donegal Restoration project is a partner-
ship effort to restore the native trout
habitat along a predominantly privately
owned local creek using a "demonstra-
tion project" approach.
42 Chapter Seven: Case Studies
T rigger I ssues
Intensive agricultural practices and dairy
cattle farming around Donegal Creek
caused significant degradation . Though
it was formerly a trout stream, native
trout had not been seen for over thirty
years . Signs of stream degradation
included:
• stream bank erosion
• excessive nutrient levels
• lack of native vegetation
• a sediment-laden substrate
• a wide, shallow channel , formed
because of accelerated erosion and
resulting sedimentation
Process
To bring the stream back to health, the
Donegal Creek Restoration Project was
created. The project's main objective
was to restore the creek to a trout
stream. However, a majority of lands
targeted for restoration were in private
ownership. This proved to be a large
stumbling block. Many of these
landowners were cattle farmers who
allowed their cattle unrestricted access to
the stream , causing much of the erosion
and sedimentation.
Demonstration fence
Original efforts for stream restoration
included the creation of a demonstration
buffer protection fence along both sides of
a 1000-foot stretch of the creek. It was
erected by Donegal Fis h and
Conservation members, aided by
Conservation District staff. A
Conservation District tree sale provid ed
money for the construction, and it used
volunteer labor and donated materials.
The demonstration fe n ce was built on a
highly visible spot along the West
Branch of the Creek.
In 1994, additional funding became
available from Trout Un limited and th e
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. Further
funds were provided in 1996 by the
Environmental Protection Agency,
through a Clean Water Act grant.
Two-phase project
The project had two main phases:
• Education of landowners.
• Implementation of stream restoration
projects.
Education
To initiate the education portion of the
project, staff from the Conservation
District visited each of the twenty -three
landowners affected by the project. Staff
helped to assess land immediately adja -
cent to the creek to determine impacts to
the stream and to approaches that co uld
enhance both the stream and the farm-
ers' agricultural practices. Education
efforts paid off, as evidenced by the par-
ticipation of nineteen of the twenty -
three landowners.
Implementation
The partnership then initiated a number
of stream restoration projects, including:
• stream bank fencing and cattle crossings
• fish enhancement structures
• stream bank stabilization
• riparian buffer strips
The primary approach sought to restore
trout to the stream by limiting cattle
access. After securing landowners sup-
port, fences and trees were installed,
along with fish enhancement devices,
stabilizing eroded stream banks, and
narrowing and deepening the stream to
improve flow and reduce stream temper-
ature .
To help reduce nutrient levels and
increase the amount of n ative vegetation,
stream buffers were planted along the
banks. However, because of the small
size of the farms and fie ld s, the buffer
width was narrowed to a range of 10-35
feet, instead of the recommended 7 5-100
foot width.
The final result was enhancement and
protection of 6.7 miles along Donegal
Creek. The original goal of reintroduc-
i n g native trout was met when the fish
successfully spawned in the headwaters!
Contact:
Don Robinson , Lancaster County
Conservation District, 1383 Arcadia
Road, Lancaster, PA 17601 -3149
(717) 299 -5361
Guidebook for Riparian Corridor
Preservation, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, is
located approximately twenty miles west
of Philadelphia's city center and is home
to the h istoric Valley Forge . This project
involved t h e creation of a model overlay
ordinan ce .
Trigg e r I ss u es
In the early 1990s , Montgomery County
started a $100 million open space initia -
tive. The cornerstone of the initiative
was an open space program that provid -
ed money to the county's sixty-two
m u nicipalities for the acquisition of open
space areas. The initiati ve also incl u ded
funding for county parks and trai ls and
grants to conservation organizations . To
receive funds for open space protection
and enhancement, municipalities were
required to create written plans. This
highlighted the need to find methods,
other than acquisition, to ach ieve con-
servation goals.
The co unty's review of its municipali-
ties' plans showed that there was signifi-
cant interest in protectin g stream corri-
dors as important natu ra l features. To
protect these natural features, the locali -
ties initiall y looked to methods like open
space development (also known as con -
servation su bdivisions, or cluster devel-
opments). These, and oth er, conversa -
tion ideas were written u p in county
plans, b u t it more was n eeded to ens u re
that municipalities could reach their
stream corridor protection goals.
Process
To help the h1unicipalities reach stream
protection goals, the co u nty put together
a task fo rce to create the Guidebook for
Riparian Corridor Protection . The task-
force inclu ded represen tatives from t h e
atural Reso u rces Con servation
Service, the Soil and Water Conservation
District, the local natural r esource con-
servation organization, municipal offi-
cials and representatives of the legal
community. The bulk of the guidebook
comprised a model overlay ordinance
that outlined the central features needed
to create a successful loca l stream pro-
tection ordi n ance in Pennsylvania.
Creating two buffer zones
Using the specifications outlined in the
USDA publication Riparian Forest
Buffers as a resource avoided most of the
problems involved in developing a new
ordinance. One problem that did arise
concerned agricultural lands . Many farms
in Montgomery County are small, aver-
aging about 100 acres in size, so every
acre counts. Regulations mandating
extensive buffer widths threatened farm-
ers ' ability to earn an adequate profit. In
recognition of this , the ordinance outli nes
two zones for stream buffers and allows
agriculture in the second zone .
What is a stream?
Review of the guidelines caused different
municipalities to confront the problem of
defining a "stream ." Some localities used
soi l survey information, combined with
defined drainage areas, others used U.S.
Geological Survey information , and some
relied on local knowledge.
Since the issue of defining perennial
streams can be contentious, the county
didn't want the issue to inadvertently
restrict stream preservation efforts.
Therefore, the mode l ordinance a ll owed
municipalities to be flexible in their
approach to stream definition and
identification.
Three-pronged approach
In general, the county recommends
municipalities follow a three -pronged
approach to stream protection:
• Acquis ition through fee-simple pur -
chase or easement.
• Land use controls, such as open space
development , transfer of development
rights and overlay districts, to protect
land proposed for development.
• Land stewardship education via wo r k -
shops, flyers, and brochures.
Contact:
Eric Jarre ll , Montgomery County
P lanning Commission, Court House,
P.O. Box 311, Norristown, PA 19404-
0311(610)278-3745
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 43
44 Chapter Seven: Case Studies
This appendix lists a variety of resources
for:
• riparian conservation
• land p lanning
• stream ecology and restoration
• wetlands
• web sites
Riparian Conservation
"Better Site Design: An Asse ssment of
Better Site Design Principles for
Communities Implementing Virginia's
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act "
Source: Center for Watershed
Protection, 873 7 Colesville Rd., Su ite
L105, Sil ver Spring, M d . 2091 O; or call
(410 ) 46 1 -8323; or e-m ail
mrrunoff@usapipelin e.com. ($35)
"A Guide to the Bay Act (Virginia's
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
Program)" Source: Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Department; or ca ll
(800 ) 243-7229 .
"Guidebook for Riparian Corridor
Preservation " Source: Montgomery
County P lanning Comm ission,
Nor ristow n , Pennsylvan ia , 19404-0311
or call (6 10) 278 -3745
"Riparian Forest Buffers" 1996 White
Paper. So urce: Alliance fo r the Chesapeake
Bay; or call (800)YOUR -BAY or on-line
at http:/ /www.chesapeakebay.net /
serach/pu bs.htm (free)
"The Architecture of Urban Stream
Buffers" fr om Watersh ed Protection
Techniqu es, Vol. 1., No. 4, Summer
199 5. So u rce: Center fo r Watershed
Protection , 8737 Colesville Rd ., Suite
L105, Si lver Spring, M d . 2091 O; or call
(410)46 1 -8323 (note: m agazine no
longer p ubli shed, call for article copy.)
"Forest and Riparian Buffer
Conservation : Local Case Studies from
the Chesap eake Bay Program " 1996.
Produced by the Forestry Workgroup
l utrient Subcommittee. Source: USDA
Forest Service, Northeastern Area State
and Private Forestry, Chesapeake Bay
Program, 410 Se vern Ave, Suite 109 ,
Annapolis, MD 2 14 03 ; or call (8 00 )
968 -722 9. (free )
"Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and
Design for Protection and Enhancement of
Water Resource s" 3 rd edition , 1996.
Produced by the U.S. Forest Se rvice.
Source: U.S . Government Printing
Office cal l 1(866 )512-1800 . Stock No.
001-001-00657-2 . ($9).
"Chesapeake Bay Riparian J-landbook: A
Guide for Establishing & Maintaining
Riparian Fore st Buffers" Provides tec h -
nica l assistance for fie ld personnel
including detailed information on the
planning, design, establishment, an d
maintenance of riparian forest buffers
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed .
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program at
(800 ) YOURBAY; or online at
http:/ /www.chesapeakebay.net/search /
pubs .htm. (Free )
"Forest and Riparian B uffer Conserva tion:
Loca l Case Studies from the Che sapeake
Bay Program " A collection of case -stud -
ies that highlight acco m p lishments of
local governments and citizen organiza-
tions to restore and protect community
fo rests incl u ding innovative riparian
buffer and forest conservation programs.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program at
(800 ) YOUR-BAY; or on li ne at
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/search /
pubs.htm. (Free)
Land Planning
"Greenways: A Guide to Planning ,
Design and Developmen t " 1993. So urce:
Island Press , Box 7, Covelo, CA 95428 ;
or call (800 ) 82 8 -1302. ISBN o.
1 -55963-13 7-6 ($35 paperback )
R esour ce List
"Greenway s for America " 19 90. Source:
The Johns Hopkins University Press,
Harnpden Station , Baltimore, Md .
2 12 11; or call (410 ) 516 -6956 . ($2 1.95
hardcover)
"Site Planning for Urban Stream
Protection " 1996 . Source: Metropolitan
Washington C ouncil of Governments,
777 N. Capitol St . N .E., Suite 300 ,
Washington , D .C. 2000 2-422 6; or ca ll
(2 02) 96 2-32 56 . Publication #9 57 -08
($35 )
"Beyond Sprawl -Land Management
Technology to Protect the Che sapeake
Bay" A "how -to " guide for local govern-
ments on six land -use management
techniques .that can be used to achieve
community goals , preserve local natural
reso u rces and protect the Chesapeake
Bay. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
at (800 ) YOUR -BAY; or online at
http:/ I www.chesapeakebay.net / search/
pubs .htm. (Free)
"Better Models for Deve lopment in
Virginia " A guide to creating , maintain-
ing and enhancing livable communities
in Virginia . Written for elected officials,
plann ing commissioners, developers and
interested citizens, the book sets o u t six
principles and 2 5 key ideas for better
development in Virginia. Source:
The Conservation Fund at
(7 03) 525 -6300; or online at
http:/ /www.conservationfund .org. ($15)
"The Practice of Watershed Protection:
Technique s for Protecting and Restoring
Urban Watersheds " A compilation of
150 articles on all aspects of urban
watershed protection from Watershed
Protection Techniques. Source: Center for
Watershed Protection, ( 410 ) 461 -8323 ;
or online at http:/ /www.cwp .org. ($80)
"Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook "
Includes a comprehensive approach for
deve loping a cost-effective watershed
plan, management options , analysis
A Stream Co rri do r Protectio n Strategy for Local Governments 45
tools and watershed plan case studi es.
So urce : Center fo r Watershed
Protection, (410 ) 461-8323; or online at
http:/ /www.cwp .org. ($40 )
"Collaboration: A Guide for
Environmental Advocates" 2001 b y E.
Franklin Dukes and Karen Firehock, the
gui d e is u se ful for determ ining if a co ll ab-
orat ive approach is appropriate fo r reso lv-
ing environm enta l iss ues, including
processes and tips fo r designing and
implementing collaborative approaches.
Sou rce: In stitute fo r E nvironmental
Negotiation, 164 Rugby Rd, P.O . Box
400179, University ofVirginia,
Charlottesvill e, VA 229 04 -4179
http://www.virginia.edu/-envneg/ien_
proj ects_past_feat.htm#guide (Free PDF
co p ies available online; bound co pi es $8)
"Community Watershed Forums: A
Planner's Guide" 2002 by Karen
Firehock, Fran Flanigan and Pat Devlin
describes how to plan and h ost co mmuni -
ty forums to en gage yo ur community in
watershed planning. So urce: Institute for
Environmental egotiation , 164 Ru gby
Rd , P.O. Box 400179, University of
Virginia, Charlottesvill e, VA 22904-41 79
http:I/www.vir gin ia.edu /-envn eg/ ien_
proj ects_past_feat.htm#forum . (free on
line or paperback $25)
''A Guide for Fundraising Assistance "
1999 A landowner's guide for enhancing
wildlife habitat and improving water
qualit y using a variety of public and pri -
vate conservation programs. So urce:
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Watershed Restoration
Division, 580 Taylor Ave ., E-2,
Annapolis, MD 21410; or call (410)
260-8810 or (800) 989-8852. (free)
"Preparing a Sensitive Areas Element for
the Co mprehensive Plan: A Method for
Prot ecti ng Streams and Th eir Buffers,
100-Year Floodplains , Hab itats of
Threatened and Endangered Species, and
Steep S lope s" 1993 . So urce: Maryland
Department of Planning, 30 1 West
Preston Street , Baltimore, Maryland
21201-2365; or call (41 0) 767-4551 .
Publication #93-04 . ($2)
Stream Ecology and Restoration
"R estori ng Streams in Cities: A Guide for
Planners, Poli cymakers, and Citizens "
46 Appendix A: Resource List
A.L. Ril ey, 1998. The boo k explai ns
urban strea m restoration concepts that
can be utilized by citize n s, mayors, coun-
ty commissioners , flood-control engi -
neers and others interes t ed in improving
local wat erways. Source: Island P ress,
Box 7, Department 2NET, Covelo, CA.
95428; or call (800 )-828-1302. ($35.00
paperback)
"Water in Environmenta l Planning" 1978.
Technical reference fo r watershed plan-
ning principles. Source: W.H. Freeman
and Co., 4419 West 1980 South St.,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84104; or call
(800 ) 877-5351. ISBN No. 07167 -0079-4.
($87.95, plus shipping and handlin g)
"Enhancing S tream Corridors : A
Community Handbook for Stream
Stewards hip", upd ated 2002. The
Community Handbook for Stream
Steward sh ip p rovides citi zens with a
"crash co urse" in the sc ience behind
stream system s , the basic principles and
planning of st ream ban k enhancement,
and the techniques u se d to assess a
wat ersh ed and inventory the health of a
site. The handboo k also ex pl ores various
ways to enhance stream banks and
graze d rangeland , including the partici-
pation in land -u se planning and the
i nstallm ent of improvement techniques.
So urce: Izaak Walton League of
Ameri ca, Save O ur Stream s Program,
707 Con se rvation Lane, Gaithers burg,
Md. 20878-2983; or ca ll (301 ) 548-0150
or (800) BUG-IWLA. (ca ll for price)
''A pplied River Morpho logy" 1996.
Technical publi cation that outlines the
fundamental principles of river function
and the cla ssification of natural rivers,
depicting maj or stream t y p es. Useful for
water shed management, ecosystem
assessm ent, habitat ev aluation fo r fish,
river restorati on and r educt ion of non-
point so urce p ollutio n . So urce:
Wildland H yd ro logy Books, 1481
St eve n s Lake Rd ., Pagosa Springs, CO.
81 14 7; or ca ll (970 ) 264-7100. ($89 .9 5
plus shipping and handlin g)
"B etter Trout H abitat: A Guide to Stream
R estoration and Management " 1990.
So urce : I sland Press, Box 7, Covelo, CA
95428; or cal l (800 ) 828 -1302. ($30)
"Clearing and Grading S trategies for
Ur ban Watershed " 1996 . So urce:
Information Center, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments,
777 N. Capitol St. N.E., Suite 300 ,
Washington, D.C. 20002-4226; or call
(202) 96 2-3 2 56. ($25)
"Consensus Agreement on Model
Development Principles to Protect O ur
Strea m s, Lakes, and Wetlands " 1998.
So urce: Cent er for Watershed
Protection , 8737 Colesvi ll e Rd., Su ite
L105, Si lve r Spring, MD. 20910; or ca ll
(410 )461-83 23 ; or e-mail
mrrunoff@ usapipeline.com.
"Stream Corridor Restoration:
Princip les, Processes, and Practices "
So urce: The National Technical
Information Se rvice, at (800) 553-6847 .
NTIS Order I umber: PB98-
158348IN Q (I SB L 0-934213-59-3)
($71 plus ship p ing )
''A View of the River" 1994. An exce ll ent
description by D r. Luna Leopold of his
lifetime of working to understand and
conserve rivers. Easily understood by
the lay audience. Source: Harvard
U ni versity Press, 79 Garden St.,
Cambridge , MA 02138; or ca ll
(800) 448 -2 242. ($52.60 p lu s shipping)
"Stream Channe l Reference Sites: An
Illu strated Guide to Fiel d Tec hnique" A
61-page technical gu id e on esta bl ishing
permanent reference sites for gathering
data about the physical characteristics of
streams and ri ve rs . So urce: U.S . For es t
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest an d
Range Experiment Station , Publications,
3825 E. M ullberry, Fort Collin s, Colo.
80524; or ca ll (970) 498-1 100 . Gen eral
Technical Report 145 (Free)
"Aquatic Entomology " 1981. Reference
manual of aquatic insect lar vae and their
habitat s. Contains excell ent lin e draw-
in gs and co lo r plates of the m ajor taxo-
nomic orders and families. So urce:
A ngl ers Art. P.O. Box 148, Plainfield ,
Penn. 17081; or call (800) 848-1020.
($44.95 plu s s hipping )
Wetlands
''An Approach to Imp roving Decision-
Making in Wetland Restoration and
Creation" 1992. Source : Island Press,
Box 7, Department SAU , Covelo, Cal.,
95428; or call (800 ) 828-1302 . ($47)
"Handbook for Wetlands Conservation
and Sustainability" second edition 1998.
A layperson's guide to wetland ecology
and monitoring. 1996. Source: Izaak
Walton League of America, Save Our
Streams Program, 707 Conservation
Lane, Gaithersburg, Md. 20878-2983;
or call (30 1) 548-0150 or (800) BUG-
IWLA or http://www.iwla .org ($47 .50 )
"Evaluating th e Effectiveness of Forestry
Best Management Practices in Meeting
Water Quality Goals or Standards "
1994. Source: U.S. Forest Service,
Southern Region , 1720 Peachtree Road ,
N.W., No. 846, Atlanta, Ga. 30367; or
call (40 4) 347-2692. (Free )
"Protecting Wetlands: Tools for Local
Governments" Tools that can be used by
local governments to protect wetlands,
riparian forest buffers or open space.
Available free of charge from the
Chesapeake Bay Program at (800)
YOUR-BAY; or online at
http:/ /www.chesapeakebay.net/search /
pubs .htm. (Free )
"Protecting Wetlands II: Technical and
Financial Assistance Programs for Local
Governments in the Chesapeake Bay
Region " Supplements Protecting
Wetlands I: Tools for Local
Governments in the Chesapeake Bay
Region, published by the Chesapeake
Bay Program in 1997. Includes informa-
tion on: federal programs; state wetland
programs; federal and state technical
assistance; cost-share programs; and
subsidies available to private and local
government conservation efforts.
Source: the Chesapeake Bay Program at
(8 00 ) YOUR-BAY; or online at
http: I /www.chesapeakebay.net/ search/
pubs .htm. (Free)
Web Sites
Chesapeake Bay Program web sites
Bay Atlas -A mapping tool for the
Chesapeake Bay watershed that provides
customized maps of geographic informa-
tion . http:/ /www.chesapeakebay.net/
wshed.htm
Environmentally Sensitive Design
Database -An interactive tool for envi-
ronmentally sensitive design practices.
http:/ /www.c hesapeakebay.net/ data/
esdp/mtpl .cfm
General Websites
Surf your Watersh ed -An on-line tool
for obtaining information on a particu lar
watershed. http:/ /www.epa.gov/surf
Green Communities -Provides step-by-
step guidance for creating environmen-
tally-friendly communities.
http:/ /www.e pa .gov I greenkit /
The Center for Watershed Protectio n -
Model environmental ordinances and
publi cations covering topi cs s u ch as bet-
ter site desig n, stream restoration ,
stormwater , and watershed management
planning. http://www.cwp.org
Rivers , Trails and Conservation Assis tance
Program -A National Park Service
Program to h elp citizens and community
lea ders plan and advance locall y-led con-
servation projects , including watershed
management plans and strategies .
http://www.ncrc.nps.gov /rtca/
Land Trust Alliance -Templates for con-
servation easements, land trusts and
purchase of development rights, among
other tools. http:/ /www.lta.org
Transferab le Development Rights -Fact
sheet: http://ohioline.osu.edu /
cd-fact/1264.html
The Maryland Stormwater D esign Manual
-A useful example of a stormwater
design approach. For more information,
go to http:/ /www.mde.state .md.us/
environment/wma / stormwatermanual
Wild and Scenic Rivers System -For
information on the program , a listing of
current wild and scenic rivers , informa-
tion on the council and agency guide-
lines. Online at http://www.nps.gov/
rivers /index.html.
Maps
National Wetland Inventory Maps
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Earth
Science Information Center, 507 National
Center, Reston , Va. 229 02; or call (7 03)
648-6892 or (800) USA-MAPS. ($5 for
paper, $6 .50 for mylar composite, plus
$3.50 shipping/handling)
Topographic Maps So urce: U.S.
Geological Survey, Earth Science
Information Center, 507 National
Center, Reston, Va. 229 02; or call (7 03)
648-6892 or (800) USA-MAPS. ($4)
Topographic Maps Index Source : U.S.
Geological Survey, Books and Open File
Report Center, P.O. Box 25286, Federal
Center, Denver, Colo. 80255; or call
(800) USA-MAPS.
Periodicals
Land and Water -A magazine covering
topics such as erosion control, bioengi-
n eering techniques, landscaping and
other watershed management issues.
So urce : Land and Water, P.O. Box
1197, Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501-9925 or
call 515-5 76-3191. (One year subscrip-
tion is $20)
Video
"Restoring America 's Streams " 1996.
This 28-minute VHS video explains
stream processes and shows how to
restore stream banks and habitat using
vegetation and other non-traditional
approaches. Source : Izaak Walton
League of America, Save Our Streams
Program, 707 Conservation Lane,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20878-2983; or call
(8 00 ) BUG-IWLA. ($21)
Monitoring
Designing Your Monitoring Program -
A Technical handbook for community-
based monitoring in Pennsylvania. This
handbook provides step-by-step guid-
ance on how to desig n a monitoring
program: what to measure; where and
when to sam ple; how to collect and ana -
lyze samples; how to use results; and so
on. Contact: Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Watershed Conservation, PO Box
8555, Harrisburg, PA 17105; or call
(717) 787-5259.
Save Our Streams Volunteer Trainer 's
Handbook -A reference manual for
monitoring and training volunteers to
assess streams using the presence and
diversity of aquatic insect larvae and
instructions for developing a quality
assurance plan . Source: Izaak Walton
League of America, Save Our Streams
Program, 707 Conservation Lane,
Gaithersburg, Md. 20878-2983; or call
(800) BUG -IWLA or on line at
http/ /www.iwla.org ($19)
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 41
48 Appendix A: Resource List
Contacts are provided for each program
described . To avoid duplication, state
age nci es ar e included in a li st at the end of
the state programs listing . If the proj ect
is found in a sp ecific loc ati on on an
age n cy web site , the d irect link to th at
program is provided . However , we b si t es
change often so please contact the age nc y
directly if the link is not working. All
link s provided were valid as ofJul y 2002.
Federal Programs
Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP)
C RP provides annual rent payments to
landow n ers with highly erodible land to
allo w them to remove that land from
product ion and plant it with co n se rva -
tion species for at least ten years. It pro -
vides cost-share fo r tree establishment
and other vegetative cover. To be el igi -
ble , farms mu st have grown co mmodity
crops on the land two of the five mo st
recent crop year s.
Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program
(CREP)
C REP is a refinem ent of the Conservatio n
Reserve Program, which works as a state
and federal partnersh ip program to
address water quality, soil erosion and
wildlife habitat issues re lated to agricul-
tural u se. Farmers can rec eiv e annual
rental payments and cost-share assistance
to establis h long-tem1, reso u rce-con serv-
ing vegetative cover on eli gible land
through 10 -15 year contracts.
Agricultural land is eligibl e if it can co n -
tribute to riparian buffers, wetland
restoration or the rep air of h ighly erodibl e
land : land that h as an erodibility index
greater than 15 within 1000 feet of a
stream or other wate r body. Farms mu st
h ave planted crops on the land d urin g
two of the five most recent crop years .
~
Federal, Regional and State Programs
Contact
Maryland: Local Farm Se rvice Age nc y,
local Soil Con servation District or the
Maryland Farm Serv ice Agency at: 8335
G u ilfo rd Road , Sui te E, Colum bia MD
2 1046; or ca ll (410 ) 381 -4550 .
Pennsylvania: The Penn sylvania
CREP is targeted at twenty counties in
so uth-central Pen n sy lvania that d rain
into t h e Susq u eh anna and Potomac
Rivers . Contact the local U.S .
Departm ent of Agr ic ulture Se rvice
Centers or Soil and Wat er Conservation
Districts.
Virginia: Virginia 's program consists of
two projects: The Chesap eake Ba y
CREP, whic h targets 2 5,000 acres wi th -
in the Bay watersh ed; and the Sout hern
Ri ve rs C R EP, which tar gets 10 ,000
acres in n on -Bay drainage b asins . The
program is impl emented through the
F arm Se rvice Agency (FSA). Contact
the U.S . Department of Agriculture
Se rvice Cen te rs, Soil and Water
Con se rvation Districts, or Virginia
Department of Con servati on and
Recreation.
Conservation Buffer Initiative
The Con servation B uffer Ini tiative
en co urages the u se of co n servation
buffers by ag ri cultural producers and
other land ow n ers in rural and urban se t-
tings, with a goal of 2 million miles (up
to 7 million acr es ) of co n se rvati o n
buffers co mplet ed by 2002. The atural
Resources Con se rvation Se rvi ce ( R CS)
lead s the i nitiati ve. Program s u se d for
this effo rt include the co ntinu o u s
Con ser vatio n Reserve Program (CRP )
sign -up, as we ll as the Environmental
Q ual ity Ince nti ves Program (EQIP),
Wild life Habitat Ince nti ves Program
(WHIP), Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP), St ewa rdship In ce nti ves
Program (SIP ), and Emergency
Watershed Protection Program (EWP ).
Contact
http ://www.nhq .nrcs.usda.gov /OPA /
Buffers.html
Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program (WHIP)
WHIP is a voluntary program fo r pri -
vate landowners to develop and improve
wi ldlife habitat through technical assis-
tan ce and cost -share payments to estab -
lish an d improve fish and wildlife habi-
tat. Pa rt icipants who own or control land
prepare and implement a wildlife habitat
development p lan . The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
provides technical and financial assis -
tance for the establishment of wi ldl ife
habitat development practices, lasting
from five to te n years .
Contact
Cooper ative Extension Service, or local
co n se rvation district.
http:/ /www.ftw.nrcs.u sda.gov /pl566/
WHIP.html
Stewardship Incentives
Program (SIP)
SIP provides tech n ical and financial
assis t ance to en co urage n on -industrial ,
private fo rest landowner s to keep their
land s and natural resources productive
and h ea lthy. Qualifying land includes
rural lands with existi ng tree cover or
land su itable for growing trees , whic h is
ow n ed by a private individual , gro up,
association, co rporation , Indian tribe, or
oth er legal private entity. Eli gib le
landowners must have an approved
Fo rest Steward ship P lan and own 1,000
or fewer ac res of q u alifyi ng land .
Authorizations may be obtained for
exce ptions of up t o 5,000 ac res.
Contact
USDA, Forest Service
http://www.nrcs .usda .gov / RCSProg .
htm l#An chor -Stewardship
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for Loca l Go vernments 49
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP)
EQIP provid es technical, educational, and
financial assistance to eligible farmers and
ranchers to address soil, water and related
natural resource concerns on their land s in
an environmentally beneficial and cost-
effective mann er , through implementation
of a conservation plan that includes struc-
tural, vegetative and land management
practices on eligible land . 5-10 year con-
tracts are made with eligible producers;
cost share provi sions are possible.
Contact
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Se rvice http://www.nrcs.usda .go v /
NRCSProg.html#Anchor-Stewardshi p
Wetland R eserve Program
(WRP)
WRP is a voluntary program to restore
and protect wetlands on pri vate proper -
ty. It offers three options :
• Permanent easements: Landowners
receive the agricultural value of the
land , up to a maximum cap, plus 100
per cent of the cost of restoring the land .
• Thirty year easements : Landowne rs
receive 75percent of the easement
value and 75percent cost-share on the
restoration.
• R estora tion cost-share agre ements with
a minimum ten-year duration:
Landowners receive 75 percent of the
restoration cost.
Contad
Wetlands Reserve Progr am at
http://www.wl.fb-net.org /
Emergency Watershed
Protection Program
This program responds to natural disas-
ters by directing technical assistance to
stream restoration. Examples of prac-
tices cover ed un der this p rogram are:
removing debris , reshaping str ea m
banks and r e-seeding damaged areas. A
local sponsor must su bmit a request for
assistance.
Cont ad
Emergency Watershed Protection
Program at http:/ /www.attra .ncat.org/
guide/ewp.htm
National Park Service, Rivers
and Trails Conservation
Assistance Program
The Rivers , Trails , and Conservation
Assistance Program, also known as the
Rivers & Trails Program or RTCA , is a
community resource of the National
Park Service. Rivers & Trail s staff work
with community groups and lo cal an d
State governments to co n serve r ivers ,
preserve open space, and d evelop trails
and gree nways.
Contact
http ://www.ncrc .nps .gov/progran1s/rtca/
Regional Programs
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program , formed in
1983 by the first Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, is a unique regional partnersh ip
leadi ng and directing the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay. The Bay Progran1 part-
ners include the states of Maryland,
Pennsylvania and Virginia; the District of
Colu mbia; the Chesapeake Bay
Commiss ion, a tri-state legis lative body;
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA ), which represents the fed-
eral government; and participating citizen
advisory gro ups . The second Chesapea ke
Bay Agreement , adopted in 1987 , estab -
lished a vision for the Bay's restoration. Its
goals included proposed reductions of
harmful nutri ents . In 1992 the Bay
Program moved upstream, with strategies
for attacking nutrients at th eir sources in
the Bay's tributaries. T he Chesapeake
Executive Council -co mposed of the gov-
ernors of Maryland , Pennsylvania and
Virginia; the mayo! ofWashington , D.C.;
the EPA administrator; and the chair of
the Chesapeake Bay Commission -sign ed
five directives in 1993 that addressed key
areas to b e restored. These areas incl ud ed
the tributaries, topics, underwater Bay
grasses, fish passages and agricultural non -
point source poll ution. In 1994 the part-
ners outlined initiatives to restore aquatic ,
riparian and upland habitats, reduce nutri-
ents in the Bay's tributaries and reduce
topics, emphasizing the preve ntion of pol -
lution . On June 28, 2000, th e EC signed
Chesapeake 2000 -a co mprehensive and
far-reaching Bay agreement that will guide
the Bay Program partners through the yea r
50 Appendix B: Federal, R egional and State P rograms
20 10 in thei r co mbined efforts to co ntinue
to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay.
C hesa peake 2 000 outlines 93 commitments
detaili n g protection and restoration goals
critical to the health of the Bay watershed.
In pledging to increase riparian forest
buffers, preserve additional tracts ofland,
restore oyster populations and protect wet-
lands, Chesapeake 2000 focuses on
improving water quality as the most cri ti -
cal element in the overal l protection and
restoration of the Bay and its tributaries.
The three program goals for the
Chesapeake Bay Program's forestry
work group are:
• To e n sure, to the extent feasible , that
all streams a nd shorelines will be pro-
tected by a forest ed or other riparian
buffer.
• To conserve existing forests along all
streams and shorelines.
• To increase the use of all riparian
buffers and restore riparian forests on
2,010 miles of stream and shoreline in
the watershed by 2010, targeting
efforts where they will b e of greatest
value to water quality and living
resources .
Contad
Chesapeake Bay Program, 410 Seve rn
Avenue, Suite 109, Annapolis , MD
2 1403; or call (410) 267-5700 or
(80 0)YOUR-BAY; or online at
http:/ /www.chesapeakebay.net .
State Programs -Maryland
Maryland Stream ReLeaf Plan
Maryland 's Stream ReLeaf Plan is a per-
formance-based strategy outlining goals,
objectives, actions and performance
measures for restoring and conserving
riparian buffers. Maryland's plan
involves worki ng with Tributary Teams
-watershed-based groups of local stake -
holders in ten basins coveri ng the state -
and other water shed organizations to
develop lo cal efforts and commitments
fo r buffer conservation and restoration.
Contact
Maryland D R Stream Releaf Program
at http:/ /www.dnr.state .md.us/forests/
streamreleaf.html
Maryland Critical Area
Commissio n
In 1984, the Maryland General
Assembly r esolved to r everse the deteri -
oratio n of th e Bay's environm ent by
enacting the C hesapea ke B ay Protection
Act. The Act required the sixteen coun-
ties, Baltim ore City, and fort y-four
muni ci paliti es s urrounding the Bay to
implement a land -u se and reso urce-
management program d esigned to miti -
gate water polluti on and loss of natural
habitat, while accommodating the juris-
di ction 's future growt h . The Critica l
Area Act design ates a ll lands wit hin
1,000 fee t of tid al wat e r s o r adjacent
tidal wetlands as the "Criti cal A rea."
The Act affects all those who li ve or own
proper ty within 1,000 fe et of the Bay or
its tidal waters.
Contad
C ritical Area Commission , For more on
the Cri tical Area Act and Commission
see Appendix C.
B uffer I ncentive P rogram
The Buffer Incentive Program encour -
ages the planting and maintenance of
forested buffe rs around the C h esapeake
Bay and its tributaries. This program
serves as an inc entive for planting
buffers on private land and helping
defray the landowner 's costs to establish
and maintain the m . E li gible lands are at
least one acre , not more than fifty acres,
and e ither:
• crop field
• pasture field
• other open or bare ground
• early successional vege t ation
Land must be within 300 fe et of a
stream, ri ve r , pond , non-tidal wetland or
other open water. A on e-time payment
of $300 p er acre is provided upon verifi-
cation of at least 65 percent seed lin g sur -
vival afte r one growi n g season .
Cont ad
Maryland DNR Forest Service buffe r
program at
http:/ /www.dnr .state.md .u s /forests/
programapps/ green.htm l
Inc o me T ax Mod ification
P ro gram
The Income Tax Modification Program
al lows eligible parti ci pants to deduct
double th e cost of reforestation and t im -
ber stand improvement practices, less
any cost-share assistance r eceived
t hrou gh other pro gr ams. This is re port-
ed on the Maryland tax r eturn as a sub-
traction from the fede ral adjusted gross
incom e.
P r actices receiving the m odification
mu st remai n in effect for at least fiftee n
years. Periodic inspections wi ll occ ur . If
they are n ot m ai ntained, the tax savi n gs
must b e repaid. Participants must ow n
or lease 10 to 500 acres of forest 1 and
ca p a bl e of growi n g more than 20 c ubic
feet of wood pe r ac r e per year, and be
avai la bl e for the primary purpose of
growi ng and harvesting t rees. Christmas
tree and ornamental tree o p er ation s are
n ot e ligible. O nl y forest m anagemen t
practices install ed o n 10 to 100 ac res
may r eceive the tax modification in any
o n e yea r.
Contact
Maryland D R Forest Service Inco me
Tax Program at
http:/ /www.dnr.state.md. us /forests/
programapps/ tax . html.
F o rest Steward ship P rogram
This program provides land manage-
ment assistan ce to private landowners,
who acco unt for ninety p ercent of
Maryland 's fore st land . All owne rs of
five or more ac res of forest land, or non -
forest land that co uld be planted wi th
trees are eligible.
Contact
Maryland DNR Forest Service For es t
St ewardship Program at
http://www.dnr .state.md.u s/fores t s/
programapps/ st eward. html .
Forest C o nservation an d
Management Pro gram
(FCMP)
The FCMP en co urages landow n e r s to
manage their fo rest land in return for a
r educed an d /or froze n property tax
assessment. The program is a legal
ag r ee m ent between the landowner and
the D epartment of 1 atural R esources
a nd is reco rded in the land records o f the
co unty in which the property is lo cated.
The landow n er agrees to manage the
fo res t land according to a manage m ent
plan that is prepared for t he property.
The minimum acreag e is five acres and
the minimum length of the agreement is
fiftee n years.
Contact
Maryland D R Forest Service FCMP
Program at
http://www.dnr.state.md .u s/forests/
progr amapps/ fem p. html
Woodland Incentive Program
This program provides cost-share assis-
tance for tree p lanting, s ite preparation
and timber stand improvement prac -
tices . The program pays up to 50 percent
of e ligi bl e practices and is available to
owners of a mi n imum of 10 to a maxi-
mum of 500 acres that, when appropri -
a t e, has the potential to b e harvested for
products includ ing logs, timbe r , pulp-
wood , firewood, woodch ips , poles , pi les,
po sts and other primary forest products.
Contact
Maryla n d DNR Forest Service.
Maryland Agricultural Water
Quality Cost-Share Program
(MACS)
The MACS program can provi d e up to
87 p ercent of the cost to install eligible
best manage m ent practices (BMPs) to
protect water quality. Stream protection
practices , including r iparian buffer s,
stream crossings , stre a m fe n ci n g, an d
alternative watering sources are amon g
the twe nty-nine BMPs eligible fo r cost-
share fund s.
MACS is admi n istered b y th e Maryland
Department of Agriculture, working in
coop eratio n with local So il Con servation
Districts (SCD). The MACS program is
availabl e to any agricultural producer.
Cost s for installing BMPs vary, d e pend-
ing on the site, the sco pe of the problem ,
and local construction costs.
Contad
The local SC D office at
http:/ /www.mda.state.md .u s/resource /
mawqcslO .htm .
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for L ocal G overnments 51
Small Creek s and E stuaries
R eserv e P ro gram
This program is administered by the
Maryland Department of the
Environment, which offers financial
assistance to local gove rnments for
restoration measures t h at provide water
quality and habitat benefits in streams
and estuaries. Projects may be on private
or public lands , but m u st be sponsored
by a local government agency. Projects
typically fu nded through this program
include stream restoration , stream bank
stabilization and streamside buffers.
This program provides cost -share funds
to co unties and incorporated municipali-
ties. Up to SO percent of assessment,
approved d esign and co n struction costs
may be funded.
Contact
Maryland Department of the
Environment, Water Man agement
Administration ; or call (410) 631-3728.
Chesapeake Bay T ru st
The Chesapeake Bay Trust is a non-
profit organ ization created by the
Maryland General Assembly in 1985 to
promote public awareness and participa-
tion in the restoration an d protection of
the Chesapeake Bay. T h e trust offe rs
grants fo r wetland restor ation , stream-
side forest buffer planti n gs , submerged
aq u atic vegetation and wildlife habitat
enhancemen t projects proposed by non -
profit or gan izations, co m munity associ-
ations, civ ic groups, sc h ools, and p ublic
agen cies that contribute to the restora-
tion of the Chesapeake Bay. Seventy-five
percent of t ru st grants a re for amounts of
$5,000 or less.
Contact
Chesapeake Bay Trust, 60 West Street,
Su ite 200A, Annapolis, MD 214 01 or
call (410) 974-2941.
State Contacts:
Maryland Cooperative Extension Service
(301) 405-4579
http://www.agnr .umd .edu /CES
Maryland Critical Area Commission
( 410)260-3460
http://www.dnr .s tate.md.us/
criticalarea/index.html
Maryland Departmen t of Natural
Re so urces
( 410) 26 0-8710
http://www.dnr .state.md.us
Maryland D epartmen t of Agriculture
(410) 84 1 -5864
http ://www.mda.state.md .us
Maryland Department of Planning
(410) 767-4500
http:/ /www.mdp .s tate.md .u s
Maryland D epartment of the
Environment
(800) 633-6101
http://www.mde.state.md.us
Maryland Geological Survey
(4 10 ) 554-55 00
http://mgs .dnr .md .gov/mgsindex .html
Maryland National Capital Park and
Planning Commission
(301) 952-5401
http ://www.mncppc.o rg
Maryland DNR Fores t Service
( 410) 260-853 1
http://www.dnr .state.md.us/forests/
dvanhassent@dnr.state.md. us
State Programs -Pennsylvania
Gro wing Greener -Stat e wid e
Growing Greener has restr uctured stat e
spending policy to direct nearly $650
mi ll ion over the next five years to the
new Watershed Protection and
Environmen tal Stewardship Fund. This
is intended to protect watersheds, p r e-
serve farm land open space, invest in
parks and o u tdoor recreation , reclaim
abandoned mines and well s, and make
improvements to the st ate's water and
sewer infrastru ctu re . T h e p rogram pro-
vides grants to local governments,
watershed groups and others for the pro -
tection of Pennsylvania's water
reso urces , including the management of
n on poi n t so urces of pollu tio n .
Four different agencies are involved in
helping communities "grow greener"
under the Environmental Stewardship &
Watershed Protection Act.
Contact
Growing Greener Grants Center at
(717) 705-5400 or (877) PA -GREE1
52 Appendix B : Federal, R egiona l and State P rograms
E-mai l : growinggreener@state.pa.us or
http://www.dep.state.pa. u s/ grow gree n /
Keystone F u nd -DCNR
DC R provides millions of dollars
annually to meet the recreational needs
of Pennsy lvania 's commu nities , preserve
open spaces and natural areas , enhance
the state's river reso urces and support
the development of rail trail s. The
Pennsylva nia Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources
manages all of the agency's grant part-
n ers hips with local governments and
non-profit o rganizations and provides
tec hnical assistance to assist communi-
ties in accomplishing their goals.
Contact
Pennsylvania Department of
Cons ervati on and Natural Resources
Str e am R e L eaf -DEP
Pennsylvania Stream ReLeaf is a
statewide program s ponsored by the
Department of Environmental
Protection to encourage streamside
buffers throughout the Commonwealt h.
Pennsylvania seeks to reach its total
streamside forest restoration goal of 600
miles of buffer within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed drainage , which incl udes
the watershed basins of t he
Susqu ehanna, Potomac, North East,
Gunpowder and Elk.
The plan's goals are to restore stream-
side b u ffers on appropr iate lands that
border water bodies for bo t h public and
private lands. The buffers m u st be of
sufficient quality to improve the waters
along which they are established , con-
serve existing streamside buffers , or p ro-
vide ed u catio n a n d outreach about t h e
importance of streamside b u ffers and
their proper stewardship and track
progress in restoring and conserving
streamside buffers.
Contact
Contact the Department of
Environmental Protection or visit the
Stream ReLeaf web site:
http:/ /www.dep .state.pa.u s/hosting/
stream rel ea fl toe. htm
Stream Improvement
Program -DEP
DEP's str eam improvement program
offers assistance through the construc-
tion of small projects to prevent flood -
ing, restore n atural stream channels
damaged in flo ods an d to stabilize
stream banks affected by erosion. To
qualify for assistance , projects must pro-
vide direct benefit to homes , businesses
or industrial structures. Fo r a project to
be approved, it must be hydraulicall y
beneficial, economically feasible and
e nvironmentall y so und. A ll stream
improvem ent projects must be spon -
sored by a local or county gove rnment .
Contact
Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Waterways
E ngineering, Division of Project
Evaluation, at (717 ) 783-1766.
Pennsylvania Stream Bank
Fencing Program -DEP
Since 1988, Pennsylvania's Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), in
cooperation with the Penn sylvania Game
Commission, has admi ni stered a Stream
bank Fencing Program. The program
improves h abitat along stream banks and
water qualit y by keeping li vestock out of
streams. DEP provides landowners with
fencing materials , install ation and associ-
ated equipment to restrict livestock from
the stream . There is also limited instal la-
tion of constructed stream crossings,
where livestock and fa rm equipment
must cross the stream . The landowner is
required to maintain the n ew fencing sys-
tem for at least ten years. T echnical serv-
ices associated with the installation of
these sys tems are provid ed by DEP's
Bureau of Land and Wat er Con se rvation.
Contact
Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Protection at
http://www.dep.state.pa .u s/ or co ntact
the Penn sy lvania Game Commission at
http://sites .state .pa.us/PA_Exec/
PGC/shouldkn .htm#Land Management
Pennsylvania Rivers
Conservation Program
Thi s program conserves and enhances
river reso urces through the preparation
and implemen tation of locally initiated
plans. It provides technical and financ ia l
assistance to municipalities and river
su pport groups to carry out p lanning,
implem entation , acquisi tion and deve l -
opment activities. River grants are avai l -
able to municipalities, co unti es , munici -
pal and inter-municipal authorities and
other groups to con serve and enhance
river resources . Planning grants are
available to identify sig nifi cant natural
and cu ltural resources, threats, concern s
and specia l opportunities, and to deve l-
op river co n se r vation p lans .
Implementation grants are availab le to
ca rry out projects or activities defined in
an approved ri ver conservati on plan.
Grants require a 50 percent match. A
registry is established to recognize local
river conservation efforts . Any munici-
pality and appropriate organization
(river support groups having 501 (c)(3)
not-for-profit status) are eli gible to
apply for grants. River conservation
must be one of the grou p 's primary p ur-
poses.
Contact
Department of Conservation and
atural Resources, Division of
Conservation Partnerships, at :
(717) 787-2316.
State Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program -DEP
The Pennsylvania Non point Source
( PS) Management Program 1999
update outlin es the Commonwealth's
p lan to address nonpoint source pollu-
tion over the n ext fo ur years and
beyond.
Contact
Pennsylvania Department of
Conservation and Natural R esou rces.
Citizen Volunteer Monitoring
Program (CVMP)
Pennsylvania's CVMP helps organiza -
tions and individuals con cerned about
water quality to m ore q ui ckly reach
ag ree ment on the nature of water q u ali ty
issues, b egi n to share reso urces and plan
for the future . The program fosters
stewardship by giving communities the
too ls they need to meet goa ls related to
water resources and to give DEP a better
understanding of water resources by
receiving quality-assured data from vol -
unteers . For more on the program see
the case example in Chapter Seven.
Contact
Pennsylvania DEP at http://www.dep.
state . pa. us / dep / deputate/watermgt/
we / subjects / cvmp. htm
eFACTS
The n ew environment, Facility,
Application , Compliance Tracking
System (eFACTS) provides department-
wide information from the Pennsylvania
DEP on the multiple programs that reg-
ulate facilities and information to the
public on permits issued by DEP and the
status of pending permit applications .
Contact
http:I/www.dep.state .pa. u s / efacts /
welco m e .asp
State Contacts
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
http:/ /www.state.pa .us
Pennsylvania Game Commission
(717 ) 783-48 72
http://www.pgc .state.pa.us
Pennsy lvania 's Chesapeake Bay
Education Office
(717) 545-8 878
www.pacd.o rg
Pennsylvania Department of Conserva tion
and Natural Resources
(717) 787-9306
http://www.dcru.state.pa.us
Pennsylvania Cooperative Extension
Service
(814) 865-6713
http://www.cas.psu .edu/docs/
CO EXT /COOPEXT.HTML
Pennsy lvania Department of Agriculture
(7 17 ) 787-4 737
http://www.pda .state.pa.us
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection
(717 ) 787 -2 300
http://www.d ep .state.pa .us
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
(814) 359 -5185
http:/ /www.fis h .state.pa.us/
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for Local Governments 53
State Programs -Virginia
Riparian Buffer Initiative
This program seeks to ensure that an
adequate buffer protects all streams and
shorelines in the Common wealth ,
through agency partnerships with organ -
izations , businesses and private
landowners , to establish , enhance and
maintain riparian buffers.
The program seeks to restore 610 miles
of missing or inadequate forest buffers
in the state ofVirginia by the year 2 010.
Buffers must be at least 3 5 fe et wide
from the stream bank, contain at least
three different tree or shrub s p ecies or
achieve regrowth from natural regenera-
tion. Buffers resulting from fencing farm
animals out of streams wi ll also be
counted towards the fina l 610 mile goal.
The program also seeks to conserve
existing forest buffers and enhance pro-
gram coordination and accountability.
The Riparian Buffer Implementation
Plan was published in July 19 9 8 .
Contact
DEQat http://www.deq.state .va.u s/
watersheds / programs. html
Water Quality Management
Plans
In accordance with Section 208 and
Section 303(e) of the Clean Water Act,
the State Water Control Board has
developed eighteen water -quality man-
agement plans, Many were developed in
the 1970s. Although so m e have been
amended and updated to reflect current
conditions, many have now become out-
dated . These watershed plans need to
address measures for the control of point
sources and n onpoint so u rces of pollu-
tion, such as agricultural runoff. Future
watershed plans also wi ll contain the
individual segment cleanup plans or
their Total Maximum Daily Loads .
Contact
The Department of Environm ental
Quality at http://state .vipnet.org /
dof/rfb/ripar ian /rwg /forms .htm
Agricultural Stewardship
Program
Objectives of the program include edu-
cati n g farmers about environmental
stewardship , strengthening their stew-
ardship practices and identifying real
water -quality problems. It wants to help
farmers correct the problems in a co m -
monsense manner that accommodates
both the farmer and the environment
through their local Soil and Wate r
Conservation Districts to resolv e. The
Agricultura l Stewardship Act (ASA) of
1996 gives the farmer an opportunity to
correct a water quality problem vo lun-
tarily before any enforcement action is
taken. Water quality problems concern-
ing nutrients, sediment and toxics fro m
agricultural activities are reported to the
Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (VDACS).
Contact
VD ACS Office of Poli cy, Planning and
Research ; or call (804 ) 786.3538 .
Nonpoint Source Program
The Department of Con servation and
Recreation (OCR) is the lead agency in
Virginia for coordinating nonpoint
source pollution control programs , as set
forth in Section 10 .1-104 .1 of the Code of
Virginia. This role incl udes the over sight
of program development and implemen -
tation and interfacing with EPA to
ensure that Virginia 's program is in con -
formance with the requirements of the
C lean Water Act of1987. Section 319 of
this Act requ ires states to assess their
state waters and identify those adver se ly
affected by non point so urces of pollu-
tion. The OCR is also responsible for
the management and distribution of fed -
eral and state funds fo r program im ple -
mentation.
Virginia Agricultural BMP
Cost-Share Program
This program funds up to 7 5 percent of
the cost of implementing conservation
practices to protect water quality. There
is a maximum payment of up to $50,000
per farm. This program requires a mini -
mum of 2 5 feet of fenced buffer aro und
streams . The main benefits of this pro-
gram are the stabilization of stream
banks from livestock , the creation of for-
54 Appendix B: Federal, Regional and State Programs
est buffers , and the reduction in non-
point source pollution . The individ ual
cost -s hare limit for all BMPs is $50,000.
Contact
Soi l and Water Conservation Districts
(SWCDs) local offices are online at
http://www.dcr.state.va.us /sw /
swcd li st.htm
Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Fund (License Plate Program)
In 199 2, the Virginia Gen eral Assembly
establi shed the Chesapeake Bay preser -
vation li cense plate . The design included
drawings of bay grass, oysters and crabs,
and reads "Friend of the Chesapeake."
The General Asse mbly's Virginia
Divisio n of Legislative Services admi ni s-
ters the Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Fund , which is funded from revenues of
plate sales . Grants are available to state
agencies, local governments, schools or
nonprofit groups for environmental edu -
cation and restoration projects .
Contact
Division of Legislative Services, General
Assembly B uilding at (804) 786-3591.
Water Quality Improvement
Fund
The Water Quality Improvement F und
(WQIF) was created to provide water
quality improvement grants to local gov-
ernments, Soil and Water Conservation
Distri cts and individuals for point and
nonpoint source pollution prevention,
reduction and co ntrol programs. A pri-
mary objective is to fund grants that will
reduce the flow of excess nitrogen and
phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay,
through the implementation of the tribu-
tary strategies. The Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is
responsible for administerin g point source
grants and the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (OCR)
administers nonpoint source grants.
WQIF funds are provided, in accorda nce
with the guidelines , to help stimulate non -
point so urce pollution reduction.
Contact
Virginia DEQ Chesapeake Bay Program
at http:/ /www.deq .state.va .u s /bay/
wqif.html or call (804) 698 -4466 .
Virginia's Stormwater
Management Program
(SWM)
Virginia's O C R implem ents the state's
SWM program accord ing to the Virginia
Stormwater Management Act and
Regulations, which ar e mandato ry for all
state agen c ies. The SWM legislation also
e nables lo calities to develop and imple-
ment compreh ensive SWM programs o n
a watershed-wide basis. Stormwater
management engineers help localities
write ordinances and review them for
consistency with state law and attendant
regulations . Once a program is ad o pted
by a local government, OCR staff pro-
vide technical assi stance to ensure t hat
minimum state criteri a are satisfied and
to promote innovative, cost -e ffec ti ve
solutions for runoff, flooding and JPS
problems.
Contact
Virginia DEQat
http://www.d eq.state.va.u s/water /stor
mwtr.html or call 1-800-592-5482
(in Virginia) or (804) 698-4800.
Virginia Shoreline Erosion
Advisory Service (SEAS)
DCR's Shoreline Erosion Advisory
Service promotes shorelin e and river -
bank erosion control measures to protect
private property and reduce sediment
and nutrient loads into the Chesapeake
Bay and other state water s, along with
research to improve shoreline manage-
m ent tec hniques . The OCR provides
technical ad vice about preventing sedi-
ment and nut r ient loads from shoreline
and stream bank erosi on and riparian
buffer management fo r landowners,
local governments and en vironmental
agencies .
Contact
Virginia OCR at
http: I /www.dcr .s tate.va.u s/ sw I seas .
htm or call (804) 786-171 2.
Coastal Non point Source
Pollution Control Program
The Coasta l Zone Management (CZM)
Act was amended in 1990 to address non -
point source (NPS) poll ution . Sec tion
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
R ea uthorization Amendments of 1990
req u ires that stat es with approved coastal
zone managem ent programs develop and
implement coastal NPS pollution co ntrol
programs restore and protect coastal
water quality through the application of
econ omicall y achieva ble BMPs, whic h
are impleme nted through en forceable
state policies and m echani sms.
The federa l government defines state-
e nfor ceable policies and mechanisms as
state and loca l r eg ul ato ry controls
and/or non -reg ul atory incentive pro-
grams combined with a state enforce-
ment a uth ority. The OCR is the lead
state agen cy for the Coastal Nonpoi nt
Source Pollution Control Program .
Contact
Mark Slaute r , at (804) 692-0839. Email
m slauter @d cr .state.va.u s
CBLAD and Virginia's Bay
Act Program
The Virginia General Assembl y enacted
the C hesapeake Bay Preservation Act in
1988. The Act is a critical element of
Virginia's multifaceted response to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The
C h esapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department is the state age n cy that pro-
vides staff support to the local a ssis ta nce
Board in carrying out the require m e nts
of the Bay Act. Each Tidewater locality
must adopt a program based on the reg-
ulations adopted b y the Local Assistan ce
Board .
For more on the Bay Act in Virginia,
"Legislation and Agreements" in
Appendix C.
Contact
Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department.
Virginia's Citizen Monitoring
Program
The state DEQand OCR participate in
citizen monitoring programs . The DEQ
utilizes quality assured citizen co ll ec ted
data for its state water quality r eport .
The state's volunteer monitoring pro-
gram is run through a p ubl ic private
partnership with the DEQ, the OCR
and the Izaak Walton L eag u e's Vi r gi ni a
Save Our Str eams Program. Links to all
three programs are fou nd b elow.
Contact
DEQ's Program is at
ci ti ze n @ deq.state .va .us or
DNR's Program is at
http://www.deq.state.va.us/cmonitor/
citizenmonitorin gva.html
Virgi ni a Save Our Streams is at
http://www.vaso s.org /
State Contacts
Co mmonwea lth of Virginia
(804) 786-2211
http://www.state.va.us /
C hes ap ea k e Bay Loca l Assistance
Department
(804) 225-3 440
http://www.cblad.state.va .us /index .htm
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
(800) 592-5482 or (804) 698-4000
http://www.deq .s tate .va.us
Virginia Marine R eso urces Commissio n
(757) 247-2200
http:/ /www.state.va .us /mrc /
homepage .htm
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service
(8 04 ) 524-5848
http :/ /www.ext.vt .ed u
Virginia Department of Forestry
(8 04 ) 977-6555
http://www.state .va .us /-dof/dof.htm
Virgi nia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries
(8 04 ) 367-1000
http:/ /www.dgif.state .v a.u s/
Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation
(8 04 ) 786-1712
Water quality information is at
(877) 42-WATER
http://www.dcr .state.va.u s
State Programs -District of Columbia
Federal Agency Plans
Fed eral lands and facilities comprise les s
than five percent of the Bay's waters h ed ,
but they contain valuab le stream and
s horeline resources . In addition , a
majority of r ipa rian areas in the District
of Colu mbia are on federal lands . Most
federal lands in the water shed are man -
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for Local Governments 55
aged by one of four entities: the USDA
Forest Se rvi ce; the Department of
Defense; the ational Park Service; or
the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
These entities have fo ur goals for stream
protection :
• GOAL 1: Coordinate the restoratio n
and protection of riparian buffers
throughout the District of Col umbia.
• GOAL 2: Promote education and out -
reach to citizens, developers and
District reg ul atory agency person n el
to introdu ce the functional values of
RFBs .
• GOAL 3: Monitor an d maintain
plantings to ensure buffer survival.
• GOAL 4: Further the protection of
existing riparian forests in the
District.
District of Columbia Contacts
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
(202) 962-3256
http:/ /www.m wcog.o rg
District of Columbia Environmenta l
Health Administration
(202) 645-6617
http://www.environ .s tate.dc .us
D. C. Office of Planning/ Anacostia
Riverwalk and Trail an d Anacostia
Waterfront In itiative
(202) 442-7600
http://plannin g.dc.gov/main.shtm
D. C. Water and Sewer A uthority
(202) 787-2000
http:/ /www.dcwasa.com
Nationa l Capital Planning Commissio n
(202) 482-7200
http:/ /www.n cpc .gov
Organizations
The A lliance for the C hes ap eake Bay
has offices in Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania and publishes the
eBay Journal. Available at MD:
( 410) 377-6270; PA: (717) 236-8825;
VA: (8 04) 775-0951; or onlin e at
http:/ /www.acb -o nline.org /
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has
offices in Maryland, Vi rginia and
Pennsylvani a. MD (4 10) 268-8816; PA :
(7 17 ) 234-5550; VA : (8 04) 780-1392; or
on lin e at http:/ /www.c bf.org
The Center for Watershed Prot ection is a
non -profit firm providing consulting
and technical assistance for land and
riparian p lanning. ( 410) 461 -8323;
emai l : center@cwp.org; or
http:/ /www.cwp.org
The Low Impa ct Development Center is a
non -profit firm that seeks to develop
and provide information to individuals
and organizations about proper site
design techniques , whic h replicate pre -
existing hydrologic si te conditions or call
(3 01 )982-5559; or onlin e at
http:/ /www.lowimpactd eve lopment.org/
The In sti tute for Environmental
egotiation, University of Virginia pro-
vides consulting and p lanning services
concerning disputes and planning fo r the
natural and built environment. Institute
for Environmental Negotiation, 164
Rugby Rd, P.O . Box 400179, University
ofVirginia, Charlottesvil le, VS 22904-
4179 ( 434) 924 -1970; or online at
http://www.virginia.edu /-envneg/
IEN_home.h tm
Izaak Walton League's Virginia Save
Our Streams Program , trains
Vi rginian s in water monitoring and
coordin ates a statewid e n etwork of vo l -
u nteers at (540) 377-6179 or toll free at
1-888-656-6664 ; or o nl i n e at
http://www.vasos.org/ The national
office of the Izaak Walton League of
America also ha s many reso urces o n
streams and wetlands; ca ll
1-800-BUG-IWLA.
56 Appendix B : Federal, R egiona l and State Programs
Federal Legislation
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (C WA) is a 1977
amendment to the Federa l Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, which reg-
ulates the dis charge of pollutants into
waters of the United Stat es. The law
gives the Environmental Protection
Agency the authority to set water quality
standards and makes it unlawful for any
p er son to discharge any pollutant from a
point source unl ess a permit (National
Pollutant Discharge and Elimination
System -NPDES permit) is obtained
under the Act .
Under the C lean Water Act, states and
local governments have the ability to set
standards that are more stringent than
federal guidelines . It co ntains regula-
tions mandating annual reporting on the
condition of state waters. These sec tions
are: Section 303(d), which req u ires states
to li st all impaired or threatened water
bodi es; Section 305(b), which requires
states to report state wate r quality infor-
mation to Congress; and Section 319,
which requires states to d evelop
Non point Source Management
Programs and report progress to EPA.
Section 303(d) lists
The Section 303(d) list is a comprehensive
public accounting of all impaired or
threatened water bodies, regard less of the
cause or source of the impairment or
threat. An impaired water body is defined
as one that does meet water quality stan-
dards. Violations might be caused by
known or unknown so urces of pollution.
A threatened water body is one that cur -
rently meets water quality standards but
for which existing data show that water
quality standards will likel y be exceed ed
by the time the next lis t is required to b e
submitted to EPA. A Sec tion 303(d) li st
of impaired or threatened water bodies
must be submitted to EPA by October 1
of every year , beginning in the year 2000.
~
L egislation and Agreements
Section JOS(b) Report to Congress
Every five yea r s th e EPA transmits to
Congress the ational Water Quality
Inventory R eport (305(b) Report . This
re port is based on individ u al state
reports that identify wi d espread water
q u a lity problems , and d escribe the va ri-
ous programs implemented to restore
and protect state waters.
Clean Water Act Section 319
In 1987 Congress amended the C lea n
Water Act in order to establi sh the
Section 319 onpoint Source
Management Program. The aim of this
program is to help state and local water
quality management efforts. Under the
Program states receive grant money to
support non point source management
projects su ch as those offering technical
assistance, financia l assistance, educa-
tion, training, technology transfer ,
d emonstration projects , and monitoring .
The Total Maximum Daily Load
The Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) requirement mandates that
states set p o llution con trol plans for
their impaired rivers and streams. The
TMDL requirements of the Clean
Water Act allow states to create their
own regulatory programs provided that
they m ee t fe d eral management and
reporting requirements and are
approved by the EPA. Once a program
is es t a blished, the total allowable leve l
for a ny pollutant is based on state stan -
dards.
UnderTMDL regulations states must
submit to EPA a list of impaired waters
along with a TMDL of pollutants for
each waterway and water b ody on the
li st . O n ce listed as a n impaired water,
states must also outline how a waterway
wi ll meet TMDL standards in the
future . States have ten years to bring
their water bodies into compliance but
are a ll owed an additional five years if
need can be proven . The chall enge fo r
most states is figuring out how to eco-
nomically meet TMDL requirements.
TMDLs in Pennsylvan ia, Maryland an d
Virginia
TMDLs may affect only a segment of a
river or an entir e section. For example,
the entire Anacostia River Watershed in
Washington D.C. is considered
'impaired' and a TMDL must b e co m -
pleted and implemented for the entire
nver.
Pennsylvania
In 1997, Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) agreed
to a twelve-year schedule to develop
TMDLs for impaired strean1s listed on
the 1996 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
list. To this end, all unassessed streams in
Pennsylvania will be assessed by the DEP
withi n ten years. During this time, any
stream segment that exceeds minimum
standard s will then be added to the Section
303(d) li st (wi th a TMDL to follow ).
As of 2001, 45,234 miles of 83, 161 total
stream miles in Pennsylvania were
assessed. A total of 37, 927 stream miles
remain to be assessed in ord er to achieve
comprehensive coverage, based on the
current GIS coverage. Of the 45,234
miles assessed , 8, 193 were found to be
impaired or 18.1 percent of the total
miles assessed . The two largest so urces
of reported impairment are agriculture,
with 2,887 miles of reported impair-
ment, and abandon ed mine drainage ,
with 2853 miles reported. Sources of
impairment incl ud e agric ulture (34.5
percent), Acid Mine Drainage (34.4 per-
cent) and Urban Runoff(l4 .5 percent).
During the development phase of a
TMDL, DEP will estimate pollution
reduction goals t o meet water quality
standards on a watershed basis . Local
entities will then be responsible for devel -
oping an implementation plan to achieve
the TMDL goals. After implementation ,
A Stream Corridor Protection Strategy for L oca l Governments 51
the watershed will be re-surveyed to
determine if the stream segment meets
the water q u ality standards . As of
December 31, 2001, 154 TMDLs (110
from the 1996 303(d) list) have been sub -
mitted by DEP and approved by EPA.
For more inform ation on Pennsylvania's
program see http:/ /www.dep.state.pa.
u s/ dep/ deputate/watermgt/wqp/wqs-
tandards/ wqstandards.htm
Mar y l and
C urrently in Maryland, there are
approximately 350 so urces of impair-
ments for 130 water bodies . Thirty
TMDLs hav e been developed and
approved by EPA at the printing of this
report and twenty more were up for
approval in the spring of2002. In the
2002 305(b) r eport, there are 8,768.9
miles of non -tidal rivers and streams. Of
those 8,638 were assessed and 2,949.5
miles were found to be impaired for a
total of 33.6% of the assessed stream
miles.
The Maryland Department of the
Environment (MOE) has been instru-
mental in the coordination b etween EPA
and local governments, convening m eet-
ings in which municipalities can discuss
their concerns and ask questions about
the TMDL process. One of the products
of thi s partnership has been a document
entitled Maryland 's TMDL Development
Program and Local Government
Participation. For a summary of this
document see http:/ /www.mde.state.
md .us /tmdl/localgov.htm . For ge neral
information about TMDLs in
Maryland, see http:/ /www.mde.state.
md .us /tmdl /; or call (at MOE) at
(410) 631-4893.
V irginia
The Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality is responsible for
developing TMDLs over a ten-year
schedule ending in 201 0 . Virginia has
50,239 miles of rivers and streams. A
total of 9, 700 of those stream miles have
been assessed and 4, 403 stream miles
were found to be impaired or 44 percent
of the total mi les assessed. Virginia cur-
rently has 665 TMDLs to develop for its
impaired waters by 2010 . As of spring
200 2, the EPA has approved TMDL
assessments for 29 of those waters . By
May 1, 2004 an additional 81 TMDL
assessments must be co mpleted . For
more information see: http://www.deq .
state.va.us/water/303d.html
Wild and scenic rivers
In 1968 , Congress creat ed the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers System. There
are four federal agencies charged with
protecting and managing the nation's
wi ld and sce ni c rivers :
• Fish and Wildlife Service
• U.S.D.A Forest Service
• Bureau of Land Management
• ational Park Service
Today these agencies work together
under the 1995 lnteragency Wild &
Sce nic Rivers Coordinating Council
Charter. The goal of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act is to help protect the natural,
cultural and historic resources associa-
tion with the nation 's rivers . Under the
Act, each river has a unique d esignation
and management plan .
To be eligibl e for inclusion in the syst em
rivers must meet certain criteria set forth
in Section 2(b ) of the Act. Under this sec-
tion, three classifications are stipulated :
• Wild rivers: Those rivers or sectio ns
of rivers that are free of impound-
ments and generally inaccessible
except by trail, with watersheds or
shoreli n e essentially primitive and
waters unpolluted. These represent
vestiges of primitive America.
• Scenic rivers : Those rivers o r section s
or rivers that are free of impound -
ments, with shorelines or watersheds
sti ll largely primitive and shorelines
largely undeveloped, but accessible in
places by roads .
• Recreational rivers : Those rivers or
sections of ri vers that are r eadi ly
accessible by road or railroad , that
may have some development along
their shorelines and that may have
undergone some impoundment o r
diversion in the past.
58 Appendix C: Legislation and Agreements
Regional Agreements
C h esa peake B ay Agreement
Bay Agreement of 1987 -cal led for a
forty percent reduction by 2000 in nutri-
ents reaching the main stem of the Bay.
1992 Amendments -committed to
r educe nonpoint sources of nitrogen and
phosphorous by 40 percent in the Bay's
largest tributaries.
Chesapeake 2000 -call s for a reassess -
ment of progress made to date and a
recom mi tment to the origin al goals a nd
recognizes additional steps to be taken to
ensure that the original goals set up by
earlier agreements are met.
The major incentive that drives the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement is the
removal of the Chesapeake Bay from the
federa l li st of impaired waters by the
year 2010. To do this it call s for:
• The reduction of sediments and nutri-
ents.
• Ambitious recovery goals for oysters
and subaquatic vegetation.
• A s ustainab le crab catch.
• A measurable decrease in the rate of
conversion of farms and forests to
developed land s
• More effective community-based
stewardship of the Bay's rivers and
subwatersheds.
More information about the Chesapea ke
20 00 Agreement and how it affects pro-
tection measures and management of
water sheds and streams is found in
Appendix B, regional programs .
State Legislation
There are myriad federal, regional, state
and local government regulations in place
that affect stream protection and restora-
tion. Several acts in particular stand out as
major state efforts to bring the goals of the
Bay Agreement down to the state level: the
1984 Critical Area Criteria Planning Act of
Maryland , the 1988 Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act ofVirginia, 1992 Economic
Growth , Resource Protection, and Planning
Act of Maryland , Maryland's Smart
Growth and eighborhood Conservation Act
of 1997 and the Rural Legacy Act.
Maryland
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law (Md.
Code Ann.§ 8-1801 et seq.)
In 1984 Maryland enacted a series of
legislation that targeted the restoration
of the Bay's ecosystems. Most signifi-
cant of these was the Cri ti cal Area
Criteria Planning Act. This act required
significant changes in local land use laws
for localities bordering the Bay. The act
also establi shed the Critical Area
Commission, a 27-member panel
charged with creating land managemen t
programs aimed at decreasing non point
so urce pollution.
Central to the act were the Critical Area
C r iteria, which establis h ed a set of mini-
mum standards to be e nacted by the
localities, allowing localities some flexi-
bility in tailoring the standards to their
particular set of circumstances .
The law was enacted in 1984 to mini-
mize adver se water quality impacts and
to protect the Chesapeake Bay. It seeks
to protect water quality, conserve valu -
ab le habitat and accommodate future
growth in the least polluting manner by
regulating activities and land use plan-
n in g in what are defined as critical areas .
These areas include:
• the waters of the Bay
• the Bay's tidal wetlands and tributar-
ies
• the area that li es within 1,000 feet of
the landward b oundary of state and
private waters and wetlands
The act es tabl ishes a 100-foot vegetated
buffer within the 1,000-foot critical a rea ,
within which specific activities are pro-
hibited. C ritical Areas fall into three cat-
ego ri es:
• intensely d eveloped areas
• limited d evelopment areas
• reso urce conservation ar eas
Eac h has a density limit and incorporat -
ed performan ce crite ria that are directed
to protecting water quality. These crite-
ria were establi shed b y the Chesap eake
Bay Critical Area Commi ssion. Local
governments are responsible for devel -
oping and implementing their own
Critical Area resource protection pro-
gr ams, based on the req uirements devel -
oped by the C ritical Area Commission .
1991 Planning Ad
In Maryland, counties are primarily
responsible for local land use planning.
Within this context, the Economi c
Growth, Resource Protection, and
Planning Act was passed in 1992. The Act
instructs local governments to adapt their
plans to incl ud e a set of established poli-
cies that include concentration of develop -
ment, protection of sensitive areas, and
steward ship of t h e Chesap eake Bay.
The "Sen sitive Areas E lement," which is
req u ired for all plans, m u st describe how
t h e j uri sdiction will prot ect:
• streams and stream buffers
• 100-year floodplains
• endangered species habitats
• steep slopes
• oth er areas a jurisdiction wa n ts to pro-
tect from the ad verse impacts of
development
Such planning must also conform to the
1984 Critica l Area Criteria Planning Act.
Maryland Tributary Strategies
In 1995 the Maryland Tributary Team s
were formed . They are comprised of fe d -
e ral, state, and local governments busi-
nesses, citizens, farmers and ed u cator s.
The teams ai m to protect the
Chesap eake Bay watershed through the
implementation of Maryland Tributary
Strategies, the primary goa l of which is
to ac hi eve a 40 percent nutrient reduc-
tion in each of Maryland's ten major
watersheds b y 2000. These strategies
are now enter ing a phase of review an d
revisio n that is targeted for 2002.
A Stream Corridor Pro tec tion Strategy for Local Governments 59
A major milestone in the teams' work
was passed in July of2000, when the
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Partnership
Agreement was signed by Governor
Glendening and elected officials from
Maryland's counties. The Tributary
Teams' state and local government rep-
resentatives first drafted this agreement.
The cou nties agreed to work coopera -
tively to restore local watersheds a nd the
Chesapeake Bay. They also committed
to participate on the Tributary Teams, to
help in the developme nt of the revised
Tributary Strategies, to address the goals
of the C hesapeake 2000 Agreement, to
support the deve lopment of Chesapeake
Bay Program policies and to pursue
funding and other incentives to support
local government watershed restoration
and protection programs.
When the Maryland Chesapeake Bay
Partnership Agreement was signed, the
Watershed Revitalization Partnership
Fund was also started. The fund sup-
ports a grant program to be administrat-
ed through a partnership of the
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the Maryland
Department of Transportation (MDT).
These funds are targeted to help locally
sponsored stream restoration projects.
The partnership expan ds on the existing
D R greenway, wetlands and stream
restoration proj ects that are currently
funded by the MDT throu gh the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA 21).
Virginia
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ad (Virginia
Code§ 10.1-2100etseq.)
The Virginia Gen eral Assembly enacted
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in
1988 in order to establish a cooperative
nonpoint source pollution program
between the state and the eighty-four
local governments of Tidewater,
Virginia. The Bay Act Program is
designed to improve water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by
requiring wise resource management
practices in the use and development of
e nvironmentall y sensitive lands .
The Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Board , which was created by the Act, is
responsible for promulgating regulations
that establish criteria for local Bay Act
programs. The Board is a lso charged
with ensuring that local comprehensive
plans , zoning and subdivision ordi-
nances and other land management pro-
grams are in compliance with the Bay
Act Regulations. The C h esapeake Bay
Local Assistance Department provides
staff support to the Board in carrying
out the requirements of the Bay Act and
provides technical and financial assis-
tance to localities.
Through the Bay Act, localit ies address
nonpoint source pollution by identifying
and managing identified Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas. These lands are clas-
sified as either Resource Protection Areas
(RPAs) or Resource Management Areas
(RMAs). RPAs include tidal wetlands
and shores , certain non-tidal wetlands
and a 100-foot buffer adjacent to these
features and along all perennial streams.
Because these lands are so sensitive,
development is limited to water-depend-
ent u ses and redevelopment . RMAs are
sensitive lands co ntiguous to RPAs that,
if improperly u sed or developed, can sig-
nificantly degrade water quality.
Development is not limited in RMAs,
but must adhere to the eleven perform-
ance criteria specified in the regulations.
The Bay Act also requires that
Tidewater localities address water quali-
ty issues through their comprehensive
60 Appendix C: Legislation and Agreements
plans. Localities must include informa-
tion and policies and implementation
strategies regarding physical constraints
to development, protection of potable
water, shoreline and stream bank ero-
sion, public access and redevelopment as
specified in the Bay Act Regulations.
Water Quality Improvement Ad (Code of
Virginia §10.1 -2118).
The purpose of the Virginia Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1997
(WQIA) is to protect and restore the
quality of state waters. Because this is a
shared responsibility among state and
local governments and individuals, the
Water Quality Improvement Fund
(WQIF) was created . The purpose of
the fund is to provide water quality
improvement gr ants to local govern -
ments, soil and water conservation dis-
tricts and individuals for point and non-
point source pollution prevention,
reduction and control programs .
A primary objective ofWQIF is to fund
grants that will reduce the flow of excess
nitrogen and phosphorus into the
Chesapeake Bay through the implemen-
tation of the tributary strategies.
Applicants for projects must first submit
a grant application.
Virginia Tributary Strategies
The Virginia Tributary Strategy
Program (VTSP) is a multi-agency effort
to coordinate water quality management
planning. Headed by the Department of
Environmental Quality. It operates
under the statutory guidance of
Virginia's 1996 Tributary Strategy Law
(Article 2 of Chapter 5.1) and the 1997
Water Quality Improvement Act (Articles
1-4 of Chapter 2.1 ). The Tributary
Strategy Law specifies the content and
schedu le for nutrient and sediment
reduction plans. The Water Quality
Improvement Act establi shed coopera-
tive point and nonpoint source pollution
control programs and created the Water
Quality Improvement Fund (WQIF),
which is the primary source of state
funds for the nutrient and sediment
reduction actions identified in tributary
strategies.
Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,
Virginia has developed nutrient reduc-
tion strategies for each of Virginia's
major Bay tributaries. The VTSP is a
voluntary program that provides scien-
tific information on water quality issues,
such as nutrient and se dim ent loads , to
local officials, businesse s, citizen groups
and other stakeholders. Stakeholders are
guided through a process of developing
goals for nutrient and sediment reduc -
tions, identifying cost-effecti ve practices
for achieving these reduction s , and
implementing these practices. Eac h trib-
utary strategy plan is design ed to reflect
the unique characteri stics of the area.
In addition to Virginia's Tributary
Strategies, the state Department of
Con se rvation and Recreation has organ-
ized Watershed Conse rvation roundta-
bles for each of Virginia's major water-
sheds. Roundtables are comprised of
represe ntatives from the D CR, a nd the
Soi l and Water Conservation Districts in
addition to other state agenci es , local
governments, industries, ci tizens and
exis ting watershed organi zations. The
goal of the round tables is to provi d e a
forum for creating watershed-based
strategies for water pollution red u ction .
Over the next decade, efforts under the
VTSP will be focus ed on 'delisting' the
Bay and its tidal tributaries from the
state's Section 303(d) Impaired Waters
List. This initiative stems out of the
Chesapeake Bay Program and is
designed to integrate this cooperative
program with the regu latory TMDL
Program under the Clean Water Act . As
set forth in the recently signed
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement , the Bay
Program partners will work together to
remove all impairments, partic ularly low
levels of dissol ve d oxygen , from Bay
waters by the year 201 0 .
This initiative includes the dev e lopment
of criteria, designated uses and water
quality standards that will protec t aquat-
ic life in Bay waters based on needs of
habitat, food and other requirements.
These objectives will be achieved
through eve n gr eater reductions of nutri -
ents and sediments into Bay tributaries
across the entire 64,000 square mile
C hesapeake Bay Watershed .
Riparian Forest Protection for Waterways
Tax Credit
This program prov ides a state income
tax credit to Virginia landowners whose
property abuts a waterway on which
timber is harvested , but who refrain
from harvesting for a period of fiftee n
years . The tax credit is an amount equal
t o 2 S p ercent of the value of timber in
that portion of the la nd retain ed as a
buffer. The Virginia Department of
Forestry monitors this program .
Inter es ted landowners sho uld co ntact
their lo cal forestry office to a ppl y. For
more information see http:/ /www.dof.
state.va.u s /rtcguide .htm
Th e Virgi nia Surface Water Management
Area (SWMA ) Act (198 9) al lows for t h e
d esignation of a specified m anagem e nt
area in which there is a hi story of low
flow conditions. For these areas , a co n -
se rvation plan is ap proved b y the State
Water Control Bo a rd to ensure that
there are minimum flows durin g periods
of drou ght. Once adopted , a SWMA
requires p ermits for any n ew with -
drawals more than 300,000
gallon s /month and a s urface water with-
drawal certificate t o continuous with-
drawal s (g ranted b y the State Water
Control Board ). For more information
v isit DEQ's website at
http://www.deq.state.va.us; or call
(804) 698-4 10 9 .
Exceptional Surf ace Waters Designation
As required by the EPA, every stat e
must establish a category of s urface
water equ ivalent to EPA's Tier 3
Outstanding ational Resources
Waters . In Virginia , an Exceptional
Waters Category was adopted in 1992 to
designate those waterways that have
exceptional recreational status or co ntain
significant aquatic communities and are
located in an exce ptio nal env iro nmental
se tting. Criteria, n omi n ation and desig-
nation processes , and restricti on s for this
desig n ation can be found at
http://www.deq .state .va.us /wqs/
T 3guid .html. C urrently, onl y one water
bod y, North C reek in Botetout County,
has b ee n designated an Exce pti onal
Water in Virginia.
P ennsylvania
Because Pennsylvania did n o t enact leg -
islation specific to the Bay Agreem ent it
does not hav e the critical areas and Bay
acts that were adopted in Virgin ia and
Maryland. What is in p lace however is
stro ng legislation that allow s for local
gove rnments to plan for and protect
their local waterways.
Pennsylvania's Municipal Planning Code
Pennsylvania's Municipal Planning Code
(M PC) gives primary responsibility for
regulating land u se and development to
loca l munici paliti es. U nder this code
land ca n b e zoned and d esign ated for
appro priate u se . Section 603 of the MPC
specifically autho rizes lo ca l governments
to regulate, permit, prohibit , restrict and
determine u ses of land , including we t -
lands and r iparian zo n es. The Code
states that zo nin g ordinances must be
designed to "promote, protect and faci li-
tate ... prese r vat io n of the natural, scenic,
and historic values in the environme nt
and preservat io n of forests, wetlands,
aq uifer s, and floodplains." (MPC Articl e
V I , § 603 )."Provisions a dded to the
Code in 2000 gave additional planning
powers to towns and co unti es .
The Growing Green er Program provid-
ed funds fo r la nd co n servation,
stormwater management, stream
resto ration and oth er water qual ity
improvements . In 1988 the
"Environmental R ights Amendment" of
the Pennsylvania Constitutio n (Act 1,
Sectio n 27 and 28 ) was adopted . This
amendment expre ssly gives local gov-
ernm ents the a uthority to reg ulate the
protec tion of s treams and rivers .
Pennsylvania Tributary Strategies
The tri butaries in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania co ntrib ute a significant
portion of the nutri ent loads being trans-
ported to the Bay. Two of the Bay's
major tributari es, the Susquehanna and
Potomac Rivers, co mprise 21,000 square
miles of the Bay's 6 7,000 square mile
drainage areas.
Pennsylvania formalized their effo rts to
meet the req uire m ents set out in the Bay
Agreement through their Nutrient
R eduction Strategy, which is h eaded b y
the Pennsylvania D epartment of
E nvi ronm ental Protec tion .
Pennsylvania's Strategy can be looked at
in two parts: nonpoint and point so urce
nutrient loads.
The majority of nonpoint source pro-
gram s in Pennsylvania target the agri-
c ultural community, since it accounts for
the majority of nonpoint nutrients deliv -
A Strea m Corridor Protec tion Strategy for Local Governments 61
ered to the Bay by the tributaries within
the state. The primary elem ents of the
nonpoint strategy incl ud e:
• Nutrient m anagement legislation
• The Conservation Practice
Installation Program, which focuses
on the installation of BMPs
• Agricultural initiatives, such as barn -
yard runoff controls and stream corri-
dor protection
• Support for voluntary efforts
• Urban nonpoint so urce control initia-
tives, su ch as the Urban Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Program and
the Urban Stream Corridor Protection
initiative
The Commonwealth's point so urce pro-
gram foc u ses on:
• The phosphate detergent ban estab -
lished in 1990
• Increased nutrient removal efficie n cies
at wastewater treatment facilities
• Private sector voluntary pollution pre-
vention measures
Central to the Pennsylvani a program is
the tenet that no mandat es or initiatives
wi ll be established for m eeting target
goals without supporting funding.
62 Appendix C: Legislation and Agreements
303 ( d) list: State-wide lists of impaired streams that are not
in compliance with state and federa l standards
benthic: bottom (as in bottom -dwelling organisms)
BMP: best management practice
CBLAD: Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department
(Virginia)
CBPA: Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area
CVMP: Citizen Vo lunteer Monitoring Program
(Pennsylvania )
DEP: Department of Environmental Protection
(Pennsylvania)
development credits: Allowances for higher density or
other exceptions in exc hange for environm ental protections
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
GIS: Geographic Information System, a series of map layers
used to show land uses
LGSS: The Bay Program's Land, Growth and Stewardship
Subcommittee
LOD: Limit of Disturbance
macroinvertebrates: Aquatic insects and larvae without
a backbone, able to be see n by the unaided eye
MIF: Minimum In-Stream Flow standards
MPC: Municipalities Planning Code (Pennsylvania)
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
which regulates discharges to waters of the United States
overlay zone: Zoning which supercedes existing zoning
PD Rs: Purchase of Development Rights
proffer: Something given in exc hange for development vari-
ance such as donatio n of a building or road improvements
PUD: Planned unit development which requires a master
development plan and generally additional requirements such
as buffers around the d evelopment
receiving area: Area receiving additional densities in
exchange for preservation of land elsewhere
RSCOD: River and Stream Corridor Overlay District
sending area: Area ofland for which densities are reduced
in exchange for development elsewhere, generall y to protect
sensitive areas such as headwaters
Glossary
sheetflow: uni form flow of water in a sheet-like pattern, as
opposed to in a gully
"takings" test: A legal test to determine if land has been
taken without just compensation
TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load , the maximum pollu-
tant level for a stream that will allow it to meet water quality
standards
TD R s: Transferabl e Development Rights
vanance: A legally allowed exception to a statute , granted
by a regulatory authority
USGS: United States Geological Survey
VEMP : Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Panel
(Pennsylvania)
A Stream Corridor Protec tion Strategy for Local Governments 63