riparian forest buffers - clemson universitymedia.clemson.edu/public/restoration/carolina...

FINAL REPORT OF THESTATEWIDE TASK FORCE ONRIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS

Center for Environmental Policy l Institute of Public Affairs

FINAL REPORTOF THE

STATEWIDE TASK FORCE ONRIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS

Center for Environmental PolicyInstitute of Public Affairs

University of South Carolina

July, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTSPart 1: Acknowledgements .................................................... 5

Part 2:Executive Summary ................................................... 6

Chapter 1:Summary of Task Force Recommendations .............. 7

Chapter 2:Background and Introduction ................................... 11

Chapter 3:Technical Recommendations ................................... 17

Chapter 4:Policy Recommendations......................................... 29

Chapter 5:Education Recommendations .................................. 45

Chapter 6:Conclusion................................................................ 49

Appendix I:Recommended Management Practicesfor Protection of Riparian Forest Buffers .................. 51

Appendix II:Recommended Operation and ManagementActivities for Riparian Forest Buffers .......................... 55

Appendix III:Task Force Members ................................................ 57

Appendix IV:Definitions ................................................................. 61

Appendix V:Work Group Members .............................................. 63

Appendix VI:Time Line of Task ForceEfforts and Major Agenda Items ............................... 65

Appendix VII .............................................................. 67Summary of Pollutant Removal Effectiveness Valuesby Buffer Width

Appendix VIII ............................................................. 71Lexington County Model

Appendix IX:Existing Educational Organizations,Conferences and Programs in South Carolina ........... 73

Appendix X:S.C. Curriculum Standardsfor Science and How Riparian BufferEducation Might Be Integrated ................................. 85

Appendix XI:References ............................................................... 87

Part 1ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people contributed to this project. Gratefulacknowledgement is extended to all of the membersof the Statewide Riparian Forest Buffer Task Forcewho voluntarily and generously gave of their time andexpertise. Special thanks to the following projectsupport staff at the Center for Environmental Policy:Charlotte Pitt our first project manager; SteppenMurphy and Tara Allden, research assistants; andBarrie Tompkins, Business Manager for the Center. Avery special thanks to Deanna Doohaluk, graduateresearch assistant, for keeping the project on trackand patiently providing the necessary research for thefinal report.

This project was made possible by support from theSouth Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control. Special appreciation isextended to Sally Knowles and Kathy Stecker with theDepartment of Health and Environmental Control’sBureau of Water for their support and guidancethroughout the project.

Claire Prince, DirectorCenter for Environmental Policy

USC Institute of Public AffairsJuly 2000

Part 2EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

South Carolina enjoys a rich abundance of water fromits many lakes and rivers to its coastal waters.Research over the last twenty years has confirmedthat there are strong connections among streamhealth, aquatic life, wildlife habitat and the status ofriparian areas. Riparian forest buffers - areas ofvegetation adjacent to the water body that help tomaintain the integrity of the water resources - provideimportant benefits that include the protection andenhancement of water quality, flood protection, watertemperature moderation, stream bank stabilization,and habitat and food supply for aquatic and terrestriallife.

Many state and local governments, conservationgroups, industry trade associations, and others haveadopted or are developing buffer protection programs.They include both regulatory and non-regulatoryapproaches. In South Carolina, state agencies like theDepartment of Health and Environmental Control andthe Department of Natural Resources haveundertaken efforts to address the issue of protecting,maintaining and restoring riparian forest buffers.

Other agencies like the South Carolina ForestryCommission and the Department of Agriculture haveadopted buffer protection measures as part of theirrespective best management practices and guidelines.Several counties and cities in South Carolina haveadopted or are considering adopting ordinances toprotect riparian areas within their jurisdictions. Privatesector initiatives that address water quality protectionsuch as the forestry industry’s “Sustainable ForestryInitiative” have also been adopted in South Carolina.

While public and private initiatives continue, to datethere has not been a coordinated, statewide effort toreview the scientific, policy and educational issuessurrounding riparian forest buffers, and to developrecommendations concerning the conservation andprotection of these areas.

At the request of the South Carolina Department ofHealth and Environmental Control, the University ofSouth Carolina Institute of Public Affairs’ Center for

Environmental Policy conducted a research projectconsisting of two, interrelated tasks:

1. Investigation of the status of riparian forest bufferprotection and restoration programs in SouthCarolina and in the United States; and

2. Creation and coordination of a Statewide RiparianForest Buffer Task Force to developrecommendations pertaining to the protection andrestoration of riparian forest buffers in SouthCarolina.

In May, 1999, the Center invited representatives fromgovernment, academia, private non-profitorganizations, and other public and private sectorinterests to serve on the Riparian Forest Buffer TaskForce. The Task Force diligently worked for a year todevelop the recommendations contained in this report.To tackle this complex assignment, the Task Forcedivided the issues into three categories — technical,policy and educational — and created a working groupfor each. While some issues naturally overlappedbetween technical and policy considerations, the TaskForce painstakingly considered each issue within therespective working group, and sought consensus fromthe working groups as well as from the Task Force asa whole. Final Task Force recommendations wereadopted by consensus and may not reflect agreementby every Task Force member or endorsement of theparticipating organizations.

The final recommendations of the Task Force aresummarized in Chapter 1. A more detailed descriptionof the issues, research, and deliberations that tookplace in developing these recommendations isprovided in subsequent chapters. The appendicesprovide additional information to support orsupplement the information contained in the body ofthe report. Finally, a separate working paper titled“Integration of Science and Policy: A Case Study onRiparian Buffers” provides a review of the scientificliterature compiled during the project, and is availablethrough the Center for Environmental Policy.

Chapter 1SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE

RECOMMENDATIONS1. BUFFER WIDTH

l Recommended Statewide Minimum BufferWidth: To protect water quality and to realizeother benefits, the Task Force should require ariparian forest buffer (RFB) with a minimumwidth of 35 feet of native vegetation on bothsides of all perennial and intermittent streamsand rivers, lakes, estuarine waters and coastalmarshes. Buffer widths should increase withincreasing slope in the terrain. Bufferrequirements on ephemeral channels andnon-coastal wetlands should be determined ona site-by-site basis. Buffers on ephemeralchannels may be less than 35 feet in widthand include other non-forested permanentvegetation types.

l Recommended Buffer Widths Exceedingthe Statewide Minimum: Non-regulatoryapproaches at the state and/or local levelsshould be considered to implement bufferwidths that exceed the statewide minimum.Enhanced water quality protection andadditional wildlife protection may beaccomplished by the following:

o 100 foot buffer of native vegetation onboth sides of the water body to betterenhance water quality in non-forestedareas and to provide additional benefits towildlife; and

o 300 foot buffer of native vegetation onboth sides of the water body to providecomparable benefit of an undisturbedriparian system.

2. EXCEPTIONS

l Existing Land Uses: Existing land useswithin the riparian buffer zone should begrandfathered in as of the effective date ofadoption of the minimum buffer width. If anexisting land use changes or there isadditional encroachment in the RFB, theminimum RFB requirement should be met.

l Agriculture and Forest Lands: Lands thatare in use for agriculture or forestry are

exempt from the state and/or local RFBrequirements so long as the owners of theland maintain their lands in compliance withthe best management practices (BMP)applicable to the protection of water quality inriparian areas as referenced in the S.C.Forestry Commission’s BMPs for Forestry andthe Natural Resource Conservation Service’sField Office Technical Standards. If theseBMPs or Standards are not followed, the stateand/or local requirements should be met.

3. RECOMMENDED APPROACHES FOR BUFFERPROTECTION

l Local Government’s Role: Localgovernments should develop and adopt abuffer protection plan within a specified timeframe. The plan should include theimplementation of buffer widths that meet orexceed the statewide minimum width of 35feet, provisions for existing land uses,conversion or changes in land use, restorationprograms, appeals, variances, and publiceducation.

l State Government’s Role: An inter-agencycouncil should be created to coordinate stateprograms and develop guidelines to assistlocal governments in the development of theirbuffer protection plans. Local governmentsthat have existing buffer ordinances mayincorporate them into their buffer protectionplans so long as they are at least as stringentas the statewide minimum width. The SouthCarolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control should enforce theminimum buffer width if a local governmentdoes not develop and adopt a bufferprotection plan within the required time frame.

l Non-Regulatory Approaches: Non-regulatory approaches are recommended forbuffer widths exceeding the statewideminimum. Non-regulatory approaches thatshould be considered include the following:

o Education Programs

o Incentives

o Development Credits/DensityCompensation

o Tax Breaks (i.e. Extend the tax-freedesignation given to riparian buffer landsdesignated under the S.C. Scenic RiversAct to all riparian buffer lands designatedunder the minimum local government/state requirement up to but not exceeding300 feet.)

o Tax Credits (i.e. To provide a propertyand/or income tax credit based on thediminished value of the propertycontained within the protected riparianbuffer (up to but not exceeding 300 feet)to help with the maintenance and upkeepof the buffer.)

o Cost-share programs

o Compensation payments

o Conservation Easements (and variations)

o Transfer of Development Rights

o Purchase of Development Rights

o Lease

o Acquisition

o Purchase/Exchange (i.e. The creation of astate fund with monies that can beaccessed by local governments topurchase sensitive riparian areas and/orproperties that once the buffer has beendelineated have removed all economicuse of the land.)

o Donation to Land Trusts

o Funding Riparian Buffer RestorationPrograms

4. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES AND ACTIVEMANAGEMENT WITHIN THE RIPARIANFOREST BUFFER

l Allowable Activities within the Buffer:Allowable activities within the RFB should bekept to a minimum but may include:

o Activities necessary to maintain the healthand integrity of the area. Such activities

may include removal of debris after severestorm events, removal of diseased treesand suppression of invasive plant species;

o View corridors as described in the BMPsfor Riparian Forest Buffers (Appendix I);

o Docks, boat launches, public/private watersupply intake structures, facilities fornatural water quality treatment andpurification, public/private wastewateroutfall structures, and similar structures,which by their nature, need to be locatedwithin the RFB;

o Pedestrian and/or vehicle access waysleading to docks, fishing piers and boatramps providing that only permeable orsemipermeable material is used;

o Crossing by transportation facilities andutility lines (permits will only be issuedupon completion of a study identifyingalternative routing and a mitigation plan tominimize impacts of the RFB);

o Wildlife and fisheries managementactivities;

o Stream, stream bank and vegetationrestoration.

l Best Management Practices: Bestmanagement practices (BMPs) are suggestedas guidelines for voluntary implementation toprotect and preserve the integrity of theriparian forest buffers. Examples of theseBMPs include:

o The South Carolina Scenic RiversProgram: Recommended BestManagement Practices for RiverBordering Lands;

o The Guide to Stewardship DevelopmentConcepts and Practices;

o The S.C. Forestry Commission’s BestManagement Practices for Forestry; and

o The NRCS Field Office TechnicalStandards (Appendix I).

l Management Activities within the Buffer: Ifactive management is needed to maintain theintegrity of the buffer, the NRCS guidelines for

operation and management of riparian forestbuffers may be used (Appendix II).

5. GRANT PROGRAM

A grant program should be established to providefunding for existing educational organizations,conferences and programs to integrate riparianbuffer educational materials into their curricula.

6. CENTRAL POINT OF CONTACT FOREDUCATION EFFORTS

A central point of contact responsible for theoverall coordination and development of newinformation on riparian forest buffers should beestablished to assist with integrating thisinformation into existing educational efforts.

7. EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

l Education for Local Government Officials:

o Develop and provide fact sheets to localgovernments on water quality and riparianforest buffers and their benefits;

o Approach the program directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for the local governmentofficials about including information onriparian forest buffers, including the factsheets, in their curricula;

o Encourage sessions on water quality andriparian forest buffers and their benefitsand strategies to implement bufferordinances into existing conferences;

o Encourage networking by providing acontact list of existing programs,conferences and other educationalmaterials; and

o Provide a list of web sites and otherresources on riparian forest buffers tolocal government officials

l Education for K-12 Teachers and Students:

o Update the Environmental EducationAssociation of South Carolina’s RussSherer South Carolina EnvironmentalEducation Resources Directory;

o Create a calendar of environmental

conferences and workshops for scienceteachers;

o Develop lesson plans that tie riparianforest buffers to the S.C. ScienceCurriculum Standards and provideprofessional development for theteachers. Professional developmentshould contain adequate background andlead the teachers through the activities;

o Develop and provide fact sheets toteachers on water quality and riparianforest buffers and their benefits;

o Approach the program directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for K-12 Students and Teachersabout including information on riparianforest buffers including the fact sheets, intheir curricula; and

o Encourage sessions on water quality andriparian forest buffers and their benefits inexisting conferences

l Education for the General Public:

o Develop and provide fact sheets to thegeneral public on water quality andriparian forest buffers and their benefitswhen visiting state, county, and city parks,town and city halls, county administrationbuildings and visitor centers; and

o Approach the program directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for the general public aboutincluding information on riparian forestbuffers, including the fact sheets, in theircurricula

l Education for Land DevelopmentProfessionals:

o Develop and provide fact sheets to landdevelopment professionals on waterquality and riparian forest buffers and theirbenefits;

o Approach the program directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for the land developmentprofessionals about including informationon riparian forest buffers, including thefact sheets, in their curricula;

o Encourage sessions on water quality and

riparian forest buffers and their benefits inexisting conferences;

o Educate land development professionalson BMPs for development;

o Encourage networking by providing acontact list of existing programs,conferences and other educationalmaterials; and

o Provide a list of web sites and otherresources on riparian forest buffers to landdevelopment professionals.

Land cover/use in South Carolina

60%

5%10%

25%

Forestland

Agriculture

DevelopedLands

MinorCover/Use

Figure 2. The relative percentageof land use on non-federal lands

in the South Carolina (USDA 1992)

Chapter 2BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

South Carolina enjoys a rich abundance of water fromits many lakes and rivers to its coastal waters. WithinSouth Carolina, there are about 29,898 miles ofperennial and intermittent rivers and streams, 366,576acres of lakes, 682 square miles of estuarinewaters,190 miles of ocean coast, 4,146,510 acres offreshwater wetlands, and 512,490 acres of tidalwetlands (Figure 1).

South Carolina also has a rich and diverse topographyranging from the foothills of the Piedmont to the Coastalplains. Apart from the 935,000 acres of federally ownedlands, South Carolina has about 19,000,000 acres ofland. Of that, about 60 percent is forest land, 25 percentis agriculture, 10 percent is developed land and 5percent is minor cover/landuse (Figure 2).

Interest in the preservation of riparianforest buffers comes at a time whenmany riparian areas are being adverselyimpacted by land practices likeincreased urbanization and landconversion. Nationally, it has beenestimated that 70 to 90 percent of thenation’s original riparian areas have beensubjected to extensive alteration(Knutson and Naef 1997).

Growth patterns indicate that land use israpidly changing in many areas of SouthCarolina. Since 1970, the percentage ofpopulation increase (51%) has almostequaled the growth experienced duringthe entire first half of the century(Institute of Public Affairs 2000). By2010, the current population of 3.9million is expected to grow to 4.3 million.As expected, growth has been mostdramatic in the urban areas and coastalcounties of South Carolina. Between1970 and 1990, counties along the I-85corridor near Greenville experiencedgrowth rates in excess of 30 percent.Beaufort County, fueled by growthsurrounding Hilton Head, increased by69 percent (Figure 3).

While most riparian areas in SouthCarolina were once forested, many ofthese areas have been and will continueto be threatened by growth and

development. They will be cleared to accommodatecommercial, residential, and industrial development aswell as other land uses, or will be converted fromagricultural and forest lands to other uses. Thedevelopment of these areas potentially impacts not onlywater quality but also wildlife habitat.

Recognizing the need to examine the protection,conservation and restoration of riparian forest buffersin South Carolina, the Department of Health andEnvironmental Control (DHEC) provided support forthe creation of a statewide Riparian Forest Buffer TaskForce. The Center for Environmental Policy at theUniversity of South Carolina’s Institute of PublicAffairs (CEP) was commissioned to conduct researchon riparian forest buffers, and to convene and staff the

Figure 1. Waterwaysin South Carolina

(S.C. DHEC)

Task Force. The CEP was asked toundertake two, interrelated tasks:

1. Investigate the status of riparianforest buffer protection andrestoration programs in SouthCarolina and in the United States;and

2. Create and coordinate a statewideRiparian Forest Buffer Task Forceto develop recommendationspertaining to the protection andrestoration of riparian forest buffersin South Carolina.

Analyzing existing regulations,programs and initiatives relating toriparian forest buffers proved to be asignificant undertaking because of thediversity in approaches that were foundacross the country. In conducting this task, the CEPwas asked to review the information gathered in thecontext of several, specific questions posed by DHEC:

1. Why are riparian forest buffers a criticallyimportant resource to the health of SouthCarolina’s streams and watersheds, and what isthe current state of knowledge concerning waterquality, habitat and aquatic ecosystem health-related functions of riparian forest buffers invarious land use settings?

2. What efforts currently exist to protect and restoreriparian forest buffers on different land settings?Specifically,

a. What statutes, regulations and programs havebeen implemented at the federal, state, andlocal levels and within the private sector?How do they address the conservation orrestoration of riparian forest buffers?

b. Do these statutes, regulations and programsdirectly or indirectly discourage restoration orconservation of riparian forest buffers? Howcan they be modified to eliminate anydisincentives?

c. Do these statutes, regulations and programsoffer sufficient incentives for the restoration orconservation of riparian forest buffers? Howcan they be improved or new programs addedto provide more effective measures?

3. Are there opportunities in existing statutes,regulations or programs to encourage restoration

or conservation of riparian forest buffers that are notbeing utilized? What changes would be needed torealize these opportunities?

4. What additional tools are needed to effectivelypromote restoration or conservation of riparianforest buffers as related to different land uses?

5. What actions should be taken by federal, state,and local agencies and within the private sector toimprove the restoration and conservation ofriparian forest buffers?

The CEP conducted its research throughout thesummer of 1999, and provided a draft report of itsinitial findings to the Task Force in August, 1999. Thisreport then became the working document of the TaskForce, and was modified, added to, and refined as theTask Force completed its work.

To accomplish the second task, the CEP created astatewide task force on riparian forest buffers in May,1999. The CEP invited representatives fromgovernment, academia, private non-profitorganizations, and the public and private sectors in aneffort to assemble as broad and as balanced a set ofinterests as possible. The initial list of individuals andorganizations was developed by the CEP with inputfrom DHEC. As the work of the Task Forceprogressed, other individuals who asked to beincluded on the Task Force were added. Althoughactive participation by members on the RiparianForest Buffer Task Force members varied throughoutthe year, the members grew from the initial list of 36to the present list of 46. A list of members is includedin Appendix III.

Figure 3.Population ChangeEstimates byZip Code (1990-1998)

An organizational meeting of the Task Force was heldon June 8, 1999. The Task Force was asked toaccomplish two broad objectives:

1. To review the status of existing riparian bufferprotection and restoration programs; and

2. To develop statewide recommendations for thepreservation, conservation, and restoration ofthese critical natural resources in South Carolina.

The Task Force felt it was important to develop a clearmission statement first. While general objectives werepresented to the Task Force in the context of theresearch project, the members felt it was critical toadopt a mission statement that reflected theconsensus of the group. Because of the diversity ofthe membership, they also agreed thatrecommendations should be adopted by consensus.After extensive deliberations about the role of the TaskForce, the nature of the issues to be addressed, andthe desired outcomes to be achieved, the Task Forcedeveloped and approved the following missionstatement:

Mission Statement: “Reflecting the multipleroles that riparian forest buffers play inprotecting and enhancing the water quality,terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, andrecreational, economic, and aesthetic value ofthe State’s waterways, the goal of the RiparianForest Buffer Task Force is to developrecommendations for the preservation,conservation, and restoration of these criticalnatural resources in South Carolina.”

Next, the Task Force addressed the need to adopt aworking definition of a “riparian forest buffer.”Discussions centered on the nature of riparian buffersgenerally, and the more specific focus on riparianforest buffers. After extensive deliberations, thefollowing definition was adopted by the Task Force:Riparian Forest Buffer

“An area of vegetation that is natural or designed andmanaged, consisting of trees, shrubs and grassesadjacent to a stream, river, wetland or shoreline thathelps maintain the integrity of water resources.”

The Task Force felt it was not only important to definea riparian forest buffer, but also to describe thebenefits provided by the buffer. The benefits providedby riparian forest buffers are:

l Trap/filter sediment from runoff;

l Trap/filter nutrients/pesticides/other pollutantsfrom runoff;

l Stream bank stabilization;

l Flood control;

l Maintain flow during dry periods;

l Maintain aquatic/terrestrial wildlife habitat andspecies diversity;

l Aesthetic value; and

l Recreational and educational opportunities

For ease of reference, other terms used by the TaskForce and throughout this report are defined andincluded in Appendix IV.

Key Terms

l Buffer – an area or strip of land maintained inpermanent vegetation to help control nonpointsource pollutants and manage otherenvironmental problems as typically measuredfrom the streambank.

l Riparian – refers to land adjacent to a body ofwater.

l Riparian Forest Buffer (as defined by the TaskForce) – An area of vegetation that is natural ordesigned and managed, consisting of trees,shrubs and grasses adjacent to a stream, river,wetland or shoreline that helps maintain theintegrity of water resources.

l Perennial stream – A stream or river thatnormally flows throughout the year, except duringextreme droughts. These streams typically have adefined channel and support a diverse populationof aquatic insects, including some with life cyclesthat require permanent water. Their channels areable to sort and move stream channel materials(Hansen, in press).

l Intermittent stream – A stream or river that flowsbeyond rainfall events, but does not flowthroughout the year. These streams typically havedefined channels and do not support a diversepopulation of aquatic insects. Their channels flowoften enough and with enough force to scour, sortor move stream channel materials (Hansen, inpress).

l Ephemeral stream – A stream or river that flowsonly in response to rainfall events or for very shortperiods afterwards. Groundwater levels seldom ifever reach the surface. These streams often do nothave enough flow quantity or duration to develop a

defined channel in forested conditions. In theirstable form, they seldom are a problem for waterpollution. Some intensive land uses can activatethese streams to scour, move sediments andcontribute to water quality problems (Hansen, inpress).

To meet the research objectives, the Task Forcecreated three work groups — Technical, Policy, andEducation — and assigned specific issues to each. Alist of the members of the work groups can be found inAppendix V. The work groups met over the course ofthe year, and developed preliminary recommendationson their assigned issues. The preliminaryrecommendations were then submitted to the full TaskForce for review and approval. Final Task Forcerecommendations were adopted by consensus andmay not reflect agreement by every Task Forcemember or endorsement of the participatingorganizations. In one instance, a participatingorganization requested to go on record opposing thefinal recommendation.

One challenge in assigning issues to the work groupswas the recognition that in some cases there would beareas of overlap particularly between policy andtechnical issues. Some issues, therefore, weresubdivided and the work groups were asked toexamine them either sequentially or in tandem. Theissues and the work group assignments were asfollows:

1. What are the current regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to protecting and restoringRFB’s in the United States?

l Policy Work Group: Identify and gatherinformation about current RFB initiativesaround the country.

l Technical Work Group: Take informationand evaluate the effectiveness of theinitiatives in protecting water quality and todetermine how or if they could beimplemented in South Carolina.

2. What types of buffer protection policies areneeded for South Carolina? What are potentialobstacles to implementation? As subsets of thisissue:

(a) Should buffer protection measures bemandated, incentive-based, or other; and

(b) Should buffer requirements be set at the stateor local level, or both, or either?

Policy Work Group

3. Should different buffer protection programs bedeveloped for different land uses?

l Technical Work Group: Evaluate thetechnical merit of the need for differentprograms based on land use. If such action isneeded, then,

l Policy Work Group: Decide how toimplement such a program.

4. What activities are allowed in the RFB? Are thebuffers actively managed?

l Technical Work Group: Make initialrecommendations on this issue.

l Policy Work Group: Make finalrecommendations on this issue.

5. What and where are the critical areas in SouthCarolina?

Technical Work Group

6. What is the minimum width of a buffer? Shouldthere be exceptions to buffer widths in order tomake programs more flexible? And, what shouldthe buffer width be a function of (i.e. land use,physical controls, vegetation, etc.)?

l Technical Work Group: Makerecommendations on this issue.

l Policy Work Group: Examine the question ofwhether buffer width should be dependent onthe parameters that are being protected (i.e.terrestrial wildlife, aquatic wildlife, waterquality, etc.).

7. For whom should educational efforts be directed?What audiences should be targeted? As subsetsof this issue:

(a) How do you evaluate the success of buffereducational programs?

(b) What sources of funding exist for buffereducational programs?

(c) Who should be responsible for the overallcoordination of the collection anddevelopment of the new information to beintegrated into existing educational efforts?

Education Work Group

The project officially began with the first Task Forcemeeting on June 8, 1999. The Task Force was askedto complete its recommendations by May, 2000. Tofacilitate its work, the Task Force initially agreed tomeet on a bi-monthly basis with the work groupsmeeting in between. By the October Task Forcemeeting, however, it became clear that the Task Forceneeded to meet monthly to meet the May 2000deadline. The work groups met between the monthlyTask Force meetings to develop their preliminaryrecommendations. The schedule of Task Force andwork group meetings, and the major agenda items foreach, can be found in Appendix VI.

Chapter 3TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter describes the technical issues that werereviewed by the Technical work group and the TaskForce, and the resulting recommendations. Asubstantial amount of scientific literature on thefunctions and benefits of riparian forest buffers wasreviewed and is summarized here. A more complete listof scientific references and citations is included inAppendix VII, and in the “ Integration of Science andPolicy: A Case Study on Riparian Buffers” a WorkingPaper published by the CEP as part of this researcheffort.

ISSUE #1:What and where are the critical areas in SouthCarolina?

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This issue focuses on whether there are certain waterbodies, geographic areas, areas of significant landdevelopment, or types of land development practicesthat warrant designation as “critical areas” in SouthCarolina where riparian forest buffers should berequired.

DHEC is required under Section 305(b) of the federalClean Water Act to conduct a general assessment ofwater quality conditions in South Carolina. From 1987to 1994, DHEC collected data on 19,487 miles ofrivers and streams, 211,462 acres of lakes, and 221square miles of estuaries to determine their ability tosupport aquatic life and recreational uses (S.C.DHEC,1996). Tables 1 and 2 include the level of usesupport for the waters of South Carolina and the majorcause of the nonsupport in each water body type foraquatic life and primary contact recreation uses.

Presently, approximately 66% of rivers and streams,95% of lakes, and 81% of estuaries in South Carolinahave water quality that either fully supports or partiallysupports aquatic life and recreational use. Wherepartial or nonsupport of classified uses is identified,nonpoint sources, rather than point sources, appear tobe most responsible. Unlike point sources of pollutionthat enter a water body from a discrete source (i.e. apipe), nonpoint source pollution enters a water bodyfrom large or dispersed land areas usually during orafter a rainstorm. Studies have shown dramaticreductions in nonpoint sources of nutrients, sediments,

Table 1: Ability of S.C. Water Bodiesto Support Aquatic Life

Waterbody Fully Partially Non- PredominantType Supported Supported Supported Cause

Rivers 87% 3% 10% DissolvedOxygen

Lakes 92% 3% 5% Metals

Estuaries 68% 16% 16% DissolvedOxygen

(S.C. DHEC, 1996)

Table 2: Ability of S.C. Water Bodiesto Support Recreational Use

Waterbody Fully Partially Non- PredominantType Supported Supported Supported Cause

Rivers 53% 21% 26% FecalColiform

Lakes >99% <1% <1% FecalColiform

Estuaries 89% 5% 6% FecalColiform

(S.C. DHEC, 1996)

pesticides and other pollutants in surface andgroundwater after passing through a riparian forestbuffer.

Critical areas of the state may also be impacted byland development practices or land use. Urbandevelopment, for example, has considerable impacton nearby water bodies. Streams and rivers adjacentto urban settings usually have greatly elevatedsediment loads as compared to many other land usesettings (Wahl et al., 1997; Frick et al., 1998). Thesehigher sediment loads, along with other pollutants,result from the increase in impervious surfaces whichcarry rainfall in the form of runoff directly from theland and into water bodies thus bypassing the naturalfiltration that takes place in soils (Wenger, 1999). Theincreased flow in the stream causes greater flow invelocities that in turn increases channel erosion.Riparian forest buffers in urban settings help todecrease the rate of runoff reaching the water bodiesand in the process decrease sediment loading andpollutant delivery to the water resource.

Riparian forest buffers may also offer benefits in differentland use settings, however, some benefits may be moreimportant than others depending on the specific landuse. Without proper management agriculture lands, forexample, yield large amounts of pollutants from runoffdue to the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Riparianforest buffers are crucial for trapping and removing thesepollutants before they reach water bodies, thus helpingto control the amount of agricultural nonpoint sourcepollution (Lowrance et al., 1985).

Without proper management, forestry practices cancause increased erosion of the landscape fromactivities like timber harvesting, construction and useof haul roads, stream crossings, site preparation andreforestation which impact water quality by increasedloading of sediments into adjacent streams. Theprotection and restoration of riparian forest buffers canhelp prevent erosion of the landscape by trappingsediments and minimizing channel erosion bystabilizing streambanks.

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION:

After considering these questions, the Technical WorkGroup initially recommended that there should be nodesignation of “critical areas” of the state because bydefinition all waters of the state are critical and shouldhave riparian forest buffers. However, the Task Forcefelt that “all waters of the state” was too broad, andthat consideration should be given to the types ofstreams (intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial)where riparian forest buffers might be required. Forexample, the Forestry Best Management Practicescontain recommendations appropriate for each streamtype. Upon further consideration, the Task Forceagreed that recommending riparian forest buffersbased on stream order would be addressed andincluded as part of the issue relating to recommendedminimum buffer widths, and that no furtherrecommendation would be made on identifying criticalareas of the state.

ISSUE #2:

What is the minimum width of a buffer? Should therebe exceptions to buffer widths in order to makeprograms more flexible? And, what should the bufferwidth be a function of (i.e. land use, physical controls,vegetation, etc.)?

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS:

l Statewide Minimum Buffer Width: To protectwater quality and to realize other benefits, SouthCarolina should require a riparian forest buffer with a

minimum width of 35 feet of native vegetation onboth sides of all perennial and intermittent streamsand rivers, lakes, estuarine waters, and coastalmarshes. Buffer widths should increase withincreasing slope in the terrain. Buffer requirementson ephemeral channels and non-coastal wetlandsshould be determined on a site-by-site basis.Buffers on ephemeral channels may be less than 35feet in width and include other non-forestedpermanent vegetation types.

l Buffer Widths Exceeding the StatewideMinimum: Non-regulatory approaches at the stateand/or local levels should be considered toimplement buffer widths that exceed the statewideminimum. Enhanced water quality protection andadditional wildlife protection may be accomplishedby the following:

o 100 foot buffer of native vegetation on bothsides of the water body to better enhancewater quality in non-forested areas and toprovide additional benefits to wildlife; and

o 300 foot buffer of native vegetation on bothsides of the water body to provide comparablebenefit of an undisturbed riparian system.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS:

1. MAJOR BENEFITS AND FUNCTIONS OFRIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERSRiparian buffers act as a “right of way” for astream, and function as an integral part of thewatershed ecosystem (Schueler 1995). Riparianzones perform a broad range of functions withsignificant economic, ecological, and social valueto people (Wenger 1999; Schueler 1995; DHEC1999). The major benefits and functions ofriparian forest buffers are:

o Trap /remove sediment from runoff —Riparian buffers reduce the velocity ofsediment bearing storm flows, which allowsthe sediment to settle out of the water and bedeposited on land.

o Protect streambank from erosion — Treeroots consolidate the soils of the floodplainand the streambank, reducing the potential forsevere bank erosion.

o Trap/remove of phosphorus, nitrogen, andother nutrients that can cause eutrophication of aquatic systems —Nutrients are removed through uptake by

vegetation, biochemical processes by plantsand bacteria, and the geophysical trapping ofthe soil in the vegetation.

o Trap/remove other contaminants, includingorganic matter, biological contaminants,pesticides and metals — Contaminants areremoved through similar processes as nutrientsincluding uptake by the plant community andbiodegradation by plants and bacteria.

o Effective flood control — Other, expensiveflood controls, such as levees, are notnecessary if the buffer includes the 100-yearfloodplain.

o Provides food and habitat for wildlife —The leaf litter provided by the trees is the baseof the food source for many streamecosystems. Trees also provide woody debristhat creates cover and habitat structure forterrestrial and aquatic plants, insects andother animals. In addition, trees also provideshading to protect the stream from solarheating.

o Increased property values — There is someevidence that homebuyers perceive buffers tobe attractive amenities to the community asseen in the neutral or positive impact onproperty values in communities where buffersare present.

o Reduced maintenance costs — Results ofsome studies have shown that corporatelandowners can save between $270 to $640per acre in mowing and maintenance costswhen open lands are managed as vegetatedbuffers rather than as turf grasses.

o Decreased Public Investment Needs — Byreducing, flood, erosion, and sedimentation,riparian buffers minimize the publicinvestment in stormwater management andwaterway restoration and protection.

o Recreational and educationalopportunities — The nature of the bufferprovides opportunities for connected openspace that allows pedestrians, bikers andrunners to move efficiently through acommunity.

The effectiveness of riparian forest buffers inachieving these benefits may depend on severalconditions, including: buffer width; buffer slope; soiltype and characteristics; vegetation; and buffer design

(DHEC 1999; Schuler 1999).

2. BUFFER WIDTH AND WATER QUALITYOne of the major benefits of riparian forest buffersis the protection of water quality by removing orreducing the amount and kinds of sediments andpollutants entering a water resource from surfacerunoff. The following is a is a discussion ofselected research that has addressed bufferwidths in this context.

Sediment RemovalBuffers serve to reduce sediments from runoff.Riparian buffers remove or reduce streamsedimentation in six ways:

1. By displacing sediment producing activitiesaway from waterways (setbacks);

2. By trapping terrestrial sediments in surfacerunoff;

3. By reducing the velocity of sediment bearingstorm flows, allowing the sediments to settleout of the water and be deposited onland;

4. By stabilizing streambanks, preventingchannel erosion;

5. By moderating stream flow during floods,reducing bed scour; and

6. By contributing large woody debris to streamsthat can trap sediment (U.S. ACOE 1991).

Trapping/Removal of Sediment

There is a positive connection between a buffer’swidth and its sediment trapping capacity (Wenger1999). Many studies have attempted to show thecorrelation between sediment reduction and bufferwidth in agricultural and urban settings. A 1982 studyby Wong and McCuen produced an equation basedupon sediment particle size, slope, surface roughness,and runoff characteristics (Castelle et al.1994). Whilethe equation showed that small buffers were adequateto remove small volumes of sediment, the relationshipbetween buffer width and percent sediment removalwas nonlinear and disproportionately large widths wererequired to achieve incrementally greater sedimentremoval. For example, increasing the percentsediment removal from 90 to 95% would require thebuffer width to be increased from 100.1 to 200.1 feet.Other researchers have documented similar trends inbuffer width and sediment removal in field studies.

It should be noted that long term studies havesupplied significant evidence that much wider buffers

are needed to maintain sediment control (Wenger1999). These studies suggest that while riparianbuffers serve as efficient sediment traps, the widthrequired for long term retention may be significantlyhigher than what is indicated by the short-termexperiments (Wenger 1999).

The riparian buffer width recommendations for forestryoperations, contained in the South Carolina’s BestManagement Practices for Forestry, were developedbased on water quality research conducted atsoutheastern universities and government researchfacilities. Water quality research related to forestryoperations has been ongoing since the 1930s at theUSDA Forest Service’s Coweeta HydrologicLaboratory in western North Carolina. Forestry bufferwidth recommendations are intended to protect waterquality while conducting forestry activities. In SouthCarolina, research conducted by the South CarolinaForestry Commission, in cooperation with the S.C.Department of Health and Environmental Control andClemson University, utilizes U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency approved Rapid BioassessmentsProtocols (Plakfin et al. 1989) to evaluate theeffectiveness of the forestry buffer recommendationsin protecting water quality. The results indicated that aweight-of-the-evidence approach utilizing a BMPcompliance check, a stream habitat assessment, anda benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment was anaccurate method of evaluating BMP effectiveness.This research conclusively showed thatimplementation of state-approved forestry bufferguidelines along with other applicable BMPs, wassufficient for the protection of the water quality ofassociated streams (Adams et al. 1995). This type ofBMP effectiveness research has been duplicated inother southeastern states with similar results.

In summary, studies have yielded a range ofrecommendations for buffer widths and the ability totrap sediment from surface runoff. Buffers as narrowas 15 feet have proven fairly effective in the shortterm, although wider buffers provide significantlybetter sediment control, especially on steeper slopes.Yet, long term studies suggest the need for 100-footbuffers (Lowerance et al. 1988; Wenger 1999).Wenger, after conducting a thorough literature review,concluded that a minimum width of 30 feet is neededfor adequate sediment control. Activities thatpermanently or semi-permanently increase flow anderosion (i.e., roads, house roofs, parking areas,repeated cultivation, overgrazing) need wider buffersthan those activities that produce only temporarychanges in soil cover quality (e.g., logging withreforestation, land development with rapid lawndevelopment, no-till farming methods). In other words,the intensity and the duration of the activities should be

considered. The type of stream, slope of the land andother circumstances can make a difference in theeffectiveness of the buffer.

Phosphorus Removal

Sedimentation rates are also closely associated withthe deposition of nutrients such as phosphorus. Othernutrients, such as nitrogen, act independently fromsedimentation processes in riparian buffers.Phosphorus retention and removal from runoff inbuffer zones is driven by a combination of chemical,biological and physical processes. The three mostimportant mechanisms are: (1) the deposition ofphosphorus with sedimenting material; (2) adsorptionof dissolved phosphorus; and (3) the uptake ofphosphorus by vegetation (Uusi-Kämppä et al. 1997).

Since most of the phosphorus arrives in the buffer asparticulate phosphorus usually associated withsediment, buffer widths designed to remove sedimentfrom runoff should also be successful in removingphosphorus. A number of studies have demonstratedthat riparian buffers retain the majority of phosphorusthat enters over the short term, and the retentionincreases with buffer width, although results varyconsiderably (Appendix VII). Relative to buffer width,the filtration process of phosphorus is exponential.The phosphorus absorbed and transformed in theupper portion of the buffer is significantly greater thanthat in the middle and lower portions of the bufferindicating that even narrow vegetative buffers may beimportant in removing phosphorus from runoff (Uusi-Kämppä et al. 1997).

Several studies (Dillaha et al 1988 and 1989, Magette1987 and 1989) have documented the ability ofriparian buffers to reduce total phosphorus levels insurface runoff, yet these studies have also noted adecline in the effectiveness of the buffers over time.This may occur when environmental conditionschange and the soil gradually becomes enriched withphosphorus or when the assimilative capacity of thebuffer zone is exhausted, allowing previously trappedphosphorus to be released from the buffer and the soilas dissolved phosphorus (Uusi-Kämppä et al. 1997).Dillaha et al. (1988) goes further and assumes thatdissolved phosphorus removal should decrease withtime as filtration decreases, as the adsorptive capacityof vegetation is saturated and as adsorptive sites ofthe surface soil become occupied.

Despite their associated problems, buffers wideenough to provide adequate sediment control (30-100feet) should provide efficient short term removal ofsediment bound phosphorus (Wenger 1999). However,wider setbacks should be considered for certain land

uses such as the application of animal wastes andfertilization.

Nitrogen Removal

Riparian buffers have also been utilized to removenitrogen from both agricultural and urban surfacerunoff. Nitrogen occurs in numerous organic andinorganic forms, which are interconvertible undersuitable circumstances. Nitrate has been the target ofmany buffer programs because of its potential toxicityto humans and animals at concentrations greater than10 mg/L in drinking water. Ammonia is another form ofnitrogen that buffer programs also consider because ofits toxicity to many aquatic organisms and because itis readily taken up by plants and algae (Wenger1999). Nitrogen is commonly quantified three ways:total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) which represents organicand inorganic nitrogen species; ammoniumconcentration; and nitrate concentration.

Riparian buffers remove nitrogen by two methods -uptake by vegetation and denitrification.Denitrification is the conversion of nitrate into nitrogengas by anaerobic bacteria. This process representsthe permanent removal of nitrogen from the riparianecosystem with the gas being released into theatmosphere. There is some evidence thatdenitrification is the dominant mechanism of nitrogenreduction in the riparian buffer (Wenger 1999).

As it was with sediment and phosphorus removal,reduction of nitrogen in surface runoff is correlatedwith buffer width (Dillaha et al. 1988, 1989; Magette1987, 1989; Castelle et al. 1994). Yet, the nitrogenremoval efficiency is quite variable between differentstudies (Appendix VII). Dillaha et al (1988) found thata 15 foot grass buffer would remove 67% of the totalnitrogen and a 30 foot buffer of the same design wouldremove 74% of the total nitrogen, but was ineffectivein removing nitrate. In a similar experiment, Magetteet al. (1989) found that a 15 and 30 foot buffer wouldremove 0% and 48% respectively of the total nitrogenin the surface runoff.

Unlike phosphorus, nitrate is quite soluble and readilymoves into shallow ground water. In many areas,much of the nitrogen enters riparian areas throughsubsurface flow (Wenger 1999). The ability of riparianareas to reduce nitrogen concentrations in subsurfaceflow depends a great deal on the pattern of thesubsurface flow. For example, if the flow is shallowand passes through the root systems of the riparianvegetation, vegetative uptake and denitrification canbe significant pathways of removals, while if the flowbypasses the riparian zone and recharges an aquifer orcontributes to the flow of a stream, nitrogen removal

may be insignificant (Wenger 1999).

Several studies have demonstrated the success ofriparian buffers in reducing nitrate concentrations inshallow groundwater (Gilliam et al. 1996; Gilliam 1994;Jordon et al. 1993; Peterjohn and Correll 1985). Gilliamand Jacobs observed a reduction of 87-93% insubsurface nitrate concentration from a 50 foot buffer(Gilliam 1994). The percentage reductions observedby Peterjohn and Correll (1985) and Jordon et al.(1993) are very similar. However, there is not a clearcorrelation between subsurface flow nitrate removalrate and riparian buffer width. Some studies havesuggested that hydrologic pathway and dentrificationpotential may be more significant than buffer width innitrate reduction in subsurface flow (Peterjohn andCorrell 1985).

However, the distribution of denitrification sites, thepredominant pathway of nitrogen removal, variesspatially, indicating that wider buffers, on average, willprovide more dentrification sites than narrowerbuffers. Wenger (1999) recommends a minimal widthof 50 feet to reduce nitrogen levels, but suggests thatbuffers of 100 feet or greater will provide morenitrogen removal. Wenger notes the importance ofpreserving riparian wetlands, which are sites of highnitrogen removal.

Removal of Organic Matter, BiologicalContaminants, Pesticides and Metals

Few studies have investigated the efficiency ofriparian buffers to remove organic matter andbiological contaminants from surface runoff. Thesparse research that exists indicates that buffers areuseful for reducing these contaminant concentrations,but that they may not be sufficient to protect waterquality (Wenger 1999). Coyne et al. (1995) appliedpoultry manure to two test plots and measured fecalcoliform reductions across a 30-foot wide buffer. Afterartificial rain was applied, fecal coliformconcentrations were reduced by 74% and 34% on thetwo test plots. However, it should be noted thatremaining fecal coliform concentrations were stillabove the primary contact standard. From what isseen by the current research, it may be wisest tocontrol these contaminants at their source and not relyon riparian buffers as treatment systems.

Riparian buffers may also be useful in reducing theconcentrations of pesticides and metals in waterways.Most pesticides are broken down by bacteria in thesoil, while metals tend to bind to the soil particles(Wenger 1999). Therefore, wider buffers are believed tobe most efficient in reducing pesticide and metal

Table 4: Recommended Buffer Widthfor Birds

Article Width Studies Minimum Width (feet) Recommendation

(feet)

Hodges and 118-6849 328Krementez (1996)

Keller et al (1993) 82-2624 328

Kilgo et al (1998) 82-1640 Both Narrowand Wide

Kinley and 46-230 230Newhouse (1997)

Smith and 65-492 No RecommendationSchaefer (1992)

Spackman and 82-656 492-574Hughes (1995)

Thurmond et al 49-164 49(1995)

Triquet et al 49-75 No Recommendation(1990)

(Wenger, 1999)

concentrations because they provide greater retentiontimes allowing more opportunities for contaminants todecompose and more binding sites for metals(Wenger 1999).

The mechanisms of pesticide transport are not wellunderstood. Rhode et al. investigated the movementof the herbicide “trifluralin” in the runoff from threekinds of plots: a 11,155 square foot watershed withouta buffer strip, after natural rainfall; a 92 square footplot without a buffer strip, after simulated rainfall; anda 92 square foot plot from which runoff, aftersimulated rainfall, was directed into a 65 foot grassedbuffer. Results, after the two-year experiment, showedthat a large amount of the trifluralin applied to eachplot was carried away as surface runoff. However, thegrassed buffer adjacent to one of the plots removedover 85% of the waterborne trifluralin (Norris 1993).Other studies (Lowrance et al. 1997; Neary et al.1993) have all shown similar results. Yet, the widthnecessary for adequate removal of pesticides andmetals is unclear from the existing research (Wenger1999).

3. BUFFER WIDTH AND HABITAT PROTECTION

Riparian forest buffers have the potential to support anexceptional level of biodiversity due to naturaldisturbance regimes, a diversity of habitats, andsmall-scale climatic variation (Wenger, 1999).However, Gregory and Ashkenas (1990) have notedthat riparian buffers designed for the protection ofwater quality may not meet the habitat needs ofterrestrial wildlife. The ability of a riparian forest bufferto protect and support terrestrial wildlife is usuallydependent on its width. A narrow buffer may support alimited number of species, but wider buffers arerequired to maintain populations of riparian-dependentspecies (Wenger, 1999). Generally, most researchersadvocate preserving as wide a buffer as possible forthe protection of wildlife.

In the past ten years, there has been an abundance ofresearch on the recommended riparian buffer width forbirds. Table 4 summarizes the buffer widthrecommendations from eight of these studies(Wenger, 1999).

Relatively few studies have addressed how wideriparian forest buffers need to be in order to supportmammal populations. In one study, Cross determinedthat riparian zones in mixed conifer forest sites insouthwest Oregon supported a higher density anddiversity of small mammal species than uplandhabitat. He also found that diversity and compositionof mammal species in a riparian buffer of 220 feet inwidth bordered by a clear cut forest was comparable

to the diversity and composition of an undisturbed site(Wenger, 1999).

4. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF BUFFERS

Although riparian forest buffers are frequentlyseen as a loss by developers and property owners,studies have shown that the preservation of thesebuffers increases the value of property (Reynolds,2000). A national survey was conducted in 1992 bythe Metropolitan Washington Council of Governmentsto determine the financial impact of existing riparianbuffer programs. Twenty-nine of the thirty-onerespondents indicated that existing buffers had apositive or neutral effect on the value of adjacentproperty. The remaining two respondents indicatedthat they were unsure of the effect that buffers had onadjacent property values.

Builders, real estate agents, and homeownershave acknowledged the financial advantage of havingforests and trees near home sites. A survey of buildersby the National Association of Home Builders foundthat home buyers are willing to pay more for lots withtrees. The survey results showed that 43% of homebuyers paid up to $3,000 more for homes on woodedlots, 30% paid between $3,000 and $5,000 more, and27% spent over $5,000 more for wooded lots – with8% of that group spending an additional $10,000. In a1994 Bank of America Mortgage survey, 50% of 1,350

real estate agents surveyed believed that trees had apositive impact on potential buyers’ impression of ahome and its neighborhood and 84% felt that a homeon a treed lot would be as much as 20% more sellablethan a similar, treeless home.

Riparian forest buffers may decrease the public’sinvestment needs in stormwater management andwaterway restoration and protection. For example,Fairfax County, Virginia reduced its stormwater costsby $57 million by protecting riparian forest areas andbuffers. Citizens in Johnson County, Kansas voted tospend $600,000 to create a streamway park system,as opposed to $1.2 million on stormwater controlprojects. Also, New York City opted to spend $1.5billion to protect 80,000 acres of its upstate watershedto avoid the need to build a $8 billion water filtrationplant that would need an additional $300 millionannually to operate.

The preservation of riparian forest buffers can alsohave additional economic value to landowners. Forexample, on a typical subdivision construction site, theaverage cost for clearing a forest is $4,000 per acreand sediment control is $800 per acre. However, byconserving some forest, developers will reducesediment loss from the site and reduce the time andlabor needed for regrading, stabilizing, and re-landscaping the site.

Real world examples also exist to demonstrate thehigh cost of restoring degraded waterways. Inresponse to public demands, Montgomery County,Maryland is spending $20,000-$50,000 per householdlot in some areas to repair damaged streams andriparian forests. Also, Fairfax County, Virginia haspassed a local bond issue to supply the needed $1.5million to restore two miles of stream and riparianareas that were degraded.

Buffer requirements also have economic costs—primarily borne by the owners of non-urbanizedagricultural, forest, and vacant lands at the edge orwithin urbanized areas. Because the value of theselands varies substantially, a precise monetary valuecannot be placed upon them. Programs tocompensate landowners or to provide economicincentives to establish buffers beyond therecommended statewide minimum buffer width shouldbe considered.

A study done by the Center for EnvironmentalPolicy and the Central Midlands Council ofGovernments on approximately 86,000 acres,including the Town of Lexington and vicinity, a portion ofthe Lake Murray shoreline, and the Twelve Mile andFourteen Mile creeks approximates that:

1. A 35-foot buffer would include 5.9% of theland within the study area (lands classified asrural and vacant);

2. A 100-foot buffer would include 12.9% of theland within the study areas;

3. A 300-foot buffer would include 30.7% of theland within the study area. A full copy of thisstudy is included in Appendix VIII.

5. OTHER BUFFER CHARACTERISTICS

Slope

Buffer slope, like buffer width, is another importantfactor that must be considered in determining thefunctions and benefits of riparian forest buffers. Areasof steep slope (greater than 15%) may not allow forlong retention time of the runoff in the buffer, andsince pollutant removal is at least partially timedependent (i.e., to allow for plant uptake anddenitrification to occur), steep slopes may reducebuffer effectiveness. Even though a steeply slopedarea may be thickly vegetated, it may be ineffective atremoving sediment and other nutrients because thesteep slope promotes erosion and channelization ofthe runoff through the buffer. The shallower slope ofthe buffer allows for slower flow, longer residence timein the buffer, promoting longer times for vegetateduptake and settling out of pollutants (Desbonnet et al.1994).

A slope of less than 15% reportedly provides sufficientretention time and pollutant removal (DHEC 1999;Wenger 1999; Desbonnet et al. 1994). Clark (1977)supplies some examples of minimal buffer width forwater quality protection according to slope and soilerodibility. A minimum width of 33 feet for areas withno slope on slightly erodable soils extending to 165feet for 30-percent slopes on severely erodable soils isrecommended.

Many of the field studies previously discussed alsoconsidered slope as a factor. Dillaha (1988), using a15 foot grass buffer adjacent to plots to which dairymanure was applied, demonstrated the decreasedeffectiveness of the buffers with increased slope. An11-percent sloped buffer removed 87% of the TotalSuspended Solids, 61% of the total nitrogen and 63%of the total phosphorus while a 16-percent slopedbuffer removed 76% of the TSS, 67% of the nitrogenand 52% of the phosphorus.

Soil Characteristics and Soil Type

Soil characteristics and soil type are other parametersthat must be considered in buffer design. The vastmajority of natural riparian buffer areas are comprisedof alluvial soils deposited in floodplains or on adjacentterrace landscape positions.

Soils with a high permeability generally providegreater filtration of sediment and attached pollutantsthan relatively non-permeable soils. Contaminants,once they enter the soil, become incorporated intosoils and plant tissue through physical, chemical, andbiological interactions (Desbonnet et al. 1994).However, highly permeable soils may percolate waterrapidly into the subsurface flow. This movement maybe so rapid that no removal of pollutants by plantuptake is possible and only minimal removal bychemical and physical adsorption occurs (DHEC1999).

Research has indicated that poorly drained sedimentsare twice as effective at removing nitrogen and othercontaminants than well-drained sediments (DHEC1999; Desbonnet et al. 1994). Poorly drainedsediments tend to retain water for longer periods oftime and are favorable for pollutant removal longerthan well-drained soils. It has also been noted thatpoorly drained soils that contain a higher organiccontent, such as those typically found in salt marshes,wetlands and wet forests, are more prone to promotegrowth and maintenance of microbial communitydevelopment and hence to greater pollutant removal.Therefore, saturated organically rich soils can beuseful in the removal of both soluble and sediment-bound particles, while sandy soils may be mosteffective in removing sediment and bound pollutants,but only marginally effective at removing solubleforms of pollutants (DHEC 1999; Wenger 1999;Desbonnet et al. 1994).

Soils with a high clay content, because of their lowpermeability, tend to be ineffective soil types for bufferdevelopment (Desbonnet et al. 1994). However,mixed clay soils are often most effective in theremoval of pollutants. Clay soils, acting as anions(negatively charged particles), have high affinities forbinding positively charged particles, particularlymetals. Providing the mixed clay soils are notcompact, and runoff over the area is slow, pollutantremoval via this mechanism may be significant(Zirschky et al. 1989). However, removal by chemicalbinding is not always permanent. The metals can befreed or moved during the next runoff event.Experimenting with copper, nickel, zinc, cadmium,chromium, iron, lead, and manganese, found that onlycopper and zinc were consistently removed from therunoff (Zirschky et al. 1989).

Vegetative Groundcover

Vegetative groundcover within a buffer serves multiplepurposes with regard to overall effectiveness byremoving pollutants, providing habitat, and creatingaesthetic appeal. The type, age and density of thevegetation has a significant effect on the ability of theriparian buffer to remove sediments, nutrients, andother pollutants from surface runoff.

Grasses and woody-stemmed species, because oftheir unique characteristics, exhibit differences in theircapacity to remove sediment and pollutants fromrunoff. For example, grasses respond rapidly toincreased concentrations of nutrients, and they growrapidly and densely in all climates. A grass bufferincreases the roughness of the terrain and acts as anobstructive barrier to horizontal flow. This slowing ofthe velocity allows for an increased residence time inthe buffer and increases sediment and adsorbedpollutant removal efficiency (Desbonnet et al. 1994).Woody-stemmed species generally have more well-developed and deeper root systems with moremacropore area than grasses, allowing the system,when used as a buffer, to be effective in the removalof pollutants from groundwater.

Furthermore, the literature on the two types ofgroundcover is very different. Most of the literature ongrass buffer strips focuses on sediment retention andits absorbed pollutant load from treated agriculturalsource areas. Studies on wooded areas, typically,have focused in on nitrogen removal through a naturalforested buffer in urban and logged areas. Thiscomplicates comparisons between grass and forestedbuffers because of differences in study designs(Desbonnet et al. 1994).

Buffer Design

a. 3-Zone approach: Researchers have alsoconsidered a “three-zone” approach for multi-usebuffers (Desbonnet et al. 1994; Schueler 1995;Wenger 1999). For example, using this approach,a 100-foot buffer is divided into three lateral zones— streamside, middle core and outer zone. Eachzone performs a different function, and has adifferent width, vegetative target and managementscheme (Schueler 1995).

The streamside zone is designed to protect thephysical and ecological integrity of the streamecosystem by stabilizing the streambank andproviding habitat for aquatic organisms (AlliancePublic Policy Program 1999). The vegetativetarget of mature riparian forest consists of maturetrees two stems deep (which is equivalent toapproximately 25 feet). Land use is highly restricted

in the streamside zone and should be limited tostormwater channels, footpaths and a few utility orroadway crossings (Schueler 1995).

Immediately upslope of the streamside zone, themiddle core is designed to remove, transform andstore nutrients, sediments and other pollutantsflowing over the surface and through thegroundwater (Alliance Public Policy Program1999). This zone varies in width depending onstream order, the extent of the 100-year floodplain, adjacent steep slopes and protected wetlandareas with a minimum recommendation of 50 feet.Its vegetative target is also mature forests, butsome clearing and plantings may be allowed forstormwater management, access, andrecreational uses. A wider range of activities isalso permitted in this zone. Biking and runningtrails and recreation areas are often provided andstormwater best management practices arelocated in these areas (Schueler 1995).

The outer zone, immediately upslope from themiddle core, consists of grass filter strips or othercontrol measures which help slow runoff, filtersediment and its associated chemicals, and allowinfiltration of ground water (Alliance Public PolicyProgram 1999). The estimated minimum width ofthis zone is 25 feet. There are very few restricteduses in this areas, however, septic systems andnew permanent structures are generally prohibited(Schueler 1995).

b. Buffer Continuity: The importance of continuityis another factor that must be considered in bufferdesign. Very few studies have consideredcontinuity, so little is known. However, it isassumed that a buffer needs to be contiguous inorder to realize the maximum effect of the buffer.Additional research is needed to determine whateffect changes in buffer width along a streamchannel and breaks in the buffer have on overallbuffer efficiency.

c. Stream Order: Another area that is associatedwith continuity that is rarely addressed in theresearch is the concept of stream order. Streamorder is defined by stream branching patterns,with order 1 channels being the headwaterchannels closest to the ridge (Strahler, 1957).Stream size is related to stream order. Many localbuffer protection programs have focused ondeveloping guidelines and recommendations forriparian buffers along larger order streams whileneglecting to include first and second orderstreams. This practice of only buffering largerwaterways may not provide the water quality

improvement and protection needed in many areas.

d. Buffer Delineation: The question of where onebegins to delineate the start of the buffer mustalso be considered as there is no concrete methodfor buffer delineation. Typically, a buffer begins atthe streambank. The South Carolina ForestryCommission Best Management Practicesdelineates the streamside management zone fromthe top of the streambank for perennial,intermittent and ephemeral streams. However, theCommission has a different requirement forbraided streams. Braided stream systems havemultiple interconnected channels, resembling thestrands of a braid, with very low stream gradient(<0.5% channel slope). For braided streams,bankfull discharge measurement points are usedto delineate the start of the buffer. Bankfulldischarge is a measure of the channel depth,measured from a level line across the channelfrom bank to bank, and it changes very little. It isindependent of water depth. In these systems, if aforested streamside management zone isrequired, the buffer begins at the points on thebank used to make the bankfull dischargemeasurement.

However, the South Carolina Department ofNatural Resources does not delineate buffers fromthe streambank in conservation easements.Instead, it delineates the start of the buffer at theordinary high water mark. Ordinary high watermark is defined as “the natural or clear lineimposed on the shore or bank representing theordinary height of the water. It may be determinedby bank shelving, changes in the character of thesoil, destruction or absence of terrestrialvegetation, the presence of litter or debris, or acombination of the above.”

The NRCS Field Office Technical Standardsdenotes that a buffer begins at the normal waterline, or at the upper edge of the active channeland is measures horizontally on a lineperpendicular to the water course or water body.

The Technical work group had primary responsibilityfor addressing the question of buffer width, and spenta significant amount of time discussing the benefitsprovided by riparian forest buffers at varying widths. Asecondary issue assigned to the Policy work groupwas whether buffer width should be dependent on theparameters that are being protected, for example,wildlife, water quality, aquatic life, etc. These issuesproved to be the most complex and most heavilydebated by the work groups and the Task Force. The

Technical and Policy work groups reviewed a substnatialamount of research on buffer widths, and examined bestmanagement practices and other programs that hadalready established minimum buffer widths.

Based upon its review of the scientific literature andestablished buffer programs, the Technical work groupconcluded that a 35 foot buffer on both sides of thestream was the minimum necessary to protect waterquality. The work group went on to recommend that a100 foot buffer on both sides of the stream fullyprotects stream integrity and provides substantialwildlife benefits. Further, a 300 foot buffer on bothsides of the stream would provide the benefitscomparable to an undisturbed riparian system(Technical Work Group Recommendations 1-11-00).

The Technical work group also examined the influenceof stream order, soils, slope and vegetation on theeffectiveness of riparian buffers The Technical workgroup recommended that riparian forest buffers berequired on all intermittent and perennial streams. Italso recommended that for ephemeral channels andnon-coastal wetlands, determinations about the bufferwidth should be made on a site-by-site basis. Thework group recommended that buffer widths shouldincrease with increasing slopes in the terrain. Thework group agreed that native vegetation should bethe ground cover within the buffer.

When the Task Force reviewed the Technical workgroup’s recommendations, there was considerablediscussion about existing buffer programs that hadestablished minimum widths. For example, theForestry Best Management Practices recommend aminimum of 40 feet, and the Natural ResourceConservation Service recommends a minimum bufferof 35 feet. The Task Force also discussed whether itwas necessary to consider different buffer widths fordifferent land uses. For example, different agriculturalpractices like livestock grazing and row farming allhave different impacts and may require differentbuffer widths and/or different types of ground cover.The Task Force concluded that Forestry BMPs andNRCS Guidelines for agriculture are effective andshould be encouraged without furtherrecommendation. With these exceptions, therecommended buffer widths of 35, 100 and 300 feetwere adopted by the Task Force.

ISSUE #3:

Should buffer protection programs be developed fordifferent land uses/land types?


l Existing Land Uses: Existing land uses withinthe riparian buffer zone should be grandfathered inas of the effective date of adoption of the minimumbuffer width. If an existing land use changes or thereis additional encroachment in the RFB, theminimum RFB requirements should be met.

l Agriculture and Forest Lands: Lands that are inuse for agriculture or forestry are exempt from thestate and/or local riparian forest bufferrequirements so long as the owners of the landmaintain their lands in compliance with the bestmanagement practices applicable to the protectionof water quality in riparian areas as referenced inthe SC Forestry Commission’s Best ManagementPractices for Forestry and the NRCS Field OfficeTechnical Standards. If these BMPs or Standardsare not followed, the state and/or localrequirements should be met.

This issue was divided between the Technical andPolicy work groups. The Technical work group wasasked to consider the need for different programsbased on land use. If warranted, the Policy workgroup was then asked to decide how to implementsuch a program.

The Technical work group recommended thatdifferent protection programs/mechanisms bedeveloped for different land uses/land types(Meeting Summary 11/16/99). The group identifiedthe following land uses: agriculture (crop andpastureland); forest lands; mining lands; urbanareas; water dependent activities; and recreationalareas. Land types were identified as: mountain;piedmont; sandhills; upper coastal plain and lowercoastal plain.

With that recommendation, the Policy work groupthen further considered the need to developdifferent buffer protection programs for differentland uses/land types specified by the Technicalwork group. It decided, and the Task Forceultimately agreed, not to attempt to developdifferent buffer protection programs for differentland uses/types. The Task Force felt that therewas not enough South Carolina data available onland use, slope, vegetative cover and otherfactors to adequately address this complex issue.The Task Force did determine, however, thatforestry and agricultural land uses maintained incompliance with their respective bestmanagement practice guidelines should beexempt from the recommended minimum bufferwidth.

The question of how to handle existing land usesand the conversion of existing land uses was alsoraised by the Policy work group. The Policy workgroup felt that the major cause of water qualitydegradation is more likely to be associated withland use changes rather than the activitiesassociated with existing land uses. On this basis,the Policy work group recommended that existingland uses within the riparian forest buffer begrandfathered in upon adoption of the minimumbuffer width. However, if an existing land usechanges or there is additional encroachment in theriparian forest buffer, the minimum widthrequirement should be met. This was adopted as afinal recommendation of the Task Force.

ISSUE #4:

What activities are allowed in the riparian forestbuffer? Are the buffers actively managed?


l Allowable Activities within the Buffer:Allowable activities within the RFB should be keptto a minimum but may include:

o Activities necessary to maintain the healthand integrity of the area. Such activities mayinclude removal of debris after severe stormevents, removal of diseased trees andsuppression of invasive plant species; and

o View corridors as described in the BMPs forRiparian Forest Buffers (Appendix I).

o Docks, boat launches, public/private watersupply intake structures, facilities for naturalwater quality treatment and purification,public/private wastewater outfall structures,and similar structures, which by their nature,need to be located within the RFB;

o Pedestrian and/or vehicle access waysleading to docks, fishing piers and boat rampsproviding that only permeable orsemipermeable material is used;

o Crossing by transportation facilities and utilitylines (permits will only be issued uponcompletion of a study identifying alternativerouting and a mitigation plan to minimizeimpacts of the RFB);

o Wildlife and fisheries management activities;and

o Stream, stream bank and vegetationrestoration.

l Best Management Practices: Best managementpractices (BMPs are suggested as guidelines forvoluntary implementation in order to protect andpreserve the integrity of the riparian forest buffers.Examples of these BMPs include the SouthCarolina Scenic Rivers Program: RecommendedBest Management Practices for River BoardingLands, the Guide to Stewardship DevelopmentConcepts and Practices, the SC ForestryCommission’s Best Management Practices forForestry and the NRCS Field Office TechnicalStandards (see Appendix I).

l Management Activities within the Buffer: Ingeneral, management activities within the riparianforest buffer should be minimized, however, ifactive management is needed to maintain theintegrity of the buffer, the NRCS guidelines foroperation and management of riparian forestbuffers may be used (Appendix II).

This issue was divided between the Technical andPolicy work groups. The Technical work group wasasked to make preliminary recommendations, andthe Policy work group was then asked to finalizethese recommendations. After much discussion,the Technical work group recommended that tothe extent practical, land disturbing activitieswithin the width of the buffer should be minimized.It also recommended that the riparian forest bufferbe actively managed. The work group went on tolist examples of “active management:”

o Hand application of pesticides for targetedspecies;

o Hand clearing of vegetation for specificpurposes;

o Selected harvesting of timber;

o Compliance and monitoring (although may bedifferent type of management/enforcement);

o Maintenance of allowable, non-conformingactivities;

o Removal of dangerous/diseased trees;

o Restoration-type activities, including streambank stabilization and re-vegetation; and

o Activities for habitat management.

The Policy work group specified that although activemanagement may take place within the riparianbuffer, activities should be kept at a minimum anddone only to maintain the integrity of the buffer. Thework group felt that it should makerecommendations regarding the types activities thatare defined as “active management.” After muchdiscussion, the Task Force decided to use theNRCS guidelines for operation and management ofriparian forest buffers as examples of activemanagement. The NRCS guidelines for operationand management are found in Appendix II.

The Policy work group then determined it wasnecessary to formulate a list of activities that areallowed within the riparian forest buffer. Afterclosely reviewing the allowable activities permittedby existing buffer ordinances in South Carolina,the work group drafted what it felt was acomprehensive list of allowable activities. Theseare included in the final Recommendation

approved by the Task Force.

During the discussion pertaining to allowableactivities in the riparian forest buffer, the Policywork group also felt that it would be helpful toinclude recommended BMPs for voluntaryimplementation to help with the design andmaintenance of riparian forest buffers. The workgroup made recommendations for BMPs based onthe three goals of the buffers:

1. Water quality;

2. Scenic value; and

3. Wildlife protection.

These recommended BMPs can be found inAppendix I.

Chapter 4POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

One of the two major tasks outlined in the project wasto investigate the status of riparian forest bufferprotection and restoration programs both within andoutside of South Carolina. This broad task was capturedin the first issue assigned to the Policy work group. Thework group reviewed information obtained about otherriparian forest buffer programs in the context of whetherthey were: mandatory or voluntary and/or incentive-based; regulatory or non-regulatory; developed andadministered by the public or private sector; and ifgovernment was involved, whether it was at the federal,state or local level. The information contained in thischapter represents the results of the research and thepolicy options considered by the work group and theTask Force as part of the development of final policyrecommendations.

ISSUE #1:

What are the current regulatory and non-regulatoryapproaches to protecting and restoring riparian forestbuffers in the United States?

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

A 1993 national survey on riparian forest bufferprotection and restoration programs found that mostbuffer programs have strong citizen support. In thesurvey, greater than 80% of the local governmentsagreed with the statement that “a majority of ourcitizens think that the community is better off havingstream buffers” (Wenger and Fowler, 1999). On thebasis of Heraty (1993), Schueler (1995) identifiedeight key points to consider about riparian forestbuffers:

l Buffer boundaries are largely invisible to localgovernments, contractors and residents;

l Buffers are subject to extensive encroachment inurban areas;

l Few jurisdictions have effective buffer educationprograms;

l Allowable and unallowable uses are seldomdefined;

l Few jurisdictions specified mature forest as avegetative forest;

l Accuracy of buffer delineation is seldom confirmedin the field;

l Most buffers remain in private ownership; and

l The stream buffer program needs to be responsiveto the interests of the development community.

These key points were underscored by many of thefederal, state and local initiatives, both public andprivate, that were identified by the Policy Work Groupin its review of existing programs and policies.

1. Existing Federal Statutes Related to RiparianForest Buffers

The Federal Clean Water Act

a. Section 319: When the federal Clean WaterAct was enacted in 1972, scientists and policymakers alike agreed that point sourcedischarges of wastewater and othercontaminants were the greatest threat to waterquality. Since that time, evidence has shownthat nonpoint sources of pollution (thosecoming from a diffuse source) actuallyaccount for the majority of impaired waterquality. The Clean Water Act was amended in1987 to add provisions to address nonpointsources to a limited degree, but left thedevelopment of nonpoint source strategies tothe discretion of state and local governmentsunder Section 319 of the Act. States are usingprovisions of the Clean Water Act to supportnonpoint source pollution control strategiesthat include the preservation of trees adjacentto waterways. (Pronsolino v. Marcus, 2000U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4267 (N.D.Calif. 2000)).Riparian forest buffers have the potential tobecome a valuable tool to help the nationmeet the goals of the Clean Water Actgenerally, and to specifically address nonpointsource pollution concerns.

b. Section 404: Because there is evidence thatriparian forest buffers can significantly protectwater quality from nonpoint source pollution,they are currently being implemented by theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers under § 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (Federal Register, Vol. 65,

No. 47 (March 9, 2000)). Section 404 of theClean Water Act provides that the Secretary ofthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may issuepermits for the discharge of dredge or fillmaterial into navigable waters after notice andopportunity for public hearing (33 U.S.C. §134(a)). Section 404 has been interpreted byregulation to include wetlands as navigablewaters (33 C.F.R. § 328.3). The Corps ofEngineers is given responsibility for regulatingwetlands (33 U.S.C. § 134(d)). Wetlands havealso been given protection under ExecutiveOrder 11990 signed May 24, 1977, requiringfederal agencies to take action to avoidadversely impacting wetlands whereverpossible, to minimize wetlands destruction andto preserve the values of wetlands (40 C.F.R.pt. 6, App. A, § 1(b)).

Wetlands are defined by regulation as “...those areasthat are inundated by surface or ground water with afrequency sufficient to support and under normalcircumstances does or would support a prevalence ofvegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated orseasonally saturated soil conditions for growth andreproduction” (40 C.F.R. pt. 6, App. A, § 4(j)). Suchjurisdictional wetlands often occur within riparianareas. Dredge or fill activities in jurisdictionalwetlands are regulated under §404.

On March 9, 2000, the Corps of Engineers publishedchanges to its nationwide permit program in theFederal Register (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 47(March 9, 2000)). These changes, which are effectiveJune 7, 2000, contain express provisions forvegetative buffers next to intermittent and perennialstreams as well as other open waters (not to includewetlands or ephemeral streams). These vegetatedbuffers can be considered by states as part of thecompensatory mitigation required as part of GeneralCondition 19 of the Nationwide Permits. While publiccomments on the draft changes to the NationwidePermits indicate opposition to the inclusion ofvegetated buffers in the regulatory program, the Corpshas taken the position that implementation ofvegetated buffers is expressly enabled by the statedobjectives in the Clean Water Act.

The Federal Endangered Species Act

The habitat value of riparian areas may also beprotected under the critical habitat provisions of theEndangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.A. § 1533). TheEndangered Species Act provides federal protection tospecies that are found to be either endangered,meaning “in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range,” (16 U.S.C.A. § 1532(6))or threatened, meaning the species “is likely to becomean endangered species within the foreseeable futurethroughout all or a significant portion of its range” (16U.S.C.A. § 1532(20)). Protection of riparian forestbuffers would improve habitat conditions for sixteen ofthe thirty-five endangered and threatened species foundin South Carolina. Water quality enhancement andriparian habitat protection provided by forested bufferssupport the goal of endangered species conservation.

Yet, reliance on the Endangered Species Act may fallshort in justifying riparian forest buffer protection fortwo reasons. First, because species are only listedonce their existence is threatened, the amount of areawhich they occupy is, by definition, minimal, and it hasbeen determined that the critical area may not includethe entire area that the species could occupy (16U.S.C.A. § 1532(5)). The second reason is that criticalhabitats have been designated for only 16 percent ofthe listed species. (Rodgers, 1994). Thus, thefrequency in which listed species rely upon riparianareas strengthen the argument for riparian forestbuffer protection, but the Endangered Species Actmay not provide the mechanisms needed to requireprotection through the use of riparian forest buffers.

The Federal Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery ConservationManagement Act (16 U.S.C. § 501) also has extensiveprovisions for habitat protection where habitat isessential to the protection of managed fisheryresources (Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions).Riparian forest buffers could be integral parts of theprotected areas when such habitats are designated.But, once again, as the area for such protection underthe EFH is likely somewhat limited, and since theprotection is triggered only by federal action, relianceon EFH for riparian forest buffer protection may not bewarranted.

2. Existing State and Local Programs Related toRiparian Forest Buffers

a. State Laws: GEORGIA adopted a law thatprohibits land disturbing activities within 25feet of the banks of any state water asmeasured from the point where vegetationhas been wrested by normal flow or waveaction (Ga. St. Code §12-7-6). State watersinclude but are not limited to streams, ponds,lakes, reservoirs, and coastal marshes. Fortrout streams, the Act provides that no landdisturbing activity may occur within 100 feet of

stream banks. No land uses are exempt fromthis requirement, however, variances areallowed at the discretion of the director of theGeorgia Environmental Protection Division.

In 1992, Georgia enacted a law that requires theprotection of a natural vegetated buffer of 100 feet inwidth on either side of a perennial stream asmeasured from the river bank at mean high water (Ga.St. Code § 12-2-8). The Act also prohibits septic tanksand drain fields in the buffer. The construction ofsingle family homes where specific conditions are metare exempt from the Act as are certain land usesspecified by local governments.

MAINE law protects areas within 250 feet of coastalwetlands, freshwater wetlands, rivers, saltwaterbodies, and great ponds. Streams are protected within75 feet of the highwater line. The statute requires asetback for development and vegetation buffersbetween buildings and shorelines (Environmental LawInstitute, 1998).

In 1996, MASSACHUSETTS enacted the “RiversProtection Act.” The law creates a 200 foot widevegetated buffer zone on each side of the state’sperennial rivers and streams, but only a 25 foot widezone is established in more densely developed areasin the state. Intermittent streams are not subject to theRivers Protection Act. Developers must demonstrate anecessity to build in the zone, and show that noalternative site exists. They must also document howthe proposed development will impact flooding, waterquality, shellfish, aquatic habitat, storm drainage, andfishing (Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act, 1998).

NEW HAMPSHIRE enacted the “ComprehensiveShoreland Protection Act” to protect lands within 250feet of public waters. The Act requires any personsengaged in land disturbing activity within the 250-footzone to obtain a permit which may be denied toprotect the public waters, health, safety, or welfare. Amandatory setback of 20 feet is imposed on thebuilding of structures (Environmental Law Institute,1998).

NORTH CAROLINA has enacted the “SedimentPollution Control Act” which applies to land disturbingactivities that cause sedimentation and erosion. TheAct provides that no activity is permitted in proximityto a lake or natural watercourse unless there is abuffer zone “along the margin of the watercourse ofsufficient width to confine visible siltation within thetwenty-five percent of the buffer zone nearest the landdisturbing activity.”

In 1997, North Carolina enacted the “Neuse RiverBasin Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management

Strategy,” commonly referred to as the Neuse RiverRule. The Rule requires a 50-foot wide riparian bufferadjacent to all surface waters (intermittent andperennial steams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries) in theNeuse River Basin. All existing land uses prior to thepassing of the Rule are not subject to the provisionsstated in the Rule provided such use is maintained.However, at the time an existing land use is convertedto another use by the addition of impervious surface tothe riparian buffer in locations where it did not existpreviously (i.e. taking an agricultural operation takenout of production, or a ceasing to maintain a lawn), theRule is applied. A similar set of rules was passed forthe Tar-Pamlico River Basin in 1999 and temporaryrules are being developed for the Cape Fear andCatawba River Basins (D. Kucken, personalcommunication).

In response to the Neuse River Rule, North Carolinaenacted the “Riparian Buffers Protection Program” in1999. This program provides compensatory mitigationalternatives when there is no practical alternative toprevent the loss of a riparian buffer. Alternativesinclude, but are not limited to the (1) payment of a feeinto the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund; (2) donationof real property or of an interest in real property that isor may be a riparian buffer; (3) restoration orenhancement of a riparian buffer not otherwiserequired to be protected or the creation of a newriparian buffer; (4) alternative nutrient reductionmeasures.

In the last three years, MARYLAND and VIRGINIAhave passed regulations that require all counties andmunicipalities along the Chesapeake Bay or along awatershed that feeds into the Bay to create vegetatedriparian buffers of at least 100 feet to combatdegradation of the Bay.

IDAHO (Stream Protection Zones), WASHINGTON(Riparian Management Zones), CALIFORNIA(Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones) andOREGON (Riparian Management Areas) all requireforest practices that protect soil and water includingvegetated buffer strips. The vegetated buffer widthsvary with respect to on-site conditions.

Other states, including CALIFORNIA, NEW JERSEYPENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, and theDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA have also adopted someform of riparian buffer protection mechanism(Desbonnet et al., 1994; Reynolds, 1999).

b. Local Government Ordinances: THE CITYOF ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA maintains 100-foot buffers along all perennial streams as arequirement of its Erosion and Sedimentation

Ordinance. The ordinance allows a 50-footbuffer minimum, as long as a 100-footaverage width is followed. In addition, there isan impervious surface setback that mustaverage 150 feet in width and cannot be lessthan 75 feet in width (Wenger and Fowler1999).

BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND passedregulations requiring that existing riparian lands be leftundisturbed to encourage growth, and requiring thatnew riparian buffers be established adjacent to allperennial and intermittent streams. Buffer widths aredetermined by examining the slope and class ofstream. The regulations provide not only restorationand protection of riparian areas, but also requirecertain management activities including restriction ofpesticides, motor vehicles, and vegetation disturbance(Chesapeake Bay Program).

In 1998, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA passed anordinance establishing protected stream corridors inthe unincorporated area of the county. The ordinancehas a 75-foot naturally vegetated buffer on allperennial streams plus added setbacks for impervioussurfaces. Additional restrictions are established withina 100-foot protective corridor from the stream, andinclude prohibiting septic tanks, hazardous wasteareas, stormwater retention facilities, buildings,parking lots, and roads (Wenger and Fowler, 1999).

In 1994, LOUDON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, officialsadopted buffer widths of 150 feet on the ChesapeakeBay and its associated feed waters and 250 feet onthe Potomac River. The ordinance applies to all newsubdivisions and grants developers the ability totransfer development densities from areas within thebuffer to other sections of their development tract(Chesapeake Bay Program, 1996).

THE CITY OF WINSTON -SALEM and FORSYTHCOUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA passed an ordinanceprotecting a 100-foot stream corridor along allperennial streams. There is limited developmentpermitted for water-dependent-structures,transportation, utilities, and recreational structures.No land disturbing activities are allowed within 25 feetof the waterways (Wenger and Fowler, 1999).

c. State and Local Voluntary and Incentive-Based Programs: The majority of initiativesimplementing programs to protect and restoreriparian forest buffers have been developed atthe state and local level. The followingillustrate some of the voluntary and incentive-based initiatives designed to protect andrestore riparian forest buffers.

The largest and most successful incentive-basedinitiative to date is the Chesapeake Bay Program,which partners the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania,Maryland, and the District of Columbia. In October of1994, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted adirective that called upon the Chesapeake BayProgram to develop a policy that would enhanceefforts to conserve and restore riparian forest buffers.A Riparian Forest Buffer Panel of thirty-one memberswas appointed, and consisted of a diverse group ofparticipants who represented a wide-array ofviewpoints and experiences. The Panel’s long-termgoal was to see that a riparian forest or other bufferprotects every stream in the watershed. The Paneldeveloped five policy recommendations to helpprotect and restore riparian forest buffers in theChesapeake Bay area:

1. Enhance program coordination andaccountability

2. Promote private sector involvement

3. Enhance incentives

4. Support research, monitoring and technologytransfer

5. Promote education and information

The program implemented the Riparian Forest BuffersInitiative in 1996, which called for the conservation ofall riparian buffers and restoration of 2,010 miles ofriparian forest buffers on streams and shorelines in thewatershed by the year 2010. The program recognizedthe importance of involving local governments, andenacted an initiative to involve the approximately1,650 local governments in the Chesapeake Baywatershed in these conservation and protectionefforts.

In 1981, OREGON led the nation by passing theAssessment of Property for Taxation – RiparianHabitat Act, which is more commonly referred to asthe Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program. Thisprogram encourages stream bank conservationpractices by private landowners by offering a propertytax exemption on riparian habitat maintained in ahealthy condition that contributes to erosion control,improved water quality and prolonged streamflow.

ILLINOIS adopted a five-sixths property tax exemptionfor vegetated buffers managed in accordance with thecounty conservation district. The buffer zones must beat least 66 feet in width and “contain vegetation thathas dense top growth, forms a uniform ground cover,

and has a fibrous root system” (Tonning, 1998).

In 1998, VIRGINIA enacted the “Real Property Tax –Special Assessment for Land Preservation Act.”Under this Act, riparian buffers up to 35 feet in widthare defined as a special class of property for taxpurposes, and may be exempt or partially exemptfrom local taxation when managed in accordance withthe standards developed by the Virginia Departmentof Conservation and Recreation (VA ST § 58.1-3666).

3. Existing Agricultural Programs Related toRiparian Forest Buffers

a. Federal and State Voluntary and Incentive-Based Programs: The agriculture industry’sefforts to protect and restore riparian forestbuffers as a conservation managementpractice are currently centered at the federallevel as a component of conservationmanagement plans. The main source offunding is available through the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA). TheNatural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS) oversees the implementation ofseveral programs under the FederalAgriculture Improvement and Reform Act of1996 (“The 1996 Farm Bill”).

The USDA began the NATIONAL CONSERVATIONBUFFER INITIATIVE in 1997, pledging to install twomillion miles of conservation buffers by the year 2002.The goal of the initiative is to encourage farmers,ranchers, and other landowners to convert highlyerodible croplands and pastures into vegetated buffersas a means of improving water and air quality, wildlifehabitats, and overall aesthetic beauty.

A number of additional federal programs are alsoaimed at offering assistance to landowners interestedin restoring and maintaining riparian areas. Theseprograms include the Conservation Reserve Program(CRP), Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program(CREP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP), Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP),Wildlife Habitats Incentives Program (WHIP), andWetlands Reserve Program (WRP). All of theseprograms can be used to help with the cost ofimplementing riparian forest buffers.

THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM (CRP)is a voluntary program sponsored by the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA). The CRPencourages farmers to convert highly erodiblecropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage topermanent vegetative cover such as trees, grass andwildlife plantings. A subset of CRP, the “Continuous

CRP” is an open enrollment for certain environmentalpriority practices such as filter strips, riparian buffers,waterways, field windbreaks, and shallow water areasfor wildlife. Maximum effectiveness is achieved bycombining these practices with other provenconservation measures such as conservation tillage,nutrient management, and integrated pestmanagement. Beginning April 6, 2000 the “ContinuousCRP” provides practice incentives, and for somepractices a sign-up bonus. Practice incentives are40% of the cost of establishing the practice and sign-up bonuses are $100 to $150 per acre. These bonusesare in addition to cost-share assistance and annualrental payments for 10-15 years. Funds formaintenance costs associated with the buffers arealso provided. The “Continuous CRP” sign-up is heldin local USDA Service Centers in each county.

Producers have been enrolling land in CRP since1986. Currently farmers in South Carolina have about193,000 acres enrolled in the CRP. This is estimatedto have reduced erosion by 13 tons per acre per year(USDA, 1999). The majority of acres enrolled are asfollows: loblolly and longleaf pines (~146,000 acres),permanent wildlife habitat (~11,000 acres), and buffers(trees and grasses ~18,000 acres). In total about 4.2%of the estimated 4.6 million acres (USDA 1997) ofagricultural lands in South Carolina have beenenrolled in CRP since 1987. Efforts to limitagriculturally derived nonpoint source pollutants fromreaching the state’s waters should be continued.

Through increased effort, the promotion of riparianforest buffers can become a part of standard farmconservation planning. The USDA State TechnicalCommittee can assist in targeting, coordinating, andmonitoring implementation of federal, state, and localprograms for riparian forest buffers conservation andrestoration on agricultural lands (Chesapeake BayProgram, 1996). The federal programs offered havenot been taken full advantage of for protecting andrestoring riparian forest buffers on agricultural settingsalthough it appears this may be changing. An examplefrom Horry County, one of the fastest growing countiesin the country, is a testament to this fact. Between thefall of 1997 and spring of 1998, about 1500 acres wereenrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),mostly for the protection and conservation of riparianforest buffers.

THE CONSERVATION RESERVE ENHANCEMENTPROGRAM (CREP) is a joint, federal-state retirementconservation program targeted at areas thatexperience significant environmental effects related toagriculture. It is a voluntary program that usesfinancial incentives to encourage farmers andranchers to enroll in the CREP for a 10-15 year

duration. The agreement states that landowners removethe lands from agricultural production and plant andmaintain vegetative conservation covers. Since March1997, USDA has funded about 1.5 billion dollars inCREP projects for improving water quality, restoringwildlife habitat, and erosion control. Eight statesaccepted into the program are Illinois, Maryland,Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Washington, NorthCarolina, and Delaware. These states invest about 20%of the funds for the project while the federal governmentbankrolls the remainder. To date, South Carolina hasnot taken advantage of this program.

The USDA also sponsors the ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (EQIP) and theWildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). EQIPwas established in the 1996 Farm Bill and is now thelargest conservation program in the USDA. It offerstechnical, educational, and financial support to eligiblepersons engaged in livestock and agriculturalproduction. The program addresses soil, water,habitat, and related natural resource problems inpriority areas where significant natural resourceconcerns exist. Five to ten-year contracts are madethat provide annual incentive payments and costsharing for conservation practices. The cost sharingmay pay up to 75% of the costs for conservationpractices like grassed waterways, filter strips, animalwaste facilities, tree planting, and permanent wildlifehabitat. Incentive payments can be made toencourage the landowner to implement certain landmanagement practices, such as nutrient management,pest management, animal waste management, andwildlife habitat management. About 50% of theavailable funds are designated for natural resourceconcerns involving livestock production.

WHIP is a voluntary program for landowners thatprovides financial incentives to improve wildlifehabitat on private lands. The participants in theprogram must implement a wildlife habitatdevelopment plan with the help of the NRCS andallow for access to the lands to monitor theeffectiveness of these practices. In return, the USDAprovides technical and cost share assistance (up to75%) for installing wildlife habitats. The agreementlasts between 5 to 10 years from the date the contractis signed.

THE WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP) is avoluntary program to restore and protect wetlands onprivate property. Almost any area that can be restoredto a wetland at a reasonable cost and adjacentriparian areas connecting protected wetlands areeligible for the program. The program offers threeoptions to landowners:

l Permanent Wetlands Protection Easement: USDAwill pay up to the agricultural value of the land and100% of the restoration costs for restoring thewetland.

l 30-Year Easement: USDA will pay 75% of theagricultural value of the land and 75% of therestoration costs for restoring the wetland.

l Restoration Cost-Share Agreement: USDA will pay75% of the cost for restoring the wetland for aminimum 10-year agreement to maintainrestoration, but will not have land use payments

The funds for the program are limited, but any worthyproject will not be declined. Easements on riparianstrips protecting existing wetlands receive a highpriority.

THE STEWARDSHIP INCENTIVES PROGRAM (SIP)offers technical and financial assistance to non-industrial private landowners to protect and keep theirforest healthy. Funds are available for rural lands withexisting tree cover and lands suitable for regrowth. AForest Stewardship Plan must be developed for theproperty in order to be eligible. Landowners may nothave more than 1,000 acres of qualifying land, butexceptions may be made for areas up to 5,000 acres.

With funds provided through DHEC’s Section 319nonpoint source program, the South CarolinaDepartment of Natural Resources’ Land Resourcesand Conservation Districts Division and the USDANatural Resources Conservation Service jointlypublished Farming for Clean Water in South Carolina:A Handbook of Conservation Practices in 1997. Thishandbook was created to educate farmers andagricultural students about agricultural nonpointsource pollution and conservation measures they canuse to reduce nonpoint source pollution. However, thishandbook is not a design manual for specificconservation measures and can not be used as areplacement to NRCS technical standards andspecifications (DeFrancesco, 1997).

The S.C. Buffer Initiative Team was formed in 1998 bythe Natural Resources Conservation Service StateTechnical Committee to assist in the implementationof the National Conservation Buffer Initiative. This isaccomplished through federal and state inter-agencycoordination, publicity and landowner technicalassistance. The objectives of the S.C. Buffer InitiativeTeam are: to identify the types of buffer practicesavailable in S.C.; to evaluate the extent (how manyand where) that buffers have been installed in S.C.and view a representative sample of buffers toascertain on-the-ground composition and structure; to

evaluate the specifications for each buffer practice,and, to the extent possible, modify specifications toinsure practices work to the benefit of all resourceconcerns (i.e. soil, water and wildlife); coordinate inter-agency cross-training on buffer practices; andcoordinate development of public outreach tools andincentives to encourage landowners to installconservation buffers and publicize programs thatprovide opportunities for landowners to apply buffertechnology.

The NRCS has developed FIELD OFFICETECHNICAL STANDARDS for the protection ofriparian forest buffers on agriculture land. The SouthCarolina NRCS Conservation Practice Standard forRiparian Buffers is a voluntary practice a farmer canuse on his lands to reduce the impact of agriculturalnonpoint source pollution on water quality andimprove wildlife habitat. The Standard calls for aminimum 35-foot forested buffer on stable areasadjacent to permanent or intermittent streams, lakes,ponds, wetlands, and areas with ground waterrecharge. The buffer is divided into two zones. Zone 1extends a minimum distance of 15 feet from thenormal line or at the upper edge of the active channelwith a dominant vegetation consisting of existing orplanted trees and shrubs suitable to the site andintended purpose of the buffer (water quality, wildlife,moderating wildlife temperature, providing woodydebris, or removal of pollutants). Occasional removalof some trees and shrubs is permitted provided theintended purpose of the buffer is not compromised bythe loss of the vegetation of harvesting disturbanceand a provision is made to re-establish the trees orshrubs. Zone 2 extends a minimum of 20 feet from theedge of Zone 1 and where the floodplain allows, theminimum combined width of Zone 1 and 2 will beincreased to 30% of the geomorphic floodplain or upto 100 feet, which ever is less. Zone 2 can also beincreased, where practical, to 120 feet in highsediment or nutrient producing areas. Criteria for Zone1 will apply to Zone 2 except that the removal of treeand shrub products such as timber, fruit, and nuts ispermitted on a periodic and regular basis providedthat the trees are replaced and the intended purposeof the buffer is not compromised.

b. Private Sector Programs: The agriculturalindustry has supported a wide variety ofprograms designed to educate and encouragethe use of conservation buffers. Many of theseare part of the National Conservation BufferInitiative. Cargill, Monsanto, ConAgra, FarmlandIndustries, Novartis Crop Protection, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, and Terra Industries havetogether formed the National Conservation

Buffer Council which has pledged more than $1million over the next three years to complementthe USDA’s efforts.

These companies also have other programs aimed atprotecting the environment. Monsanto’s “OperationGreen Stripe” is an educational/conservation programwhereby Future Farmers of America (FFA) chaptersrecruit farmers to establish vegetative buffers betweentheir fields and surface waters while educationalgrants are provided to FFA students who haverecruited the farmers (Farmsource). Cargill hasdeveloped and implemented “Water Matters”, aninternational community service initiative focused onwater quality. It sponsors efforts to find non-regulatorysolutions to water quality concerns. The program alsosupports monitoring of local streams and planting oftrees by students. There are many other agriculturalcompanies supporting environmental awarenessprograms as they pertain to the agriculture.

4. Forestry Programs Related to Riparian ForestBuffers

a. Federal and State Voluntary and IncentiveBased Programs: The focus of riparian forestbuffers on forested lands is different thanother land uses because the land is alreadyforested, thus efforts are concentrated towardsprotecting these resources and developingmanagement techniques for these lands. InSouth Carolina, silvicultural guidelines werefirst published in 1976 by the South CarolinaForestry Association with support from theforest industry In 1988, the SC ForestryCommission published Best ManagementPractices for South Carolina’s ForestedWetlands with funding from DHEC’s §319Nonpoint Source Management program.These guidelines were updated in 1994 withthe publication of South Carolina’s BestManagement Practices for Forestry, and in1999 with South Carolina’s Best ManagementPractices for Braided Stream Systems: ASupplement to the 1994 BMP Manual (Jones,2000).

The concept of best management practices or BMPswas introduced in response to the federal Clean WaterAct to minimize and prevent nonpoint source waterpollution. Forestry practices throughout the state arealso subject to the SC Water Pollution Control Act. The

S.C. BMPs are consistent with all applicable state andfederal regulations.

The “South Carolina Forest Best Management PracticesAct” identifies the South Carolina Forestry Commissionas the designated agency in the state to provide publicoversight and guidance for technical forest managementpractices (Code of Laws of SC, Section 48-36). The Actprovides that “the Commission shall develop,implement, and monitor Best Management PracticesProgram....” This includes setting riparian buffers widthrecommendations for water quality protection. TheSouth Carolina Forestry Commission is responsible forthe administration of the forestry BMPs while theDepartment of Health and Environmental Controlmonitors and enforces water quality standards. AMemorandum of Agreement exists between theForestry Commission and DHEC to establish acooperative framework for addressing silviculturalwater quality issues in the state.

Technical assistance, education, and cost-shareprograms provide important incentives for compliancewith the non-regulatory BMPs. BMP compliance inSouth Carolina has steadily improved since the firstmonitoring studies in 1990. Current compliance is91.5%, which is comparable to states wheremandatory forest practice laws have been enacted(Sabin, personal communication). A BMP InspectionReport is published monthly listing all sites that weremonitored by the South Carolina ForestryCommission’s BMP foresters that month. Informationis provided in the report to identify the location of thesite, the logger, and the nature of the problem. Therehas been excellent support for this unique, non-regulatory program by private industry, Compliancewith BMPs is 99% on sites included in this program.

The BMPs recommend streamside managementzones (SMZ) adjacent to perennial, intermittent, andponds or lakes. These areas require special attentionbecause they are critical areas where nonpoint sourcepollutants can enter the aquatic realm. The SMZ isdivided into a primary and secondary zone. Therecommended primary zone in perennial andintermittent streams is 40 feet wide on both sides ofthe stream except in designated trout waters withpercent slopes perpendicular to the stream greaterthan 5% where the recommended width increases to80 feet. The recommended width of the secondaryzone is dependent on the percent slopesperpendicular to the stream. The recommended widthof the secondary zone ranges from 0 feet for slopesless than 5% to 120 feet for slopes greater than 40%.These streamside zones can be actively managed butforestry management activities are restricted withinthese zones to limit the input of nonpoint source

pollutants into the waterways. Ephemeral streams donot have primary and secondary SMZs; although thereare other restrictions that apply in these areas (S.C.Forestry Commission, 1994).

Riparian identification and management on theNational Forests has adjusted as technology andknowledge has changed over the last several decades(Hansen and Law, 1993). The Sumter National Forestincludes about 85,000 acres in the Blue Ridgemountains and 280,000 acres in the piedmont and theFrancis Marion National Forest has 253,000 acres inthe coastal plain of South Carolina.

Estimation of riparian areas extent has improved withdetailed soil, stream, timber, topography (elevationcontours) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetlandlayers into Geographic Information System (GIS)technology. Activities that may affect riparian areasand water quality are carefully evaluated. The intent isto comply with all pollution laws and directionincluding state approved BMPs. Direction in ExecutiveOrders 11988 on floodplains and 11990 on wetlandsprovide added restrictions on federal lands to avoidthese areas whenever possible and design andmitigate activities where they can not be avoided.

The USDA Forest Service has a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the South Carolina ForestryCommission and Department of Health andEnvironmental Control concerning cooperation innonpoint source pollution management. This enablesa greater level of interaction of employees inresponding to and dealing with pollution identificationand control issues on the National Forests or withinthe state. As indicated, the National Forests fullysupport BMPs and state efforts to control waterpollution and limit riparian activities. Consultationamong the agencies and with the USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service is open andunrestricted on the topics as we work together toimprove resource conditions in the water, withinriparian areas and on the land within the watersheds.The Forest Service is also actively improving soil andwater quality through gully, road and streamstabilization and restoration measures. Past damageto some wetland areas have been reduced byrestoring the hydrology such as blocking old drainageditches, removing fill or adding culverts to allow formore natural drainage.

b. Private Sector Programs: The timberindustry also has a number of programs toprotect riparian forest buffers. In 1994, theAmerican Forest and Paper Association(AF&PA), the national trade association of theforest, paper, and wood products industries,

adopted the SUSTAINABLE FORESTRYINITIATIVE (SFI) program. The SFI programis a comprehensive system of principles,guidelines, and performance measures thatintegrates the growing and harvesting of treeswith the protection of wildlife, plants, soil, andwater quality.

The S.C. Forestry Association entered an agreementwith AF&PA to serve as the State ImplementingCommittee with oversight for the SFI in SouthCarolina. The SFI calls for all wood suppliers andloggers to be trained in environmental protectiontechniques to maintain water quality, soil productivity,endangered species, wildlife habitat, and cultural andhistoric sites. The SFI program also requires allmember companies to establish riparian protectionmeasures, including leaving vegetated buffers stripsalong streams and the implementation of stream side-management zones, in order to meet or exceed allestablished Best Management Practices approved bythe EPA, all applicable state water quality laws andregulations, and the requirements of the CWA forforest land. The program requires member companiesto enhance quality of wildlife habitat by developingand implementing measures that promote habitatdiversity and the conservation of the biodiversity ofthe plant and animal communities found in the forestareas. Companies must also develop special landmanagement plans for company lands of ecological,geologic, or historic significance. Participation in theSFI program is required by all members of theAF&PA. Since 1994, 15 member companies of theAF&PA have been expelled for failure to comply withthe program.

The SFI is endorsed by numerous organizations andagencies, including American Forests, DucksUnlimited, and the Wildlife Society. The SouthCarolina State Implementation Committee includesrepresentatives from the National Audubon Societyand the Nature Conservancy, as well as privatelandowners, government agencies, and the forestindustry.

A variety of additional forestry managementcertification, licensing, auditing and third-partyverification programs are also currently in use by theforest industry. Such programs include Smartwood,ISO 14001, and SFI Verification, among others.

5. Private Non-Profit Organizations

There are a large number of private environmentalorganizations that contribute to the protection andrestoration of riparian forest buffers. Some of theseorganizations include Land Trusts, Ducks Unlimited,

Trout Unlimited, National Audubon Society, NationalWildlife Federation, and The Nature Conservancy.There is also a wide array of smaller grassrootsenvironmental groups concerned with rivers, wetlands,lakes that are trying to protect the quality and naturalbeauty of local water bodies.

6. South Carolina

a. State Laws: In 1991, South Carolina enactedthe STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ANDSEDIMENT REDUCTION ACT to managestormwater runoff to “reduce pollution,siltation, sedimentation, local flooding, andstream channel erosion, all of which impactadversely on the land and water resources…”(§1 of 1991 Act No.51, eff. May 27, 1992).The Act establishes the procedures andminimum standards for a statewidestormwater management and sedimentreduction program (Environmental LawInstitute, 1998). Currently, the Act has nospecific requirement for riparian buffers.DHEC is charged with developing a StateStormwater Management and SedimentReduction Program. DHEC may delegateimplementation of any part of the program tolocal governments.

The Act provides that no person may engage in a landdisturbing activity without first submitting a stormwatermanagement and sediment control plan and obtaininga permit to proceed from the appropriateimplementing agency. The Act is not intended to coverall uses. It does not include agricultural lands orforestlands used for production and harvesting oftimber. It does not include construction of single familyresidences, or mining activities otherwise coveredunder the SC Mining Act.

The Act also exempts state-owned or managed landsthat are regulated under the EROSION ANDSEDIMENT REDUCTION ACT (§48-18-20, SC Codeof Laws, 1976, as amended). This Act applies only tostate-owned lands, and requires DHEC to implementregulations concerning erosion, sediment reduction,and stormwater management on these lands. If theselands are found to be in non-compliance, correctivesteps must be taken.

Adopted in 1994, the SOUTH CAROLINA LOCALGOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNINGENABLING ACT consolidated existing planning laws,and updated them with current practices, newmethods, and tools and procedures for localgovernment planning. All counties and municipalitieswith planning programs on the effective date of the

Act were required to conform their plans and ordinancesto the Act’s provisions (Municipal Association of SouthCarolina 1994). The Act provides for a land use elementas one of several required parts of the comprehensiveplan. Upon the adoption of the plan, the governing bodymay enact zoning and other ordinances to implementthe plan. Riparian buffer protection may be included asa component of zoning and other land use ordinances.

A bill was introduced in the South Carolina GeneralAssembly that requires the protection of riparianbuffers. The SOUTH CAROLINA RIPARIAN ZONEBUFFER ACT OF 2000 (S.1037) would require a 100-foot buffer of native vegetation on both sides of allstreams, rivers, and other water situated wholly or inpart in, or flowing through a county or municipality inthe State. The bill would give counties andmunicipalities the authority to impose stricterminimum width requirements and allows DHEC torequire more stringent minimums on designated“critical watersheds.” The bill would give DHEC theresponsibility for administering the riparian buffer zonerequirements. If a local government fails to adopt andenforce the minimum riparian buffer protectionprogram requirements, DHEC would administer andenforce the minimum statewide riparian buffer zonerequirements within all of the affected portion of thelocal jurisdiction. The bill also contains enforcementprovisions, and includes civil and criminal penaltiesfor violations. The bill includes a comprehensive list ofrestricted and allowable activities in the riparian buffer.

b. Local Government Ordinances: City and countyordinances pertaining to the protection of riparianbuffers are found in some localities throughoutSouth Carolina. CHESTER COUNTY was the firstcounty in the state to adopt a vegetative bufferordinance in April 1998 creating the RiverPreservation District (Sloan, PersonalCommunication). The objective of the RiverPreservation District is to protect water quality inthe Catawba and Broad Rivers from the effects ofstormwater runoff. The district has 100-footvegetative buffers along the Catawba and BroadRivers and 50-foot vegetative buffers along bothsides of the five major tributaries of these rivers inChester County (Fishing Creek, Rocky Creek,Turkey Creek, Tinkers Creek, and Big SandyRiver) (Chester County River PreservationOrdinance, 1998). The only uses permitted in theRiver Preservation District are recreation, publicboat landings, public water and wastewatertreatment facilities, intakes, discharges, andagriculture and silviculture activities that includewatering of livestock, tilling, and timberharvesting, provided any disturbed soil ismaintained and revegetated (Wenger, 1999).

On April 26, 1999 Beaufort County adopted a RiverBuffer requirement as part of its Zoning andDevelopment Standards Ordinance for the purpose ofprotecting water quality and wildlife habitat. The bufferbegins at the OCRM Critical Line, and extends inlandfrom all tidal waters and wetlands for a distance of 50feet. The River Buffer is maintained as anundeveloped and undisturbed area with a fewexceptions which include view corridors, pedestrianaccess to waterways, utility lines, recreational uses,and flood and erosion control devices (Reynolds,1999). A list of setbacks from the OCRM Critical Lineapplies to all new developments. Including a 50 footsetback for single-family detached dwellings. A 100-foot setback is required for multi-family and attachedresidential units, parking areas and driveways whileagricultural uses and golf courses must be pushedback 150 feet (Beaufort County Council, 1999).

BEAUFORT COUNTY is now in the process ofamending its original ordinance by drafting theBeaufort County River Quality Overlay District. Ifadopted, the Beaufort County River Quality OverlayDistrict will still require a 50-foot buffer from all tidalwaters and wetlands beginning at the OCRM criticalline, but amends the setbacks and allowable uses inthe buffer. The new setbacks will require agriculturaluses, golf courses, recreational parks andplaygrounds, and drainage systems and retentionponds to be set back 50 feet from the buffer. Detachedsingle-single family residential units, multi-family andattached residential units, parking areas anddriveways, civic buildings not larger than 4000 squarefeet, parking lots with no more than 6 spaces or 1000square feet and the right-of-way of a two-lane road willbe required to be set back 100 feet, while any landuses not specified in the River Protection District mustbe setback a minimum of 150 feet (Reynolds, 1999).Tile fields and septic tanks would be prohibited in thebuffer. Allowable uses within the riparian buffer wouldinclude a view corridor, pedestrian and/or vehicularaccess to docks, fishing piers and boat landings,approved flood and erosion control devices, utilitylines, playground equipment, benches, and picnictables, and roads leading to brides that cross thewaterway.

The TOWN OF BLUFFTON has plans to modify theBeaufort County River Protection Overlay District byexpanding some of the requirements. The RiverProtection Overlay District will be amended to requirea 100-foot buffer as compared to the 50-foot bufferwidths required by the county, as well as increasingdevelopmental setback requirements in the town(Town of Bluffton Ordinance).

In May 1999, YORK COUNTY adopted an ordinanceestablishing the Catawba River Buffer. This ordinanceis unique in that it has multiple purposes forestablishing the buffer zone that include:

“to protect fisheries, groundwater, and wildlifehabitat; preserve scenic, historic, andecologically sensitive areas; provide floodcontrol and reduce storm damage; reduce pointand nonpoint source pollution; facilitate theadequate provision of water supply andsanitation; encourage recreation andrecreational facilities; and guide development inaccordance with existing and future needs andpromote the public health, safety, order,appearance, prosperity, and general welfare”(Chester County Ordinance).

The width of the buffers along the Catawba River is100 feet and applies to both banks below the LakeWylie Dam. A secondary 50-foot buffer is requiredalong the banks of all perennial tributaries in YorkCounty, but only extends 500 feet up from theCatawba River. Removal of natural vegetation for thepurpose of land development, timber harvest, theclearing of land for structures, or any other uses oractivities not specifically exempted is prohibited withinthe buffer. The only exemptions are utility lines, timberharvesting that utilizes BMPs developed by StateForestry Commission, and hiking and biking pathwaysor related facilities.

The CITY OF ROCK HILL in YORK COUNTY hasexpanded buffer width requirements along theCatawba River to 150 feet. The buffer must benaturally vegetated (Wenger and Fowl, 1999).

RICHLAND and GREENVILLE counties, and theCities of MT. PLEASANT and ISLE OF PALMS haveall discussed some type of buffer ordinance. Some ofthese counties and municipalities already have draftsof the proposed ordinance while others are finalizingthem as part of their local comprehensive planrevisions.

c. Voluntary and Incentive-Based Programs:The South Carolina Scenic Rivers Act of 1989has led to the development of the state’sSCENIC RIVERS PROGRAM, which protectsnatural, scenic, and recreational rivers in thestate. The first step in the scenic riverdesignation process is for interestedindividuals, landowners, communities, andlocal governments to send a written request toS.C. Department of Natural Resources(SCDNR) to consider the river. A study isconducted by SCDNR representatives to

determine if the river is eligible for theprogram. Approval by all county councilsthrough which the scenic river passes isrequired. The next step is the designation ofthe river as a State Scenic River by theGeneral Assembly.

The Scenic Rivers Program originally focused onacquiring the management rights of these riparianlands by one of three ways: 1) a donation of aperpetual conservation easement; 2) a fee simpledonation; or 3) the purchase of a fee simple interest inriparian properties. This was for the most partunsuccessful because private landowners did not wantto give up their land.

In response to this, the Scenic Rivers StewardshipProgram was developed as a more flexiblealternative. The program educates landowners abouttheir river and the relationship between land use andthe quality of the river. It uses a non-regulatorymethod for entering into cooperative, voluntary landmanagement agreements with landowners. Thelandowner may choose among four land managementoptions:

l Riparian land management;

l Memorandum of agreement;

l Conservation easement; or

l Donation of land.

The single most important practice for the protectionof river resources is riparian land management, whichpromotes the establishment and maintenance ofriparian buffers characterized by native vegetation.The Program recommends a minimum of a 100-footbuffer along Scenic Rivers depending on themanagement goal. To date, six rivers have qualifiedfor the program - the Broad; Little Pee Dee; LowerSaluda; Lynches; and Middle Saluda - extending about100 miles along South Carolina’s streams and rivers(SC DNR, 2000).

Two bills currently pending in the South CarolinaGeneral Assembly would provide incentives for thevoluntary protection of riparian areas. TheCONSERVATION INCENTIVES ACT (H.3782) wouldprovide an income tax credit for landowners thatconvey conservation easements to qualifiedconservation organizations to preserve and protectnatural areas and their traditional uses. The FARMAND FOREST LANDS PROTECTION ACT (H.3024)would also provide incentives for the protection ofriparian buffers by:

1. Providing protection for agricultural and forestlands as an economic and environmentalresource of major importance;

2. Encouraging landowners to make a voluntarylong-term commitment to agriculture andforestry by offering them financial incentivesand security of land use;

3. Protecting agricultural and forestry operationsin priority agricultural land areas fromincompatible land uses that may renderagriculture and forestry operations nonviable;

4. Ensuring permanent protection of productiveagricultural and forest lands to protect theagricultural and forestry economy of thisState;

5. Providing compensation to landowners inexchange for relinquishment of the right todevelop their private property; and

6. Leveraging state, federal, local, and privateagricultural easement purchase funds andprotect the investment of taxpayers inagricultural conservation easements.

7. Tools For Protecting and Restoring RiparianForest Buffers

a. Regulatory Tools: A variety of tools, bothregulatory and non-regulatory, are availablefor the protection and restoration of riparianforest buffers. Regulatory actions may beincluded under state laws and/or through theadoption of local ordinances. There aredifferent ways ordinances can beimplemented to provide protection to riparianforest buffers. A riparian forest buffer overlayzone is one way to protect these resources incounties with existing zoning ordinances(Wenger and Fowler, 1999). An overlay zonelevies more restrictions on a property in orderto provide added protection for riparian forestbuffers and thus splits a property into twozoning districts. Where buffers are requiredbuffer averaging allows certain areas in thebuffer to be narrower than other parts of thebuffer so long as the average width of thebuffer meets minimum width requirements.

Riparian forest buffer requirements can also beincorporated into existing regulatory programs, suchas sedimentation and erosion control, developmentstandards, and existing ordinances. Existing flood

protection ordinances are chiefly aimed at preventingproperty damage, but may provide some limitedprotection for riparian forest buffers.

b. Non-regulatory Tools: Non-regulatory toolsare an effective means of protecting riparianforest buffers. Often times, incentive-basedoptions are more successful than mandatoryrequirements. Non-regulatory approachesinclude educational programs, incentives andacquisitions. These can supplement aregulatory approach or can function asseparate programs. Educational programshave the potential to make a significantcontribution to the protection and restorationof riparian forest buffers and should be a partof both regulatory and non-regulatoryprograms. Education can prevent manyproblems and create an awareness ofappropriate activities.

Other non-regulatory provisions include transferabledevelopmental rights, density compensation,conservation easements, and acquisition of property(Wenger and Fowler, 1999; Reynolds, 1999).TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENTAL RIGHTSprovides a mechanism for compensating landownerswho cannot develop their property because of a bufferordinance by allowing them to sell their developmentrights to other landowners. DENSITYCOMPENSATION allows a landowner to developmore densely in one area in exchange for developableland lost as a result of a buffer ordinance.Conservation easements are agreements in whichlandowners give up their rights to develop their land inexchange for a reduction or elimination of propertytaxes. This option can increase landowners’acceptance of a buffer ordinance since the landowneris compensated by some means for the loss ofdevelopment rights on their land. PROPERTYACQUISITION by local governments is a way toacquire key tracts of land to protect these resources,and there are sources of funds for riparian landacquisition. The purchase of full property interests iscurrently used in South Carolina in the NaturalHeritage Trust Program and by nonprofit groups suchas the Nature Conservancy.

Many states have opted to provide tax incentives tolandowners for protecting and restoring riparian forestbuffers. These tax incentives usually include propertytax exemptions on riparian buffer areas that aremanaged in accordance with policies established bythe government. For example, tax credits can be usedto provide a property and/or income tax credit basedon the diminished value of the property containedwithin the protected riparian buffer. Property tax

breaks can also be used to help offset the cost ofprotecting and maintaining a riparian buffer. Forexample, the S.C. Scenic Rivers Act provides aproperty tax-free designation to all riparian landdesignated under the Act, private landowners did notwant to give up their land.

ISSUE #2:

What types of buffer protection policies are needed forSouth Carolina? What are potential obstacles toimplementation? As subsets of this issue: (a) shouldbuffer protection programs be mandated, incentive-based, or other; and (b) should buffer requirements beset at the state or local level or both?


l Local Government’s Role: Local governmentsshould develop and adopt a buffer protection planwithin a specified time frame. The plan shouldinclude the implementation of buffer widths thatmeet or exceed the statewide minimum width of 35feet, provisions for existing land uses, conversion orchanges in land use, restoration programs, appeals,variances, and public education.

l State Government’s Role: An inter-agencycouncil should be created to coordinate stateprograms and to develop guidelines to assist localgovernments in the development of their bufferprotection plans. Local governments that haveexisting buffer ordinances may incorporate theminto their buffer protection plans so long as theyare at least as stringent as the statewide minimumwidth. The DHEC should enforce the minimumbuffer width if a local government does notdevelop and adopt a buffer protection plan withinthe required time frame.

l Non-regulatory Approaches: Non-regulatoryapproaches are recommended for buffer widthsexceeding the statewide minimum. Non-regulatoryapproaches that should be considered include thefollowing:

o Education Programs

o Incentives

o Development Credits/Density Compensation

o Tax Breaks (i.e. Extend the tax-freedesignation given to riparian buffer landsdesignated under the S.C. Scenic Rivers act toall riparian buffer lands designated under the

minimum local government/state requirementup to but not exceeding 300 feet.)

o Tax Credits (i.e. To provide a property and/orincome tax credit based on the diminishedvalue of the property contained within theprotected riparian buffer (up to but notexceeding 300 feet) to help with themaintenance and upkeep of the buffer.)

o Cost-share programs

o Compensation payments

o Conservation Easements (and variations)

o Transfer of Development Rights

o Purchase of Development Rights

o Lease

o Acquisition

o Purchase/Exchange (i.e. The creation of astate fund with monies that can be accessedby local governments to purchase sensitiveriparian areas and/or properties that once thebuffer has been delineated have removed alleconomic use of the land.)

o Donation to Land Trusts

o Funding riparian buffer restoration programs

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:

The Policy work group reviewed many existingprograms and policies within and outside of SouthCarolina with particular interest in which level ofgovernment had jurisdiction over riparian areas. Thework group discovered a wide variety of approaches atall levels of government, and within the private sector.A very high profile program like the Chesapeake Bayinitiative actually involves all levels of government ina public/private partnership to restore the Bay’sriparian areas. Other initiatives like the Neuse RiverRule and other legislative efforts in North Carolinaappear to be more driven from the state level. Otherstates like Oregon and Georgia have enacted statelaws for specific, statewide objectives like waterquality protection and protection of endangeredspecies.

In South Carolina, local governments and industryefforts have led to the development of measures toprotect riparian areas. The first county to enact a localbuffer ordinance, Chester County, did so out ofconcern for protecting the water quality of the Broad andCatawba rivers. Other localities, concerned with rapidgrowth and development, have taken steps to enactbuffer ordinances. Beaufort County, the town of MountPleasant, and Charleston County have adopted or areconsidering ordinances to address buffer protection.

The agriculture and forest industries have initiatedsuccessful non-regulatory programs to protectionriparian forest buffers. Forestry, for example, has bestmanagement practice guidelines that includemeasures to establish and protect riparian areas. TheForestry Commission conducts inspections todetermine if loggers are following the guidelines. Ifnot, a list of loggers in non-compliance is publishedand ultimately, enforcement may be taken by DHECunder the Pollution Control Act’s water pollutionprovisions.

Closely related to the question above is the issue ofwhether regulatory or non-regulatory, incentive-basedprograms are more effective. As before, the Policywork group found a wide range of approaches. Thework group reviewed many of the non-regulatory toolsfor encouraging landowners to protect and restoreriparian forest buffers. They include, for example, taxincentives, compensation payments, conservationeasements, and land acquisitions. The work groupalso looked at incentive-based programs like theScenic Rivers program as an alternative to a strictlyregulatory approach.

There were several issues that factored into thediscussion of regulatory and non-regulatoryapproaches. First, water resources and riparian forestbuffers do not adhere to political boundaries. If there isa need to adopt a measure to protect buffers, it maynot be effective to do it at the local level if the netresult is a patchwork of local ordinances. A watershedapproach is one alternative to local buffer protectionplans. A watershed based buffer protection programwill extend past political boundaries and promotecontiguous buffers. Second, there is a concern aboutthe extent to which regulatory approaches potentiallyimpact the prerogative of the landowner in the use ofhis land. The private property rights question wasdiscussed throughout the work group’s review. Finally,there was considerable discussion about the commondenominator that triggers any of these approaches.Ultimately, the change in use of the land, or theconversion of the land from one use to another, seems

to be the broad trigger for which any one type ofapproach could be used.

The Policy work group also looked at potentialobstacles to implementing buffer protection measures.The potential obstacles identified by the work groupwere:

l Objections from landowners and developers to astatewide, mandatory minimum;

l Objections from local governments for enactingan “unfunded mandate;”

l Objections from local governments that believebuffer protection measures fall within “land useplanning” and should be left to local governments;

l Creation of a new state program requiringadditional staff and fiscal resources to implement;

l Difficulty in enforcement both at the local leveland by the state;

l Potential “takings” claims based upon diminutionor loss of economic value and loss of enjoymentof property affected by the buffer program;

l Fiscal impacts of implementing non-regulatoryapproaches; and

l Potential conflict of the new buffer protectionplans with existing laws and programs.

The Policy work group reviewed many differentprograms in the context of what would be mostbeneficial for South Carolina. This resulted in arecommendation that reflected shared responsibilityfor buffers between state and local governments aswell as exemptions for successful buffer protectionprograms already in place.

The work group concluded, and the Task Forceagreed, that because rivers, streams, lakes andwetlands do not conform to political jurisdictionalboundaries, uniformity is needed to protect riparianareas. To do this, a statewide minimum should berecommended. The Policy work group agreed with theTechnical work group’s recommendation of a 35-footminimum buffer width except for ephemeral channeland non-coastal wetlands. However, the Policy workgroup also felt that local governments should have theresponsibility for implementing the buffer requirement.With assistance from a state inter-agency council,

local governments should be given a specified timeframe to adopt a plan to implement buffer measures thatmeet or exceed the statewide minimum. Localgovernments should also have discretion to adoptprovisions regarding conversions in land use, restorationprograms, appeals, variances, and public education. Iflocal governments fail to act, DHEC should enforce theminimum buffer width. Local governments that haveexisting ordinances that are at least as stringent as thestatewide minimum should not be preempted.

Because forestry and agriculture have existingprograms with effective buffer protection measures,the Task Force concluded that they should beencouraged without further regulation. However, thisexemption applies only as long as the owners of theland maintain their lands in compliance with applicablebest management practices.

The work group and the Task Force concluded thatwhile a regulatory framework was needed to establishand enforce a minimum statewide buffer width of 35feet, however, non-regulatory approaches should berecommended for jurisdictions that wished to gobeyond the minimum width. The work group and theTask Force concurred in the Technical work group’s

recommended widths of 100 and 300 feet, but felt thatnon-regulatory approaches were preferable forencouraging adoption of widths exceeding the minimum.Therefore, the Task Force recommended that a varietyof non-regulatory approaches be considered toimplement buffer widths for enhanced water quality andwildlife protection. These non-regulatory approaches arelisted above under the “Task Force Recommendations”for buffer widths exceeding the recommended statewideminimum width.

OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:

It should be noted that the Policy work group wasasked to work with the Technical work group onseveral issues that have been previously addressed inChapter 3. Specifically, the Policy work group wasasked to consider (a) buffer protection programsbased on different land uses; (b) allowable activitieswithin the buffer; and (c) active management withinthe buffer. The policy issues that were considered indeveloping recommendations on these items arediscussed in Chapter 3.

Chapter 5EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

The Education work group was asked to review existingeducational programs, and to develop recommendationsconcerning education initiatives. Specifically, the workgroup was asked to consider the target audiences, howthe success of programs could be evaluated, andsources of funding for educational efforts.

ISSUE #1:

To whom should our educational efforts be directed?What audiences should be targeted for educationalprograms?

l How do you evaluate the success of a buffereducational program?

l What sources of funding exist for buffereducational programs?

l Who should be responsible for the overallcoordination of the collection and development ofthe new information to be integrated into existingeducational efforts?

TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

l Grant Program: A grant program should beestablished to provide funding for existingeducational organizations, conferences andprograms to integrate riparian buffer educationalmaterials into their curricula.

l Central Point of Contact for Education Efforts:A central point of contact responsible for theoverall coordination and development of newinformation on riparian forest buffers to beintegrated into existing educational efforts shouldbe established.

EDUCATION RECOMMENDATIONS

l Education for Local Government Officials:

o Develop and provide fact sheets to localgovernment on water quality and riparianforest buffers and their benefits.

o Approach the Program Directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, and

programs for the local government officialsabout including information on riparian forestbuffers, including the fact sheets, in theircurricula.

o Encourage sessions on water quality andriparian forest buffers and their benefits andstrategies to implement buffer ordinances intoexisting conferences.

o Encourage networking by providing a contactlist of existing programs, conferences andother educational material.

o Provide a list of web sites and other resourceson riparian forest buffers to local governmentofficials.

l Education for K-12 Teachers and Students:

o Update the Environmental EducationAssociation of South Carolina’s Russ ShererSouth Carolina Environmental EducationResources Directory.

o Create a calendar of environmentalconferences and workshops for scienceteachers.

o Develop lesson plans that tie riparian forestbuffers to the S.C. Science CurriculumStandards and provide professionaldevelopment for the teachers. Theprofessional development should containadequate background to the activities andlead the teachers through the activities.

o Develop and provide fact sheets to teacherson water quality and riparian forest buffersand their benefits.

o Approach the Program Directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for K-12 Students and Teachers aboutincluding information on riparian forest buffersincluding the fact sheets, in their curricula.

o Encourage sessions on water quality andriparian forest buffers and their benefits inexisting conferences.

l Education for the General Public:

o Develop and provide fact sheets to the generalpublic on water quality and riparian forestbuffers and their benefits when visiting state,county, and city parks, town and city halls,county administration buildings and visitorcenters.

o Approach the Program Directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for the general public aboutincluding information on riparian forestbuffers, including the fact sheets, in theircurricula.

● Education for Land DevelopmentProfessionals:

o Develop and provide fact sheets to landdevelopment professionals on water qualityand riparian forest buffers and their benefits.

o Approach the Program Directors of theexisting organizations, conferences, andprograms for the land developmentprofessionals about including information onriparian forest buffers, including the factsheets, in their curricula.

o Encourage adding sessions to existingconferences on water quality and riparianforest buffers.

o Educate land development professionals onBMPs for development.

o Encourage networking by providing a contactlist of existing programs, conferences andother educational material.

o Provide a list of web sites and other resourceson riparian forest buffers to land developmentprofessionals.

EDUCATION CONSIDERATIONS

The work group discovered a wide variety ofeducation programs that either directly related to, orcould be expanded to include, education on riparianforest buffers.

These programs were reviewed and considered in thecontext of four targeted audiences: 1) K-12 teachersand students; 2) the general public; 3) landdevelopment professionals such as planners, landscape

architects, builders, developers, consultants, civil andenvironmental engineers; and 4) local governmentofficials. It was recognized that each target group wouldneed to have education programs that are tailored to thespecific goals and needs of its members, and that a“one size fits all” program was unrealistic.

The work group decided that given the vast number ofprograms, conferences and organizations that arealready in existence, the development of neweducation programs was not needed. The work groupfelt that it would be more realistic to integrateinformation on riparian buffers into existing programs.To successfully do this, however, the work group andthe Task Force felt that a central contact responsiblefor the overall coordination and development of newinformation on riparian forest buffers was needed. Inaddition, the creation of a grant program to fund thesenew efforts was recommended.

The work group then made specific recommendationsfor each of the four target groups. Many of theserecommendations, such as the development of factsheets and the integration of educational materialsinto existing programs, conferences and organizationsare similar for each of the targeted groups. All of thework group’s recommendations were approved by theTask Force.

SELECTED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

There are numerous educational organizations,programs, and activities for each of the target groupsthat can be used to incorporate information about thebenefits and importance of riparian forest buffers.Some of these programs are described here. A morecomplete listing of education programs andorganizations can be found in Appendix IX.

1. Local Government Officials

The NONPOINT EDUCATION FOR MUNICIPALOFFICIALS (NEMO) PROGRAM is a program thatcan be adapted to teach local government officialsabout the benefits of riparian forest buffers. Originallydeveloped by the University of ConnecticutCooperative Extension System in 1991, the programis aimed at helping local decision makers betterunderstand the complex relationship between land use,urban growth and water quality. The program alsoencourages local officials to make better educatedand more informed decisions on strategies to improvewater quality and control nonpoint source pollution(University of Connecticut Cooperative ExtensionService, 2000). To guide local officials, NEMO outlinesa three-tiered strategy of natural resource-based

planning, site design, and the use of best managementpractices to address land use and NPS pollution: (1) anoverview of NPS pollution; (2) a GIS component visuallydepicting the connection between critical land use andNPS pollution through a series of local GIS images andmaps; and (3) recommended alternatives to presentdevelopment practices (University of ConnecticutCooperative Extension Service, 2000).

Since the creation of NEMO in 1991, over 25 statesare in some stage of adapting the program. The statesof Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, andSouth Carolina all have active and funded NEMOprograms. Georgia, Kansas, Oregon, and Washingtonare in the planning stage of the NEMO project.Several states including California, the District ofColumbia, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, Oklahoma,Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin have all showed aninterest in the NEMO program but have not activelybegan planning (University of ConnecticutCooperative Extension Service, 2000).

South Carolina initated its NEMO program in May1998 with a pilot study in the Waccamaw Riverwatershed with funding provided under the DHECSection 319 program. S.C. Sea Grant Consortium, theClemson University Cooperative Extension Serviceand the Waccamaw Regional Planning andDevelopment Council are overseeing the pilot project,which is geographically focused in Georgetown andHorry counties. The project is aimed at countycouncils, planning and zoning commissions, citycouncils, grass roots environmental organizations andcivic groups that focuses on nonpoint source pollutionand sound comprehensive planning. Educational toolsused in this project include a slide presentation, factsheets, and an interactive workshop based on thethree tiers of the NEMO program (University ofConnecticut Cooperative Extension Service, 2000).Beginning in July 2000, the SC NEMO program will beexpanded to four of the five priority watersheds inSouth Carolina: Pee Dee River; Upper Catawba;Saluda; and Seneca/Keowee.

2. K-12 Teachers and Students

Within the South Carolina Department of Education’sCURRICULUM STANDARDS FOR SCIENCE thereare many opportunities for the introduction ofcoursework regarding the benefits, importance, andfunction of riparian forest buffers. Examples of theS.C. Curriculum Standards for Science and howriparian buffer education might be integrated into thestandards is shown in Appendix X.

ACTION FOR A CLEANER TOMORROW (“Action”) isa kindergarten through 12th grade, activity-based,

interdisciplinary curriculum supplement that can serveas a starting place for incorporating environmentaleducation in the classroom. Introduced in 1993,“Action” was developed and tested by South Carolinateachers through DHEC’s Office of Solid WasteReduction and Recycling. In three-hour sessionsprovided at no cost by DHEC, teachers are exposed tothe “Action” curriculum that includes lessons onrecycling, waste reduction, composting, buyingrecycled, energy, air and water. These lessons arehands-on activities that help students get the facts,think for themselves, form opinions and makedecisions. The curriculum supplement, which is givento all teachers completing the workshop, has aglossary and extensive resource section that offersbackground on specific issues from a global, nationaland South Carolina perspective.

Currently there are 10 lesson plans within the “Action”program on water quality issues including RunawayWith Runoff, We All Live Downstream, SouthCarolina’s Bodies of Waters, The Water Cycle andEvaporation (SC DHEC, 2000). Currently, the “Action”curriculum is being correlated to the new SCCurriculum Standards for Science developed by theState Department of Education.

In addition to teacher education programs, there areprograms that are tailored specifically for studentparticipation. THE TEACHING KATE (KIDS ABOUTTHE ENVIRONMENT) PROGRAM gives 3rd to 6th

grade students the opportunity to learn about naturalresources in an outdoor setting, through hands-oninterdisciplinary activities. Sponsored by the SouthCarolina 4-H Centers, the Clemson Extension Service,and the Coalition for Natural Resource Education, thecore curriculum is divided into four, three-hourclasses: forestry; soils; water; and wildlife. In additionto the original program, a 7th and 8th gradecurriculum is available for returning or advancedgroups (Teaching KATE, 2000). The KATE activitiesare also in the process of being correlated to the S.C.Science Curriculum Standards.

3. General Public

The SOUTH CAROLINA SCENIC RIVERSPROGRAM, administered by the Department ofNatural Resources, includes an educational/stewardship program that could be expanded beyondits current scope and used as a model educationalprogram for riparian forest buffers. In its current form,the Scenic Rivers Program protects unique andoutstanding rivers. Through a community planningapproach, the program identifies and prioritizes rivermanagement needs and strives to protect resourcesincluding plant and animal life, wildlife habitat,

wetlands, scenic views, geologic formations, recreationareas, and cultural or historic treasures through riparianland management.

Through the Scenic Rivers Stewardship Program,local communities including landowners and riverusers, are provided basic information on their localriver with emphasis on the relationship between land/water use and the short term and long term of theriver. Essential tools for the program include river-specific slide shows, a fact sheet on the respectiveland management options, and a list of commonsense measures or best management practicesdesigned to protect river resources. For each state-designated scenic river, staff at S.C. DNR develop aslide show that focuses on river-specific informationincluding pertinent river issues and management planrecommendations. Each slide show will also includegeneral information on land management optionsavailable to riparian landowners through the ScenicRivers Stewardship Program such as a donation of aperpetual conservation easement, a fee simpledonation, and the purchase of fee simple interest inriparian properties. These management options affordtwo major benefits to the landowner: 1) long-termprotection of the resource and 2) financial gainsassociated with tax advantages and/or revenue fromthe sale of management rights or property (S.C. DNR2000)

4. Land Development Professionals

Many planning and other land developmentprofessionals in the public and private sectors aremembers of national and state organizations throughwhich they participate in programs, conferences, andclinics. For example, each year the South CarolinaChapter of the American Planning Association inconjunction with the USC Institute of Public Affairs’Center for Governance and the Clemson UniversityDepartment of Planning and Landscape Architecturehold courses for the South Carolina Academy forPlanning. This training program provides “systematic,ongoing quality training for members of boards andcommissions, staff, municipal and county councils,and others involved in land development planning(South Carolina Academy for Planning, 1999). TheAcademy consists of two tracts in which participantsenroll: Planning Commission or Board of ZoningAppeals. Completion of a path is reached afterattending a total of eight courses, of which some areelectives. Each participant completing the requirementsis awarded a certificate of completion. Examples ofcourses include Introduction to Local Planning; PlanningTools; Ethics in Planning; and Getting PublicParticipation in the Process (South Carolina Academyfor Planning, 1999). Currently, there are no specificcourses offered on environmental planning andmanagement.

Chapter 6CONCLUSION

Riparian forest buffers are valuable natural resources inSouth Carolina. As the state grows and develops,riparian forest buffers will play a more critical role in thenatural protection of our water resources, our wildlife,and the aquatic life that depend on clean water forsurvival. Properly managed, riparian areas will alsoprotect the natural, aesthetic beauty of our waterwaysand preserve the recreational enjoyment of thesewaters.

Part of the overall strategy to protect these areasdepends on our knowledge of where they are, how theyare used, who owns them, and whether they are beingproperly maintained. One critical area of neededresearch is a site inventory and database of riparianforest buffers in South Carolina. This information wouldassist state, local, and private organizations indeveloping different alternatives to protect and restorethese resources.

The Task Force recognized early on that there is clearlynot a “one size fits all” approach to this issue. To beeffective, a broad, public-private, coordinated strategy isneeded. The Task Force recognized this byrecommending: a statewide minimum buffer width withlocal enforcement; non-regulatory options to encouragewider buffer widths; exemptions for successfulprograms; and the expansion of existing educationalefforts rather than the creation of new programs.

This report represents a first step. State agencies,local governments, industry associations, non-profitgroups, and the public will hopefully use this report andthe work of the Task Force to take the next, crucialsteps toward the ultimate goal of protecting riparianforest buffers in South Carolina.

Appendix IRECOMMENDED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR

THE PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS

Water Quality

Forestry: The South Carolina Forestry Commission haspublished BMP guidelines in South Carolina’s BestManagement Practices for Forestry that should befollowed in all riparian forest buffer (RFBs) as defined bythe Forestry Commission. The BMPs include thefollowing as important in the protection of water quality:

● A minimum of 40 feet should be identified as a“streamside management zone” (SMZ) onperennial and intermittent streams. The width ofthe SMZ is determined by stream type and theslope adjacent to the stream. On ephemeralstreams, the forest floor should be protected.

● Forestry activity within the SMZ should beconducted with caution. Thinning within the SMZshould be conducted with minimal exposure ofmineral soil. Trees should be felled away from thestream, and logging debris should be removedfrom stream channels.

● Forestry operations should be timed to avoid wetweather and wet soil conditions.

● Forest roads should be designed to minimize theamount of sediment leaving the site and enteringstream channels. Road construction in sensitivesites such as the RFB should be avoided exceptwhere necessary for stream crossings.

● Broadcast application of herbicides should beavoided within the primary SMZ.

● Landowners are encouraged to make use of alicensed forester or other certified professional forsite-specific BMP recommendations.

Agriculture

Agricultural activities adjacent to waterways should becarried out according to BMPs. Farmers shouldconsult the Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) for case-by-case guidance. The following are

Adapted from the South Carolina Scenic Rivers Program: Recommended Best Management Practices (BMPs)for River Bordering Lands and from a draft document entitled Guide to Stewardship Development Concepts andPractices (Fairey 1998).

examples of agricultural BMPs to protect water quality:

Row Crop Production:

● A naturally vegetated buffer should be maintainedwithin at least 35 feet on both sides of allperennial and intermittent streams.

● To help keep agricultural chemicals such asfertilizers and pesticides out of waterways, a no-tillfilter strip of at least 15 feet in width is encouragedalong both sides of all drainage ditches.

● New drainage ditches should not be constructedwithin the riparian corridor. When maintainingexisting ditches, care should be taken to minimizesediment loading to the river.

● Integrated pest management should be used, e.g.,pesticides should be applied only when theeconomic benefit of spraying exceeds the cost ofspraying; pesticides should be applied asefficiently as possible and at times when runofflosses are unlikely; the toxicity, runoff potential,and leaching potential should be considered whenchoosing pesticides; pesticide containers shouldbe triple rinsed and disposed of properly.

● Aerial spraying of pesticides should not beconducted within 100 feet of a waterway.

● Steps should be taken to control erosion andsedimentation, including establishment ofperennial vegetative cover to protect the soil;establishment of cover crops that generatenutrients; practicing conservation tillage; andconstruction of sediment control structures.

● Highly erodible soils should be removed fromproduction.

● With the aid of NRCS and/or extension personnel,farmers should develop and implement nutrientmanagement plans.

Livestock/Poultry Production:

● As required by law, any new or expanded animalwaste treatment lagoons should not be locatedwithin 1/4 mile of waters of the State includingperennial streams, major tributaries, and adjacentwetlands, unless the lagoon is of “fail safe” design.In this case it may be located as close as 500 feetto a waterbody. In addition, all waste treatmentlagoons should have a clay liner. Synthetic linersare required for lagoons at large swine facilities(420,000 pounds or more of animal live weight).

● Animal waste treatment lagoons/storage pondsshould not be located within 50-100 feet ofdrainage ditches.

● Waste from confined animal facilities should bedisposed of in such a manner as to preventcontamination of surface or ground water. Animalwaste sprayfields should not be located within 100feet of perennial streams, major tributaries,adjacent wetlands, or drainage ditches or within 50feet of drainage ditches.

● Pastured or free-roaming animals should not beallowed uncontrolled access to rivers, tributaries,or adjacent wetlands. The animals should befenced out to prevent destruction of riparian forestbuffer and to prevent contamination of the waterfrom pollutants associated with fecal waste.Where it is necessary to allow access for drinkingwater, the access should be limited to onelocation.

Urban Development

It is recommended that all urban development activitiesin a waterway’s corridor be conducted according toBMPs developed by the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the South Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control. Urban development activitiesinclude those associated with commercial, industrial,municipal, and residential development. The followingare examples of urban BMPs to protect water quality:

● In plan and site development, disturb as little ofthe natural groundcover as possible.

● If large areas are to be excavated or land-scraped, consider removing and stockpiling topsoil to be replaced over the site after construction.

● Plan land development in harmony with thenatural runoff pattern and along the contour.

● Limit impervious surfaces.

● Accommodate runoff from land disturbed duringconstruction through the construction ofcatchment basins, berms, dikes, or diversiondrains in accordance with the S.C. StormwaterManagement and Sediment Reduction Act.

● In areas of low topographic relief, conductdrainage from the developed sites to naturaldrainage ways or construct ditches to preventponding of water or sedimentation around the siteor onto adjacent properties. Keep drainage inditches, swales and other grassed areas as longas possible and minimize the use of pipedsystems.

● From pre-existing or post-development of the site,fill gullies, reestablish ground cover, and reshapeeroded or excavated land to lessen the slope andreduce erosion. Use erosion nets, mulch ortemporary seeding on bare or unstable soil.

● Use bioengineering techniques such as livestakes, wattles, brush layering, brush matting,vegetated dikes, etc to stabilize shorelines, streambanks or other eroding areas of the site.

● Whenever possible, leave stream channels andflood plains in their natural, undisturbed state.

● Where topography provides sufficient space, aligntraffic patterns with streams, and plan streetsparallel to waterbodies while retaining anundisturbed stream buffer.

● Instead of shoreline or roadside stripdevelopment, cluster buildings and dwellings.

● Use streams and natural drainage ways to conductstorm water after preliminary controls andattenuation.

● Maintain streams as major landscape or sitefeatures.

● Rather than have a road simply follow theshoreline of a waterbody, provide viewing pointsand water access points off the main highway.

● Septic systems should be set back at least 50 feetfrom a waterway as required by existing DHECguidelines and properly designed and installed bya qualified contractors in suitable soils.

● Chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticidesshould be applied at appropriate rates and shouldnot be mixed or disposed of within 100 feet ofwaterways.

Along roads and their right-of-ways:

● Adequate culverts should be installed to managedrainage/runoff.

● The area around culverts should be stabilized.

● Proper erosion and sediment control measuresshould be implemented at all times.

● Mowing along roads is preferable to the use ofherbicides when managing roadside vegetation.

Scenic Quality

Land use activities of waterfront landowners have amajor effect on the scenic qualities. Land uses thatare compatible with the existing scenic, natural, andcultural qualities of the corridor should be encouragedwhile others should be discouraged. The followingBMPs are critical to the protection of scenic qualityand aesthetic values along the state’s waterways andare recommended for implementation by waterfrontlandowners:

● Openings or thinnings in the riparian buffer toallow for a view of particular features or scenesshould be established by selectively thinningunderbrush, shrubs, and low-hanging limbs.Cutting and felling trees should be avoided whenattempting to create views. Such view corridorsshould extend no more than 75 feet or 1/3 of thelot width, whichever is less.

● The exterior design and height of buildings andother structures may be designed to becompatible with and unobtrusive to the scenic,natural, and cultural qualities of the corridor.

● All signs should be designed to be unobtrusiveand blend with the surroundings. Commercialsigns should be prohibited and procedures for theremoval of existing signage should be provided.

● Restore the scenic quality of overused andabused areas in the corridor by landscaping andrevegetating eroded and abused areas, plantingadditional wooded buffers in areas where thebuffer is thin, and by controlling access andspecific uses that are causing degradation.

Wildlife Habitat

Riparian habitats, or water-bordering habitats, areecologically diverse and productive places. Whenmanaged to conserve natural conditions, riparian

habitats can support many wildlife species. Thefollowing BMPs are recommended to waterfrontlandowners for the protection of wildlife diversity:

● To conserve and enhance wildlife diversity,landowners are encouraged to maintain riparianhabitat corridors of naturally occurring vegetation.For the protection of wildlife values, a vegetatedforest buffer measuring at least 100 to 300 feet fromthe ordinary high water mark is recommended. Thewider the buffer, the greater the benefits for wildlife.

● Forest management within the riparian habitatcorridor should be designed to promote wildlifehabitat and diversity.

● Lands adjacent to the riparian buffer should bemanaged in a manner that sustains riparianhabitat values.

● Leave some groups of mast-producing tress suchas oak, hickory and dogwood.

● Maintain an understory of native herbaceous andshrub plants, a multi-layered tree canopy, diversetree sizes, and some standing dead snags andfallen trees.

● Riparian areas that have been devegetated anddegraded should be restored by re-establishingthe naturally occurring vegetation, particularlywhere restoration can enhance connectivitybetween adjacent riparian habitats.

● Maintain large, contiguous blocks of naturalhabitats and avoid habitat fragmentation that canbe caused by permanent land clearing. Enhancethe connections between existing natural habitatblocks, particularly to those that are isolated, byestablishing forest stands or habitat corridors.

● Fences or barriers which create a hindrance to themovement of wildlife should not be constructed inthe riparian corridor.

● The use of recreational vehicles in RFBs shouldbe avoided or minimized to avoid degradationcaused by the destruction of vegetation, erosion ofsoil, and disturbance of wildlife.

Appendix IIRECOMMENDED OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES FOR RIPARIAN FOREST BUFFERS

Adapted from the NRCS guidelines for operation and management of riparian forest buffers.

● The RFB should be inspected periodically andprotected from damage and destructive fire.

● Debris and sediment should be removed from allstructures as needed.

● Inspect RFB after heavy storms and check for anddisperse water where it is concentrated.

● Excess use of fertilizers, pesticides, or otherchemicals, vehicular traffic and the removal ordisturbance of vegetation and litter inconsistentwith erosion control and buffering objectivesshould be avoided.

● Stable debris should be conserved except wherefallen trees and debris create unstablestreambank.

● Vegetation should remain undisturbed except forremoval of trees that represent a hazard tostreambank stability or individual trees of highvalue or trees that are too old for effective nutrientremoval.

● Deposit material removed from the RFB should bedeposited at a sufficient distance so that it can notbe redeposited by high water into the stream.

● Where debris dams must be removed, try to retainuseful stable portions, which provide fish habitat.

● Vegetation, undergrowth, forest floor, duff layerand leaf litter should remain undisturbed exceptfor periodic harvesting of trees to maintain thefunctioning of the buffer.

● No mechanical or heavy equipment to be used insite preparation. Practices must be consistent with

good forest management practices for regeneration.

● Replacement of dead trees and shrubs and controlof undesired vegetation competition will becontinued until the buffer is or will progress to a fullyfunctional condition. Non-native plants, which areinvasive or are not naturalized for the area are not tobe used. Native species that thrive in the specificstream or site conditions are preferred.

● Adequate erosion control shall be continued in theup-gradient area immediately adjacent to thebuffer to maintain buffer function.

● Any removal of tree and shrub products should beconducted in a manner that maintains theintended purpose and in accordance with forestpractices guidelines.

● For purposes of moderating water temperaturesand providing woody debris and detritus, RFBmanagement must maintain a 50% canopy cover.

● For providing habitat and corridors for wildlife,manage the buffer to favor food, shelter, andnesting cover that would satisfy the habitatrequirements of the indicator or target wildlife.

● For purposes of reducing excess pollutants insurface water runoff and shallow ground water orproviding habitat and corridors for wildlife,manage the canopy to maintain a vigor ofoverstory and understory species.

● Use of fertilizers, mechanical treatments,pesticides and other chemicals should notcompromise the buffer and its intended function.

Appendix III TASK FORCE MEMBERSRecommendations of the Task Force were adopted by consensus and may not reflect agreement

by every Task Force member or endorsement of the participating organizations.

Tim AdamsSouth Carolina Forestry CommissionP.O. Box 21707Columbia, SC 29221(803) [email protected]

Ron AndersonEdens and AvantP.O. Box 528Columbia, SC 29202(803) 779-4420 ext. [email protected]

Bob BaconSouth Carolina Sea Grant Consortium287 Meeting StreetCharleston, SC 29401(843) [email protected]

Barry BeasleySouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources2221 Devine StreetColumbia, SC 29205(803) [email protected]

Larry BoylestonSouth Carolina Department of AgricultureP.O. Box 11280Columbia, SC [email protected]

Hugh CaldwellRichland County Conservation DistrictP.O. Box 192Columbia, SC 29202

Gary CannonMunicipal Association of South Carolina1529 Washington StreetColumbia, SC [email protected]

Breck CarmichaelSouth Carolina Department of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 167Columbia, SC 29202(803) [email protected]

Janet ClarkeSouth Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Jay ClingmanSouth Carolina Department of Parks, Recreationand Tourism1205 Pendleton StreetColumbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Michael ConeSouth Carolina Association of CountiesP.O. Box 8207Columbia, SC 29202

Denise ErnstSouth Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Ed EuDalyU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceP.O. Box 12559Charleston, SC 29422(843) 727-4707 ext. [email protected]

Ronnie FeasterUSDA Natural Resource Conservation ServiceStrom Thurmond Federal BuildingColumbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Gene GreenEdens and AvantP.O. Box 528Columbia, SC 29202(803) [email protected]

Charles GloverOCRM Appellate Panel1627 Pinopolis RoadMonks Corner, SC 29487

James HackettOcean and Coastal Resource Management1362 Mc Millan AveSuite 400Charleston, SC 29405(843) 747-4323 ext. 138

Wayne HallSouth Carolina Department of TransportationP.O. Box 191Columbia, SC 29202(803) [email protected]

William HansenUSDA Forest Service4931 Broad River RoadColumbia, SC 29212(803) [email protected]

Dave HargettOn behalf of South Carolina Wildlife FederationSuite 3011 Augusta StreetGreenville, SC 29601(864) 467-0811 ext. [email protected]

Dell IshamSouth Carolina Sierra ClubP.O. Box 2388Columbia, SC 29202(803) [email protected]

Crad JaynesSouth Carolina Timber Producers AssociationP.O. Box 811Lexington, SC 29071(803) [email protected]

Gerrit JobsisSouth Carolina Department of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 167Columbia, SC 29202(803) [email protected]

Michael KelseySouth Carolina Cattleman’s AssociationP.O. Box 1184Abbeville, SC 29260(864) [email protected]

Sally KnowlesSouth Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Jane LareauSouth Carolina Coastal Conservation LeagueP.O. Box 1765Charleston, SC 29402(843) [email protected]

Malcolm LeaphartTrout Unlimited115 Conrad CircleColumbia, SC 29212(803) [email protected]

Raymond MarrDucks Unlimited503 Shadowbrook DriveColumbia, SC 29210

Steve MooreSouth Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control1362 Mc Millian AvenueCharleston, SC 29405(843) 744-5838 ext. [email protected]

Steppen MurphyUniversity of South CarolinaDepartment of GeologyColumbia, SC 29208(803) [email protected]

Sheay NoelSouth Carolina Golf AssociationP.O. Box 286Irmo, SC 29063(803) [email protected]

Bruce PinkertonClemson Extension ServiceCrop and Soil ScienceClemson, SC 29634(864) [email protected]

Ward ReynoldsSouth Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control1362 Mc Millian AvenueCharleston, SC 29405(843) 747-4323 ext. [email protected]

Porter Rivers, III, PESouth Carolina American Water Works AssociationP.O. Box 1116Columbia, SC 29202(803) [email protected]

Shirley RuffinSouth Carolina Electric and Gas1426 Main StreetMail Code 146Columbia, SC 29204(803) [email protected]

Guy SabinSouth Carolina Forestry AssociationP.O. Box 21303Columbia, SC 29221(803) [email protected]

Wayne ShulerCentral Midlands Council of Government236 Stoneridge DriveColumbia, SC 29210(803) [email protected]

Phillip SlayterBudget and Control BoardOffice of Regional Development1201 Main StreetSuite 830Columbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Bryan SmithClemson Extension ServiceP.O. Box 160Newberry, SC 29108(803) [email protected]

Connie SmithSouth Carolina Poultry Federation1921 Pickens StreetColumbia, SC 29201(803) 779-4700

Barbara SpezialeClemson University132 Long HallClemson, SC 29634(864) [email protected]

Gary SpiresSouth Carolina Farm Bureau724 Knox Abbot DriveCayce, SC 29033(803) [email protected]

Kathy SteckerSouth Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control2600 Bull StreetColumbia, SC 29201(803) [email protected]

Ray TorresUniversity of South CarolinaDepartment of GeologyColumbia, SC 29208(803) [email protected]

John WalpoleOCRM Appellate PanelP.O. Box 8Wadmalaw Island, SC 29487

David WhitakerSouth Carolina Department of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 12559Charleston, SC 29422(843) [email protected]

Appendix IV DEFINITIONSAquatic Ecosystem – Any body of water, such as aperennial, intermittent and/or ephemeral streams,lake, or estuary and all the organisms and non-livingcomponents within it, functioning as a natural system(Kuntson and Naef, 1997).

Aquatic Habitat – Habitat for fish and other aquaticorganisms within bodies of water (Kunston and Naef,1997).

Bank Stability – The ability of a stream bank towithstand the erosive forces of water (in several formsas flowing, detained rainfall or saturated soils andgroundwater); gravity; ice (freeze-thaw cycles); woodydebris accumulations; and wind. The forcesassociated with soil and geological materials and therooting strength of plants combine to promote stability(Hansen, personal communications)

Brush Layering – Live branches placed in excavatedterraces, covered with soil and compacted to form aseries of benches (Fairey, in draft)

Brush Mattressing (matting) – A mattress likebranch layer placed on a stream bank and anchoredwith stakes or twine (Fairy, in draft)

Buffer - an area or strip of land maintained inpermanent vegetation to help control nonpoint sourcepollutants and manage other environmental problems.

Canopy – The vertical layers of stories of vegetationwithin a forest that extend from the ground to the topof the tallest tree. The canopy is formed by acombination of trees, shrubs, herbaceous plants,mosses, fungi, humus and various age classes ofthese plants. Species in different layers of the canopyoften have different light and moisture requirements(Knutson and Naef, 1997).

Diversity – The variety, distribution, and abundanceof different plant and animal communities and specieswithin an area (Knutson and Naef, 1997).

Ecosystem – Community of different speciesinteracting with one another and the chemical andphysical factors making up its nonliving environment(Miller, 1996).

Endangered Species – Wildlife species native to anarea that are significantly threatened with extinctionthroughout all or a significant part of their range(Knutson and Naef, 1997).

Ephemeral stream – A stream or river that flows onlyin response to rainfall events or for very short periodsafterwards. Groundwater levels seldom if ever reachthe surface. These streams often do not have enoughflow quantity or duration to develop a defined channelin forested conditions. In their stable form, theyseldom are a problem for warer pollution. Someintensive land uses can activate these streams toscour, move sediments and contribute to water qualityproblems (Hansen, in press).

Erosion – Process or group of processes by whichloose or consolidated earth materials are dissolved,loosened, or worn away from one area and depositedin another (Miller, 1996). The forces that causeerosion include gravity, moving water, wind, ice,volcanic activity, earthquakes, and animal and humanactivities on the land.

Eutrophication – Physical, chemical, and biologicalchanges that take place after a lake, estuary, or aslow-flowing stream receives excessive inputs of plantnutrients—mostly nitrates and phosphates—fromnatural erosion and runoff from the surrounding land(Miller, 1996).

Geotextiles – New, strong, natural or man-madenetting that contains some combination of sand,gravel, rocks, wattles or matting (Fairey, in draft).

Herbicide – Chemical that kills a plant or inhibits itsgrowth (Miller, 1996).

Intermittent stream – A stream or river that flowsbeyond rainfall events, but does not flow throughoutthe year. These streams typically have definedchannels and do not support a diverse population ofaquatic insects. Their channels flow often enough andwith enough force to scour, sort or move streamchannel materials (Hansen, in press).

Litter – Dead plant material, commonly leaves,needles, tiwgs, etc (Knutson and Naef, 1997). Thematerials are mostly intact and can be identified as towhat they are.

Live Cribwall – A retaining wall of logs or othermaterial with live branch cuttings planted in betweenspaces which grow to help stabilize the slope and hidethe original structure (Fairey, in draft).

Live Stakes – Fresh cut like stakes, such as willowstakes, driven into the ground which later root and

stablize stream banks or slumping areas (Fairey, indraft).

Native vegetation – Vegetation that naturally occursand thrives in a given area (Miller, 1996).

Non-Point Source – Pollution associated withactivities that do not normally have a confined pointsource or conveyance of pollutants, which may comefrom localized, distributed or accumulated naturalconditions and activities across a landscape.

Nutrients – Any food or element an organism musttake in to live, grow, or reproduce (Miller, 1996).

Ordinary High Water Mark – The natural or clear lineimposed on the shore or bank representing theordinary height of the water. It may be determined bybank shelving, changes in the character of the soil,destruction or absence of terrestrial vegetation, thepresence of litter or debris, or a combination of theabove.

Perennial stream – A stream or river that normallyflows throughout the year, except during extremedroughts. These streams typically have a definedchannel and support a diverse population of aquaticinsects, including some with life cycles that requirepermanent water. Their channels are able to sort andmove stream channel materials (Hansen, in press).

Pesticides – Any chemical or biological agent thatkills plants or animal pests, e.g., herbicides,insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides (Citizens’ TaskForce on Urban Stormwater Runoff, 1999).

Point Source – A single identifiable source thatdischarges pollutants into the environment (Miller,1996)

Pollution – An undesirable change in the phsyical,chemical, or biological characteristics of water, air, soilor food that adversly affects the health, activites, orthe survival of humans and other living organisms(Miller, 1996).

Porous Check Dam – A dam for small gullies usuallymade from posts, rocks, brush, wire or boards whichallows for accumulated sediment and growth ofvegetation (Fairey, in draft).

Riparian - refers to land adjacent to a body of water.Riparian Forest Buffer (as defined by the Task Force)-An area of vegetation that is natural or designed andmanaged, consisting of trees, shrubs and grassesadjacent to a stream, river, wetland or shoreline thathelps maintain the integrity of water resources.

Runoff – Water that flows across surfaces rather thanpermeating land. Runoff eventually enters a waterbody and may pick up and carry a variety of pollutants(Citizens; Task Force on Urban Stormwater, 1999).

Sediment – Material carried in suspension by water,which will eventually settle to the bottom (Knutson andNaef, 1997).

Sedimentation – The process of sediment beingcarried in and deposited by water (Knutson and Naef,1997).

Snags – Standing dead or partially dead trees thatshow signs of decay (Knutson and Naef, 1997).

Stream Bank – The part of the stream channel, whenseen in cross section, that restricts the sideways watermovement at normal flows (Knutson and Naef, 1997).

Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Animal and plantspecies that live primarily on land (Knutson and Naef,1997)

Threatened Species – Animal and plant speciesnative to an areas that are likely to becomeendangered within the foreseeable future throughoutsignificant portions of their range, without cooperativemanagement or the removal of the threat (Knutsonand Naef, 1997).

Tree Revetments – Dead trees, such as bushyevergreens like cedar, anchored in place (Fairey, indraft).

Vegetated Dike – A dike that is covered in a plasticnet and includes layers of stone, wattles and soil uponwhich vegetation fills in over time (Fairey, in draft).

Watershed – Land area from which water drainstoward a common watercourse in a natural basin.Organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sedimentsalso move toward the same watercourse within awatershed (Knutson and Naef, 1997).

Wattle – Bundles of branch cuttings toed together andanchored in gullies (Fairey, in draft).

Appendix VWORK GROUP MEMBERS

Policy Work Group

Tim AdamsSouth Carolina Forestry Commission

Ron AndersonEdens and Avant

Barry BeasleySouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Larry BoylestonSouth Carolina Department of Agriculture

Gary CannonMunicipal Association of South Carolina

Denise ErnstSouth Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control

Ronnie FeasterUSDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

Gene GreenEdens and Avant

James GrobowskiWestvaco

James HackettSouth Carolina Department of Health


William HansenUSDA Forest Service

Dave HargettSouth Carolina Wildlife Federation

Crad JaynesSouth Carolina Timber Producers Association

Gerrit JobsisSouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Sally KnowlesSouth Carolina Department of Health


Technical W ork Group

Tim AdamsSouth Carolina Forestry Commission

Breck CarmichaelSouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Ed EuDalyU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ronnie FeasterUSDA Natural Resource Conservation Service

Gene GreenEdens and Avant

James GrobowskiWestvaco

Wayne HallSouth Carolina Department of Transportation

Dave HargettSouth Carolina Wildlife Federation

William HansenUSDA Forest Service

Gerrit JobsisSouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Steppen MurphyUSC Department of Geology

Bruce PinkertonClemson Extension Service

Guy SabinSouth Carolina Forestry Association

Bryan SmithClemson Extension Service

Gary SpiresSouth Carolina Farm Bureau

Ray TorresUSC Department of Geology

Steve MooreSouth Carolina Department of Health


Porter RiversSouth Carolina American Water Works Association


Wayne ShulerCentral Midlands Council of Government

Phillip SlayterBudget and Control Board’s

Office of Regional Development

Gary SpiresSouth Carolina Farm Bureau

Kathy SteckerSouth Carolina Department of Health


William Edward TwilleyWestvaco

David WhittakerSouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources


Janet ClarkeSouth Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control

Jay ClingmanSouth Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation

and Tourism

Liz Gilland*South Carolina Forestry Commission


Linda Sinclair*South Carolina Department of Education

Jerry Shrum*South Carolina Forestry Commission

* Individuals served as Work Group members butdid not serve on the Riparian Forest Buffer TaskForce

Appendix VITIME LINE OF TASK FORCE EFFORTS

AND MAJOR AGENDA ITEMS

June 8, 1999TASK FORCE MEETING● Introductions● Project Overview

July 14, 1999EDUCATION WORK GROUP MEETING● Issue Identification

July 14, 1999EXISTING PROGRAMS WORK GROUPMEETING● Issue Identification

July 15, 1999POLICY WORK GROUP MEETING● Issue Identification

July 15, 2000TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING● Issue Identification

August 10, 1999TASK FORCE MEETING● Review of June Work Group Summaries● Review and Discussion of the Preliminary

Draft Report● Discussion and Consensus Agreement on

A. Purpose and Goals of the Task ForceB. Process to Guide Future Work

September 20, 1999EDUCATION WORK GROUP MEETING● Finalization of Issue Identification

September, 1999TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING● Finalization of Issue Identification

September, 1999POLICY/EXISTING PROGRAMS WORK GROUPMEETING● Finalization of Issue Identification

October 5, 1999TASK FORCE MEETING● Finalization of Issue Identification for the three

Work Groups

November 2, 1999TECHNICAL WORK GROUP MEETING● Discussion and Formulating

Recommendations on Technical Issues

November 16, 1999TASK FORCE MEETING● Preliminary Recommendations from the

Technical Work Group

December 14, 1999TECHNICAL AND POLICY/EXISTINGPROGRAMS WORK GROUPS MET TOGETHER● Discussion and Formulating

Recommendations on Technical Issues

January 10, 2000POLICY/EXISTING PROGRAMS WORK GROUPMEETING● Discussion and Formulating

Recommendations on Policy/ExistingPrograms Issues

January 11, 2000TASK FORCE MEETING● Finalized Technical Work Group’s

Recommendations● Preliminary Recommendations from the

Policy/Existing Programs Work Group

January 30, 2000POLICY/EXISTING PROGRAMS WORK GROUPMEETING● Discussion and Formulating


February 17, 2000POLICY/EXISTING PROGRAMS WORK GROUPMEETING● Discussion and Formulating


February 24, 2000TASK FORCE MEETING● Preliminary Recommendations from the

Policy/Existing Programs Work Group

March 8, 2000EDUCATION WORK GROUP MEETING● Discussion and Formulating

Recommendations on Education Issues

March 16, 2000TASK FORCE MEETING● Finalized Policy/Existing Programs Work

Group’s Recommendations● Preliminary Recommendations from the


April 13, 2000TASK FORCE MEETING● Finalized Policy/Existing Programs Work

Group’s Recommendations● Finalized Education Work Group’s

Recommendations

May 25, 2000TASK FORCE MEETING● Approval of the Final Report

June 24, 2000TASK FORCE MEETING● Approval of the Final Report

July 11, 2000COMMENTS ON FINAL REPORT DUE

Appendix VIIA summary of pollutant removal effectiveness values according to width of the vegetated buffer

(adopted from Desbonnet et al. 1994).

Author Width Sediment TSS N P NO3

Runoff Vegetation Slope Other (feet) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) Source (%)

Doyle et al. 2 9 0 Dairy Grass- 10 90 mT/ha1977 manure fescue

Neibling 2 91 Bare soil Grass 7 For coarse-& Alberts grained1979 sediments

Neibling 2 37 Bare soil Grass 7 For clay-& Alberts sized1979 particles


Doyle et al. 5 8 57 Dairy Grass 90 mT/ha1977 manure


Doyle et al. 12 95 99 Dairy Forest/ 35-40 Gravely,1975 manure scrub silt-loam

soils

Doyle et al. 13 62 68 Dairy Grass1977 manure

Young et 13 84 83 9 Dairy 4al. 1980 feedlot

Dillaha et 15 31 0 2 Dairy Orchard 5 Concentr-al. 1988 manure grass ated flow

Dillaha et 15 87 61 63 Dairy Orchard 11 Av.10,000al. 1988 manure grass kg/ha

manureapplication

Dillaha et 15 76 67 52 3 Dairy Orchard 16 Av. 10,000al. 1988 manure grass kg/ha

manureapplication

Magette et 15 72 17 41 Dairy Forest/ 35-40 Gravely,al. 1987 manure scrub silt-loam

soils

Dillaha et 15 63 63 63 Fertilized Orchardal. 1986 cropland grass



Doyle et 25 96 99al. 1975

Author Width Sediment TSS N P NO3

Runoff Vegetation Slope Other (feet) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) Source (%)

Schellinger 25 4 15 6 Dairy yard Fescue 2 Poorly& Clausen runoff & rye mix drained,1992 surface

sample

Schellinger 25 27 16 18 Dairy yard Fescue 2 Poorly& Clausen runoff & rye mix drained,1992 subsurface

sample

Dillaha et 30 58 7 19 Dairy Orchard 5 Concentr-al. 1988 manure grass ated flow


manureapplication


manureapplication

Dillaha et 30 78 78al. 1986

Magette et 30 78 86 51 53al. 1987

Thompson 39 45 55 46 Dairy Orchardet al. 1978 manure grass

Bingham et 43 28 25 28 Poultry Fescue 6-8al. 1978 manure

Mannering 49 45 Bluegrass& Johnson sod1974

Doyle et 50 97 99 Dairy Forested/ 35-40 90 mT/ha;al. 1977 manure scrub Gravely,

silt-loamsoils

Lake & 50 46 BluegrassMorrsion sod1977

Peterjohn & 62 90 62 0 60 Agricultural ForestedCorrell 1984 runoff

Young et al. 70 81 Feedlot Corn 41980 runoff

Young et al. 70 75 Oats 41980

Schwer & 85 95 92 89 Milkhouse Fescue & 2Clausen waste rye mix1989

Young et 90 93 Corn 4 25-year,al. 1980 24-hour

stormsimulation

Author Width Sediment TSS N P NO3 Runoff Vegetation Slope Other (feet) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) (% removal) Source (%)

Young et 90 66 87 88 Orchard 4 25-year,al. 1980 grass 24-hour

storm simulation

Young et 90 82 84 81 Sorghum/ 4 25-year,al. 1980 grass 24-hour

stormsimulation

Edwards et 98 23 31 29 Feedlot Fescue 2 Settlingal. 1983 runoff basins,

then thru60 m ofgrassbuffer

Doyle et 100 98 99 Dairy Forest/ 35-40 Gravely,al. 1975 manure scrub silt-loam

soils

Patterson et 115 71 Liquid Fescue 3.4al. 1977 dairy waste

Thompson 118 69 61 62et al. 1978

Wong & 148 90McCuen1982

Woodard 187 99 Natural,1988 mixed

Edwards et 197 87 83 84 Feedlot Fescue 2 Movedal. 1983 effluent thru 2 con-

secutive30m VFS

Baker & 259 99 Fertilizers GrassYoung 1984

Karr & 299 55 50 BermudaSchlosser grass1978

Karr & 705 97.5 90Schlosser1978

Karr & 997 99 97Schlosser1978

Lowarnce 85 30-42 83 Forestedet al. 1984

Jacobs & 99 Forest/ 79.6ha un-Gillam wetland disturbed1985 watershed

Rhodes et 99al. 1985

Reuter et 85 97 85-90 Fertilized Man-madeal. 1992 field runoff gravel

Schipper et 98 Sewage Forestedal. 1989 spray pine

Appendix VIIITOWN OF LEXINGTON AND

VINICITY�EXAMPLEThe Central Midlands Council of Government has assisted the Center for Environmental Policy in determiningthe land area comprising the riparian forest buffer at the widths of 35, 100 and 300 foot. The study area was a86,084.656 acre parcel of land in Lexington County that included the Town of Lexington and vicinity, a portion ofthe Lake Murray shoreline and the Twelve Mile and Fourteen Mile creeks.

35-Foot Buffer

Land Use Number of Acres in RFB Percentage of Total Areain RFB (%)

General Commercial 95.34 0.1

Industrial 35.85 <0.1

Limited Commercial 50.72 <0.1

Mobile Home 36.96 <0.1

Multi-Family Residential 16.91 <0.1

Public Parks 8.28 <0.1

Public/Institutional 343.97 0.4

Rural 1,482.70 1.7

Single Family Residential 614.72 0.7

Vacant 3,569.10 4.2

Miscellaneous 83.89 0.1

TOTAL 6,338.44 7.4

100-Foot Buffer



Industrial 85.04 <0.1

Limited Commercial 116.60 0.1

Mobile Home 86.58 0.1

Multi-Family Residential 47.29 <0.1


Public/Institutional 710.84 0.8

Rural 2,935.82 3.4

Single Family Residential 1,655.34 1.9

Vacant 8,176.43 9.5


TOTAL 14,271.64 16.6

300-Foot Buffer



Industrial 246.06 0.3

Limited Commercial 242.87 0.3

Mobile Home 234.18 0.3

Multi-Family Residential 122.84 0.1


Public/Institutional 1,608.92 1.9

Rural 6,453.53 7.5

Single Family Residential 4,832.11 5.6

Vacant 19,960.50 23.2


TOTAL 34,954.29 40.6

Appendix IXExisting Educational Organizations,

Conferences and Programsin South Carolina

TARGET GROUP:LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Existing Organizationsand Conferences

● International City/County ManagementAssociation: The International City/CountyManagement Association (ICMA) — theprofessional and educational organizationrepresenting appointed managers andadministrators in local governments throughoutthe world. The purposes of the Association are toincrease the proficiency of city managers, countymanagers, and other local governmentadministrators, and to strengthen the quality oflocal government through professionalmanagement. To achieve its goals, ICMAsponsors, develops and implements a number ofprograms that provide local governmentmanagers and administrators with expertise on avariety of topic areas. Programs include: a BestPractices Symposium, a Brownfields/SuperfundConsortium, International Municipal Programs,and an annual awards program and conference(ICMA, 2000). South Carolina has a chapter ofICMA, the South Carolina City and CountyManagement Association. More information onICMA can be found at www.icma.org.

● Municipal Association of South Carolina:Formed in 1939, the Municipal Association ofSouth Carolina (MASC) represents and serves thestate’s 268 incorporated municipalities. TheAssociation is dedicated to the principle of itsfounding members: to offer the services andprograms that will give municipal officials theknowledge, experience and tools for making thebest possible public decisions in the complexworld of municipal government. The Associationorganizes and sponsors conferences andworkshops for its members (MASC, 2000). Moreinformation on the MASC and its programs can befound at http://masc.state.sc.us.

● South Carolina Association of Counties: TheSouth Carolina Association of Counties (SCAC),chartered on June 22, 1967, is dedicated tostatewide representation and improvement ofcounty government in South Carolina. Thepurposes of SCAC is to promote more efficientcounty governments; to study, discuss andrecommend improvements in government; toinvestigate and provide means for the exchangeof ideas and experiences between county officials;to promote and encourage education of countyofficials; to collect, analyze and distributeinformation about county government; and topromote legislation which supports efficientadministration of local governments in S,C. TheSouth Carolina Association of Counties, incooperation with the Center for Governance of theInstitute of Public Affairs, University of SouthCarolina, and the Strom Thurmond Institute ofGovernment, Clemson University, offers theInstitute of Government for county officials. TheInstitute is designed to provide the opportunity forcounty officials to enhance their skills and abilitiesto function more effectively as elected officials.SCAC also sponsors a mid-year conference, andannual conference and a fall meeting of theCounty Council Coalition. More information onSCAC can be found at www.sccounties.org.

SOUTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATIONOF REGIONAL COUNCILS

Existing Programs

● Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials:Explaining environmental concepts to the publicand reaching them with current information hasalways been a difficult task. The NEMO projectwas created and designed in an effort to bridgethis gap. Our focus has been the explanation ofnonpoint sources and their link to different landuses. Particular attention is paid to the role ofimpervious, or paved, surfaces in the transportand concentration of pollutants. To guide towns,

NEMO outlines a three-tiered strategy of naturalresource-based planning, site design, and the useof stormwater best management practices thattowns can use to address their land use and copewith nonpoint source pollution (University ofConnecticut Cooperative Extension System,2000).

● ICMA Wetlands and Watershed ManagementProgram: Recently ICMA began its program,ICMA Wetlands and Watershed ManagementProgram, in conjunction with the U.S.Environmental Protections Agency’s Office ofWetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Thiseducational and public outreach program isdesigned to promote wetland and watershedprotection activities and to raise local governmentand community awareness of these issues. Theprogram will educate municipal officials onwetlands and management issues and promotethe conservation of these and other naturalresources through local and regional planning andpermitting processes. As part of this program,ICMA will soon publish a publication entitledProtecting Wetlands, Managing Watersheds…Local Government Case Studies, which willhighlight various management tools and strategiesused by communities to conserve and managetheir watersheds (ICMA, 2000).

TARGET GROUP: K-12 TEACHERS ANDSTUDENTS

Existing Organizations and Conferencesfor Teachers

● The South Carolina Department of Education:S.C. Department of Education providescoordination of science activities, leadership inscience education and professional developmentfor science teachers (EEASC, 1997). TheDepartment is also required to set the sciencecurriculum standards. In June 2000, thedepartment will release an implementation guidefor the standards, which will include sample lessonplans for each standard (Education Work Group,personal communication).

● Coalition for Natural Resource Education: Themission of the Coalition for Natural ResourceEducation (CNRE) is to develop and implementnatural resource education programs and todevelop and build broad based support which mayenable all S.C. children to form a commitmenttowards the wise and sustainable use of naturalresources for this and future generations (EEASC,

1997). The CNRE provides education programs andopportunities including lectures, field studies,workshops, scholarships, credit course and noncredit course across South Carolina (EEASC,1997). For example, the CNRE offers a two-weekcourse each year on natural resource subjects atthe Harbison State Forest. Teachers can take thiscourse for graduate credit (Education WorkGroup, personal communication).

● Environmental Education Association ofSouth Carolina: The EEASC is a non-profitassociation focused on environmental and naturalresource education in South Carolina. Its primarygoal is to instill a greater knowledge about andappreciation for the state’s natural heritage(EEASC, 1997). The EEASC holds a forum everyyear in August. The forum focuses on networkingbetween educators and allows time for individualsto explain their educational programs toconference participants. The EEASC also holdsconferences in the fall and spring at variouslocations around S.C. This year’s topic will be ongrowth management. About 5 years ago, theEEASC published a booklet of all the educationalenvironmental programs in the state. However,this booklet has not been updated since its originalrelease (Education Work Group, personalcommunication).

● South Carolina Science Council (SC 2): SC2 is astatewide professional organization of teachersand others who are concerned with theimprovement of science education in S.C.(EEASC, 1997). SC2 hold a conference eachNovember for science teachers (Education WorkGroup, personal communication).

● South Carolina Marine Educators Association:The S.C. Marine Educators Association (SCMEA)is a group of about 150 educators in SouthCarolina who focus on marine science education.They range from K-12 teachers to collegeprofessors to educators outside the classroomsuch as those who work at the S.C. Aquarium.SCMEA is affiliated with the National MarineEducation Association (NMEA) who sponsors anational NMEA conference each year around thecountry. SCMEA meets once each year for athree-day conference, which includes field tripsand marine science activities (Education WorkGroup, personal communications).

● South Carolina Middle Schools Association:SCMSA hold a conference each year for itsscience educators (Education Work Group,personal communication).

● Clemson Extension Service: Clemson Extensionprovides public service programs that helpcitizens, private enterprises and public agenciesresolve problems they face day to day. Extensionand Clemson University offer many programs andopportunities for teachers, such as 4-H and othereducational programs, volunteer opportunities,workshops, awards/competitions and scholarships.

Existing Programs for Teachers

● Project WILD: Project WILD, organized bySCDNR, is an interdisciplinary environmental andconservation education program of instructionalworkshops and supplementary curriculummaterials for teachers K-12. Each participantreceives the Project WILD Activity Guide, whichcontains over 100 activities. Workshops are sixhours in length with a minimum of 15 participants.There is no charge for the program (SCDNR,1999). More information on Project WILD can befound at http://www.SCDNR.state.sc.us/cec/educate/img/projectwild.pdf.

● Aquatic Project WILD: A continuation of theProject WILD program, Aquatic WILD emphasizesaquatic wildlife and ecosystems. Each participantreceives the Aquatic WILD Activity Guide withover 40 activities. Workshops last four hours witha minimum of 15 participants. There is no chargefor the program (SCDNR, 1999).

● Environmental Institutes For Teachers: TheInstitutes are held in cooperation with local schooldistricts and cover many topics related toenvironmental education. The Institutes offerteachers an excellent opportunity to learn aboutconservation education services available to thecommunity. Teachers who participate in theenvironmental institutes can earn recertificationand/or graduate credit (SCDNR, 1999).

● Environmental and Natural History Coursesfor Teachers: Clemson University offers a varietyof graduate-level science courses for in-serviceteachers, allowing them learning opportunities intopics such as: the natural history of SouthCarolina; wildlife biology; forest and naturalresources; and the geography and geology ofSouth Carolina. Teachers may also conductdirected research with Clemson life sciencesfaculty.

● Teacher’s Wildlife Conservation Workshop:The South Carolina Chapter of the WildlifeSociety and the SCDNR sponsor an annualworkshop for teachers of all grade levels. It is

designed to enhance an instructor’s understandingof the principles of ecology and wildlife biology.The workshop is staffed by wildlife biologists andemphasizes the scientific management of wildlifeand their associated habitats. A combination ofclassroom lectures and field trips are utilized inthe workshop. Participants have the opportunity toexperience a “hands on” approach to wildlifebiology. Accommodations are dormitory style atthe Webb Wildlife WMA in Hampton County. Afee of $175 is charged for meals and lodging.Participants have the option of receiving graduatecredit from Clemson University for the course atno cost for the first 25 participants registered(SCDNR, 1999).

● South Carolina Teachers’ Tour: The SouthCarolina Teachers’ Tour is a four-day tour of theforests and forest industry in South Carolina.Teachers tour public, private and industrial forests;discuss current forest issues and forestmanagement practices with professionals in theindustry; and visit wood products productionfacilities (furniture, lumber mills, paper mills, andother wood products manufacturing facilities). Inshort, teachers experience how forests are grown,harvested, made into useful products andregenerated into new forests for futuregenerations. The purpose of the tour is to providean unbiased look into the impact forests have onour state’s environment, economy, and quality oflife, and familiarize teachers with the SustainableForestry Initiative (SFI), a land stewardshipprogram practiced by the forest industry andlandowners. More information can be found athttp://www.state.sc.us/forest/tour.htm.

● Project WET: Project WET is an interdisciplinarywater education learning in all subject and skillareas. WET has many water related topicsincluding atmospheric, surface and ground water,chemistry, water history, watersheds, wetlands,aquatic life, water quality, water use, water rights,water conservation and stewardship. Workshopsare six hours in length with a minimum of 15participants. This program is sponsored bySCDNR (SCDNR, 1999).

● SC MAPS: SC MAPS is designed to introducestudents in grades 7-9 to South Carolina’slandscape by using high altitude aerialphotography, satellite imagery, topographic maps,other special purpose maps. It’s a balanced,supplementary curriculum that encouragesstudents to examine the natural and culturalhistory and landscapes of the state. The maps andcurriculum activities were chosen to provide

statewide and regional perspectives centeredaround unique geological features in the state.Study activities include history, geography,geology, ecology, earth science, developmenttrends, and environmental issues. Teachers mustparticipate in a SC MAPS workshop to obtain anactivity guide. This program is coordinatedthrough SCDNR (SCDNR, 1999).

● SC LIFE: SC LIFE is a middle-school naturalhistory curriculum being developed for SouthCarolina. The SC LIFE project uses the naturalhistory of South Carolina and the Southeast toillustrate basic biological concepts and tostimulate inquiry-based learning. Among otherendeavors, the SC LIFE project includes a teamof Clemson University naturalists and researcherswho offer summer field courses for middle- andhigh-school teachers, as well as researchopportunities for teachers and students. Moreinformation can be found at http://www.clemson.edu/SCLife/home.htm.

● Teacher of the Year: The objective of this awardsprogram is to create an awareness andappreciation of the value of environmentalconservation education and to stimulate efforts byteachers to advance the wise use, protection andenhancement of the nation’s soil and water relatedresources. The award recognizes two teachersannually (K-6 and 7-12) who have been activelyteaching and been responsible for developing anoutstanding program of conservation education.This program is sponsored by SCDNR (SCDNR,1999).

● Environmental Education Award: The EEASCpresents this annual award at its Spring meetingto an individual or organization for outstandingcontributions in environmental education.

● Conservation District Education Award: Anaward presented by the EEASC to a teacher. Theprize includes an invitation to attend the springmeeting and a free membership in theassociation.

● EEASC scholarships: Teachers may apply to theEEASC for scholarships to attend college creditenvironmental education workshops or coursesoffered by universities or colleges in S.C. Theprogram provides tuition reimbursement uponsuccessful completion of the workshop or course.

● Action for a cleaner tomorrow: “Action” is akindergarten through 12th grade, activity-based,interdisciplinary curriculum supplement that can

serve as a starting place for incorporatingenvironmental education in the classroom.Whether you are teaching students aboutrecycling, energy conservation, the water table, orair quality in South Carolina, these lessons arehands-on activities that help students get thefacts, think for themselves, form opinions, makedecisions, and take action for a cleaner tomorrow.“Action,” introduced in 1993, was developed andtested by South Carolina teachers. The curriculumsupplement has a glossary and extensiveresource section that offers background onspecific issues from a global, national and SouthCarolina perspective. The workshops, provided atno cost to teachers by the Department of Healthand Environmental Control (SCDHEC 2000).There are 10 lessons plans within the Actionprogram on water quality issues (Education WorkGroup, personal communication).

● Project Learning Tree: Project Learning Tree(PLT) is an environmental education programdesigned for teachers and other educators workingwith students from pre-kindergarten through highschool. It uses the forest as a “window” into thenatural world, helping young people gain anawareness and knowledge of the environment andtheir place within it. The S.C. program issponsored by the South Carolina ForestryFoundation, forest industry, S.C. Dept. ofEducation, and S.C. Forestry Commission (PLT,2000). More information including the PLTcurriculum, Branch newsletter and resources canbe found at the Project Learning Tree’s nationalwebsite located at www.plt.org.

● Investigating Your Environment Series: Thisseries is sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service.Investigating Your Environment (IYE) is asupplemental interdisciplinary curriculum for usein grades 6-12. The goal of IYE is to help developparticipants’ skills and motivation to interact withand understand their environment. Aninvestigative “hands-on” approach in whichparticipants observe their surroundings andcollect, record and interpret data is used in eachunit. Questions and discussions are designed toelicit maximum response and involvement fromparticipants and eliminate prolonged lecturing andteacher demonstrations. As students participate inthe activities, they hone critical-thinking skills andfollow basic problem-solving steps to predict anddraw conclusions from their data. Each lessonplan provides a framework in which succeedingactivities and discussions build on previouslessons and lead to an understanding ofenvironmental problems and possible solutions.

Learners are then asked to synthesize theinformation they have gathered to predictphysical, social and economic impacts upon theenvironment in a variety of situations (IYE, 2000).More information on IYE can be found at http://willow.ncfes.umn.edu/cons_ed/iye/iyeintro.htm.

Existing Programs for Students

● Discover Carolina: Discover Carolina is run bythe Division of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.This is an umbrella effort by the state parksystem, targeting school children that come to thepark and combine classroom and experientiallearning, using the following activity guides(Education Work Group, personalcommunication):

o Project Learning Treeo Project Wildo Project Aquatic Wildo Project WET

● S.C. Teaching KATE: Teaching KATE (KidsAbout The Environment) Program continues togive students the opportunity to learn aboutnatural resources in an outdoor setting, throughhands-on interdisciplinary activities. The corecurriculum is divided into four, three-hour classes:forestry, soils, water, and wildlife. In addition to theoriginal program, a seventh and eighth gradecurriculum is available for returning or advancedgroups (Teaching KATE, 2000). KATE’s (http://4hcamps.clemson.edu/kate.htm) site has acollection of environmentally related teachingmaterials that can be downloaded and viewed inyour word processor.

● JASON Project: Each year, JASON mounts amajor scientific expedition that examines one ormore of Earth’s dynamic systems. Scientists andtheir work become the basis for developing ayear-long, supplemental science and geographycurriculum crafted for students in grades 4 - 9.Endorsed by the National Science Teachers’Association, the JASON Project curriculumenables teachers and their students to use theexpedition as a framework for hands-on sciencelearning throughout the school year. It is rich inopportunities for classes to do local experimentsand data gathering that mirror the research beingconducted at the site. Using JASON’s OnlineSystems, teachers and their classes link to theexpedition and interact with other JASON classesthroughout the world. Teachers share teachingideas and link their classes in teams with otherclassrooms and schools. Students can share data

derived from their own local experiments withother schools and can interact with expeditionscientists. All of the discussion and sharing takesplace in our gated website, known as TeamJASON Online. Each current JASON curriculumincludes a registration for Team JASON Online.The effort is supported by on-going teachertraining that enables teachers to incorporate awide variety of technologies in their instructionand helps them bring science alive for theirstudents. JASON’s training program changes theway teachers approach the use of technology intheir teaching, encourages interdisciplinaryinstruction, and makes teachers co-learners withtheir students. During the spring, JASON conductstwo weeks of live, interactive “Telepresence”broadcasts that bring students into direct audio,visual, and data contact with the expedition site(JASON Project, 2000). More information can befound at the JASON project’s websitewww.jasonproject.org.

● South Carolina’s Wood Magic Forest Fair:Wood magic is jointly sponsored by ClemsonUniversity, the South Carolina ForestryAssociation, and the South Carolina ForestryCommission. The goal of the program is to teach4th graders how important forests and forestproducts are in their everyday lives. A key pointmade during this event is that through sustainablemanagement we can enjoy the many benefits of agrowing forest and can also harvest trees for thethousands of useful products that improve ourquality of life. More information can be found athttp://www.state.sc.us/forest/wm99fair.htm.

● 4H20 - Pontoon Classroom: This is a week-long,youth water quality education summer program,run through Clemson Cooperative Extension, inpartnership with local community associations andstate agencies. Programs are produced on lakesthroughout South Carolina, to provide childrenages 8-14 with knowledge about their local waterresources and to teach them field, analytical andcritical thinking skills needed to intelligentlyparticipate in making decisions that affect thequality of these environments. Each 4H20 -Pontoon Classroom is produced as anindependent community partnership. Eachprogram team consists of Cooperative ExtensionCounty agents, local representatives of stateagencies and members of a local lake or othercommunity association. This team approach notonly enhances the educational experience for thechildren, but also forges strong links between thepartners.

● ENVIROTHON: The Envirothon is a naturalresources problem-solving competition for highschool students. The event is sponsored by theSouth Carolina Conservation Districts Foundationand the South Carolina Association ofConservation Districts, and coordinated bySCDNR. It is a hands-on learning experience inthe form of a team competition to stimulatestudents and provide incentive to learn about theirrole in nature - how they are a part of nature andhow decisions they make can be beneficial orharmful to the environment. Students are testedon their knowledge of aquatics, forestry, soils,wildlife and one current environmental issue,which changes yearly. Winners at the state levelreceive college scholarships and travel to thenational competition (SCDNR, 1999).

● Conservation Poster Contest: The annualconservation poster contest is sponsored by theSCDNR in cooperation with conservation districtsand the South Carolina Wildlife Federation. Thecontest is open to students in grades K-4. Thetheme rotates each year between four topics: soil,water, wildlife and forest conservation. Winners atthe state level are displayed in the State Museum(SCDNR, 1999).

● Conservation Essay Contest: This annualcontest is sponsored by the SCDNR incooperation with Conservation Districts. Thecontest is open to students in grades 5-9. Thetheme rotates every year between four topics: soil,water, wildlife and forestry. The purpose of thecontest is to help students gain knowledge of ourresources, our responsibility as caretakers, and tohelp students develop organizational and writingskills. The S.C. State Library prepares abibliography of reference publications for use withschools. Winners at the state level receive $500savings bonds and passes to the S.C. Aquarium(SCDNR, 1999).

● Champions of the Environment: A uniqueprogram that recognizes and rewards students fortheir outstanding environmental achievementssponsored by SCDHEC, DuPont, InternationalPaper, and WIS. The program has two maincomponents (Champions of the Environment,2000).

● Champions Monthly Recognition Program:The Champions of the Environment MonthlyRecognition Scholarship program is open tostudents in grades K-12. Each month individualstudents, classes or groups of students areselected as Champions of the Environment based

on their environmental achievements. They arerewarded with a $100 saving bond scholarship, T-shirts, medallions, a feature of the Championswebpage, and star in a thirty second televisionspot highlighting their work. At the end of theschool year, all of the monthly Champions arereviewed. From that group, yearly Champions ofthe Environment are selected and awarded a$1000 saving bond scholarship.

● Environmental Awareness Competition: Anannual competition for sixth, seventh, and eightgraders. The S.C. Environmental Student AwardsCompetition has five divisions of competition(poster, photography, quiz bowl, spokesperson andessay) with awards given in each area. Fourfinalists in each category will receive a $100saving bond scholarship and the winners of eachcategory will receive a $300 saving bondscholarship. All poster, photography, essay andspokesperson entries must reflect each year’stheme. The 1999-2000 theme is “Do Your Part”.

● South Carolina Wildlife Federation SchoolyardHabitat: The Schoolyard Habitats Program wasformally created in 1995 by the National WildlifeFederation as an extension of the BackyardWildlife Habitat Program to focus specifically onassisting schools, teachers, students andcommunity members in the use of school groundsas learning sites for wildlife conservation andcross-curricular learning. NWF recognizes the on-going efforts of schools across the country througha certification process. Certified schools provideessential habitat for wildlife, as well as use thesesites as teaching tools integrated into thecurriculum. More information can be found at theSCWF homepage: http://www.scwf.org/schoolyard/index.html.

● Camp Wildwood: Camp Wildwood is designedfor high school students who enjoy being out-of-doors and strive to increase their knowledge andexperience in natural resources management.This camp has received numerous awards andwas originated in the 1950s. Located at KingsMountain State Park about fifteen miles northeastof York, S.C., Camp Wildwood is open to all tenth(must have completed ninth grade prior to camp)through twelfth grade high school students.Enrollment is limited to one-hundred campers.Sponsorships are available through local chaptersof the South Carolina Garden Club and the SouthCarolina Wildlife Federation. Sponsorship usuallyincludes payment of the camp fee by thesponsoring organization. A limited number ofscholarships and spaces are available. $500

college scholarships are awarded to the top maleand female campers of the week (SCDNR, 1999).

● S.C. Conservation Workshop for Youth: This isa nationally recognized education program forhigh school students sponsored by the S.C.Conservation Districts Foundation and localconservation districts. Conducted by staff of theSCDNR, other state agencies, industries anduniversity faculty, the workshop provides hands-onstudies in topics such as soils, forestry, land andwater management, reclamation, wildlife,conservation leadership and career opportunities.Tuition is paid by the Conservation Districts, and 1hour of college credit in Environmental Science isawarded to students who earn passing grades.College scholarships are also awarded toparticipants who excel in workshop activities(SCDNR, 1999).

TARGET GROUP: GENERAL PUBLIC

Existing Organizations

● Palmetto Conservation Foundation: PalmettoConservation Foundation (PCF) is a Columbia-based, nonprofit organization dedicated to naturaland cultural resource protection in South Carolina,including managing growth in a way whichprotects our quality of life. We bring a research-based, nonadversarial approach to land use,development, and conservation issues. TheFoundation board has adopted four programs.They are:

1. Conservation of South Carolina’s natural andcultural resources;

2. Preservation of South Carolina’s historicresources;

3. Promoting public access to natural andhistoric resources; and

4. Encouraging sustainable economicdevelopment policies

In March, 2000 PCF was a sponsor and organizerof a state-wide summit on Smart Growth. Moreinformation can be found on their website locatedat http://www.palmettoconservation.org.

● S.C. Federation of Women’s Clubs: TheFederation of Women’s Club has anenvironmental committee, which takes on several

environmental projects a year (Educational WorkGroup, personal communication).

● South Carolina Downtown DevelopmentAssociation: The Downtown DevelopmentAssociation is a statewide non-profit organizationthat provides assistance to communities to re-develop their central business districts. They alsohave established a statewide citizen advocacyorganization called “1,000 Friends of SouthCarolina. Members of the group receiveinformation on issues affecting the quality of life intheir communities, become networked to learn ofsuccessful efforts throughout the state, and aregiven the opportunity to participate in a statewidegrassroots consensus on approaches to addressissues and policies that are communicated todecision makers. Issues addressed by 1,000Friends include: growth management, land useissues, re-engaging people in the life of theircommunities, transportation reform, andenvironmental concerns. The DowntownDevelopment association also sponsors a LovableCommunities Conference each year.

● River Alliance: Formed in 1995, The RiverAlliance works to create economic prosperity andenhance the quality of life in Central SouthCarolina. This not-for-profit, public/privatepartnership developed a plan that provides forresidential, commercial, environmental,recreational, historical and cultural improvementsalong the lower Saluda, Broad and Congareerivers. This strategic design is based on theprinciples of sustainable growth, conservation andcommunity dialogue. Today, The River Allianceguides and advises in the plan’s implementation.Included in the Alliance’s proposal are ninecomponents that collectively represent the goalsthis community has for its 90 miles of riverfront:economic development; greenway system,paddling system; river villages; Congaree SwampNational Monument; environmental preservation;historical preservation; public involvement; andeducation.

● Lake and Watershed Association of SouthCarolina: This statewide organization is a chapterof the North American Lake Management Society.The purpose of the Lake and WatershedAssociation of South Carolina (LWASC) is topromote understanding, protection, andcomprehensive management of water resourcesand their watersheds. The objectives are to:educate the public on the importance of protectingSouth Carolina’s rivers and streams, lakes and

reservoirs, and their watersheds; provide a forum forsharing information and experiences on scientific,administrative, legal and financial aspects of lake,reservoir and watershed management; support thedevelopment of local river, stream lake and reservoirrestoration and protection programs, policies, andlegislation promoting river, stream, lake, reservoirand watershed management; encourage thedevelopment of local, state and national programs,policies and legislation promoting river, stream,lake, reservoir and watershed management;encourage the cooperation between and partneringof individuals, non-profit citizens organizations,industries and government agencies for thepromotion of watershed protection andimprovement; encourage the development andenforcement of legislation and laws to protect rivers,lakes and reservoirs and the rights of the public toenjoy these natural resources safely andresponsibly. The LWASC presents an annualconference and collaborates in producing bi-annualsoutheastern regional lakes managementconferences. For more information: http://www.nalms.org/lwasc/index.htm.

● Land Trusts: Several Land Trusts exist in thestate. For more information, contact each directly.

o Aiken County Land Trusto Beaufort County Open Land Trusto Black Creek Land Trusto Congaree Land Trusto Edisto Island Open Land Trusto Hilton Head Island Land Trust Katawba Valley

Land Trusto Kiawah Island Natural Habitat Conservancyo Lord Berkeley Conservation Trusto Lowcountry Open Land Trust Nation Ford

Land Trusto Naturaland Trusto Pacolet Area Conservancyo South Carolina Battleground Preservation

Trusto S.C. Heritage Trust Program: http://

www.heritage.tnc.org.nhp/us/sco Spartanburg Conservation Endowmento The Nature Conservancy Wetlands America

Trusto York Forevero Upstate Forever: http://

www.upstateforever.org

● Community/Civic Organizations: Many localcommunities and neighborhoods have formedtheir own community or civic organizations, whichmeet periodically throughout the year to discussissues that affect their communities.

● Lake Management and River AdvocacyGroups: Many local communities andneighborhoods have formed their ownorganizations dedicated to the protection andmanagement of local lakes and rivers.

Existing Programs

● Discover Carolina: The Discover Carolinaprogram, run by the Department of Parks,Recreation and Tourism, also reaches the generalpublic through its 50 parks and properties, whichconduct nature, based programs including foreststream ecology (Education Work Group, personalcommunication).

● Water Watch: The South Carolina Water Watchprogram is a unique effort to involve the publicand local communities in water quality protection.The Water Watch program was developed toencourage South Carolina’s citizens to becomestewards of the State’s lakes, rivers, streams, andwetlands. Volunteers select a water resource onwhich to focus and perform one or more activitiesin the areas of awareness (watershed surveys,shoreline surveys and familiarizing participantswith water quality regulations and ordinances);protection, restoration and enhancement (littercleanups and storm drain stenciling); and outreachand education (media campaigns), aimed atprotecting water quality (SCDHEC, 2000). Moreinformation on Water Watch can be found atwww.state.sc.us/DHEC/eqc/water/html/wtrwatch.html.

● South Carolina Aquarium: The theme of themuseum is “waters from the mountains to thesea.” The Aquarium will officially open in May2000 (Education Work Group, personalcommunication).

● South Carolina State Museum: The Division ofNatural History at the South Carolina StateMuseum is charged with the task of collecting,storing, documenting, interpreting and, whereappropriate, exhibiting this remarkable diversity ofSouth Carolina’s corner of the natural world. Sincethe Museum’s opening, numerous collectionshave been donated by private collectors, and thecollections are becoming strong in the fields ofVertebrate Paleontology and Entomology. Themuseum maintains a Science Gallery with arotating exhibit on science and technology. Themuseum has also begun a new weekend hands-oneducational program called NatureSpace. The Mayand June 2000 curriculum will focus on plants and

endangered species (South Carolina StateMuseum, 2000). More information about themuseum and its programs can be found at http://www.museum.state.sc.us/Index.htm.

● South Carolina Scenic Rivers StewardshipPrograms: Through SCDNR’s Scenic RiversStewardship Program, landowners and river usersare provided basic information on “their” river withemphasis on the relationship between land/wateruse and the quality (short- and long term) of theresource. Essential tools for the education/landowner contact component include river-specific slide shows, a fact sheet on therespective land management options, and a list ofcommon sense measures or best managementpractices (BMPs) to protect river resources. Foreach state-designated scenic river, program staffwill develop a slide show that focuses on river-specific information such as outstanding andunique resources, river issues, and managementplan recommendations. Each slide show will alsoinclude general information on land managementoptions available to riparian landowners throughthe Scenic Rivers Stewardship Program. Topromote stewardship, project staff will meet witheach riparian landowner one-on-one or in a smallgroup setting to explain the program and how itcould apply to the landowner’s parcel(s). An effortwill be made to build a relationship with thelandowner that results in effective landmanagement. Landowner response will be trackedover time (SCDNR, 2000). More information onthe Scenic Rivers Stewardship Program can befound at http://water.SCDNR.state.sc.us/water/envaff/river/stewardship.html#education.

● South Carolina Home A Syst: South CarolinaHome A Syst - the Homestead AssessmentSystem is a program that teaches home dwellersto protect the quality of surface and ground water.It consists of information and confidential self-assessments that help residents identify andcorrect water pollution and health risks from theirhomes and yards. S.C. Home A Syst is publishedby Clemson University through a grant from S.C.DHEC and distributed through county Extensionoffices and the Clemson University Bulletin Room.The current version of Home A Syst (84 pages)covers five topics: Site Assessment; StormwaterManagement; Managing Hazardous HouseholdProducts; Home Septic Systems; and Yard andGarden Care. A new chapter, Drinking WaterSource Protection, is planned for Summer, 2000printing.

● South Carolina Wildlife Federation BackyardHabitat: Backyard Wildlife Habitat Programfocuses on assisting homeowners and communitymembers in the use of backyards for theconservation and protection of wildlife. NWFrecognizes the on-going efforts of homeownersacross the country through a certification process.More information on this program is located at:http://www.scwf.org/backyard/moreinfo.htm.

● South Carolina Wildlife Federation Wildlifeand Industry Together: Wildlife and IndustryTogether (WAIT) is a program of the SouthCarolina Wildlife Federation in partnership withDuke Energy, the South Carolina Department ofNatural Resources and the National Wild TurkeyFederation. WAIT is designed to encouragecorporate landowners to integrate wildlife habitatneeds into corporate land management decisions.Corporate landowners can offset habitat loss bydevoting their under-utilized lands to wildlife. Thisis achieved by matching site employees who areinterested in wildlife with community partners todevelop habitat plans. The WAIT program alsoassists corporations, employees, facility neighborsand other groups who desire to developenvironmental projects in partnership with eachother. More information on WAIT can be found at:http://www.scwf.org/backyard/wait.htm.

● Top Logger Training: The Timber OperationsProfessional (TOP) Program and Workshops arethe South Carolina Forestry Association’scommitment to raising the professional standardof timber harvesting. TOP is designed to improvesafety, efficiency, and environmental protection.The three-day TOP Program provides the latestinformation on timber harvesting, safety, business,and environmental regulations. The course istailored primarily for owners and job foremen oflogging and site preparation operations, foresters,and landowners. The TOP Program issupplemented by one-day Workshops addressingspecific aspects of timber operations. Workshopsare offered on chainsaw and skidder operation,truck driving, road construction and other subjects.Additionally, to maintain their status as TOPtrained operators, TOP graduates must attend afield-oriented BMP training session and a one dayTOP Refresher Workshop within three years ofcompleting the original TOP Logger course. TheTOP Refresher Workshop updates attendees onchanges in BMPs, regulations, safety, and trendsin business management. Since its beginning in1994, over 1,700 people have graduated from theTOP Program — including loggers, foresters,

landowners, and many other forest-relatedprofessionals. The training is taught bycooperators from forest industry, the SouthCarolina Forestry Commission, and experts onsafety and insurance issues relevant to forestryoperations.

TARGET GROUP: LANDDEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS(builders, developers, consultants, landscapearchitects, civil and environmental engineers)

Existing Organizations and Conferences

● S.C. American Planning Association: TheSouth Carolina Chapter of the American PlanningAssociation (SCAPA) is organized to advance theart and science of planning and to foster theactivity of planning - physical, environmental,economic and social - in South Carolina. Theobjective of SCAPA is to encourage planning thatwill contribute to the public well-being bydeveloping communities and environments thatmeet the diverse needs of South Carolina(SCAPA, 2000). SCAPA holds quarterly mini-conferences throughout the year for its members(Education Work Group, PersonalCommunication). Members also participate innational APA conferences and other relatedconferences. More information on the SCAPA canbe found on their homepage located atwww.scapa.org.

● Homebuilders Association of South Carolina:The Home Builders Association (HBA) of SouthCarolina is a professional association comprisedof residential home builders. They include small-,moderate- and large-volume home builders,multifamily and commercial builders andremodeling contractors. The Home BuildersAssociation of South Carolina represents buildersto the General Assembly and provides liaison withstate government agencies. Each year the, HBAof S.C. organizes a state convention featuringworkshops, speakers and a trade show. Membersin the HAB are also invited to participate innational HAB conferences and workshops (HBA ofGreater Columbia, 2000). There are also localchapters of the HAB. Many of which holdworkshops and educational programs for itsmembers. More information on the HAB and localHAB chapters can be found at www.habofsc.org.

● South Carolina Association of Realtors: TheS.C. Association of Realtors is a trade associationcomprised of realtors and other professionals in

related industries united in purpose and dedicatedto providing knowledgeable and ethical real estateservices to consumers and fellow realtors. TheS.C. Association of Realtors strives to provide itsmembers with programs and services whichenhance the members’ ability to successfullyconduct their individual business in a competentand ethical manner, to promote cooperationamong its members, and to promote the public’sright to use and transfer real property. TheAssociation also participates in lobbying efforts ofthe National Association of Realtors on issuesaffecting property rights and the Real Estateindustry in general. There are also local chaptersof the S.C. Association of Realtors. Both the localand state wide chapters of the Association ofRealtors sponsor continuing education classesand workshops (York County Association ofRealtors, 2000). More information on the local andstate chapters of the Association of Realtors canbe found at www.screaltor.com.

● South Carolina Society of ProfessionalEngineers: The mission of SCSPE is to promotethe ethical, competent and licensed practice ofengineering and to enhance the professional,social, and economic well being of its members.The SCSPE works to promote the licensedpractice of engineering; to uphold high standardsof qualifications for licensing, and to communicatethe importance of licensing; to represent theengineering profession to the government andother factions that influence our future; to providelearning opportunities that enable licensedengineers to maintain practice competency; toprovide the ability to network with other engineers;and to provide information to engineers regardingissues and trends affecting the profession. Eachyear the SCSPE sponsors and annual conferenceand numerous other continuing educationalprograms and workshop. Member are alsoencouraged to participate in both local andnational chapters of the Society of ProfessionalEngineers conferences and workshops (SCSPE,2000). More information on the South CarolinaSociety of Professional Engineers can be found atwww.scspe.org.

● American Society of Landscape Architects:The ASLA is a professional organization forlandscape architects and other designprofessionals. The mission of the AmericanSociety of Landscape Architects is theadvancement of the art and science of landscapearchitecture by leading and informing the public, byserving members and by leading the profession in

achieving quality in the natural and builtenvironment. ASLA is the largest network oflandscape architects in the world, and the mostforward thinking and dedicated organization in theenvironmental and design professions. ASLAprovides its members with many opportunitiessuch as an annual conference and continuingeducation courses (ASLA, 2000). Moreinformation on the ASLA can be found atwww.asla.org.

SOUTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATIONOF SOIL SCIENTISTS:

S.C. CHAPTER SOIL AND WATERCONSERVATION SOCIETY

Existing Programs

● Stewardship Development CertificationProgram: Sponsored by SCDNR, this certificationprogram recognizes development projects in S.C.,which demonstrate outstanding environmentalstewardship through the protection, conservation,improvement and awareness of our valued naturalresources (Education Work Group, personalcommunication).

● SCDNR Land, Water & Conservation Division:In 1997, the SCDNR drafted a document titled “AGuide to Stewardship Development Concepts &Practices.” The document was prepared to promotenatural resources stewardship to those involved in

the land development process. Its primary audienceis to be developers, engineers, land planners andcommunity officials. As of April 2000, thisdocument remains in draft form (Elise Schmidt,personal communication).

● South Carolina Academy for Planning:Sponsored by the South Carolina Chapter of theAmerican Planning Association in conjunction withthe USC Institute of Public Affairs’ Center forGovernance and the Clemson UniversityDepartment of Planning and Landscape, thistraining program provides “systematic, ongoingquality training for members of boards andcommissions, staff, municipal and countycouncils, and other involved in land developmentplanning (South Carolina Academy for Planning,1999). The academy consists of two tracts towhich participants enroll: Planning Commission orBoard of Zoning Appeals. Completion of a path isreached after attending a total of eight course, ofwhich some are electives, and each participantcompleting the requirements will be awarded acertificate of completion. Examples of courseinclude Introduction to Local Planning, PlanningTools, Ethics in Planning, and Getting PublicParticipation in the Process (South CarolinaAcademy for Planning, 1999). Currently, there areno specific courses offered on environmentalplanning and management.

Appendix XS.C. Curriculum Standards for Science and HowRiparian Buffer Education Might Be Integrated

Kindergarten:III. Earth Science

A. 1. b. “Explore the natural flow of waterdownhill.” (Tie in - self explanatory.)

GRADE 1:IV. Physical Science

A. 3. a. “Investigate that some materials mixwith water and others will not.” (Tie in:How water pollution might occur and getinto nearby water bodies.)

GRADE 2:III. Earth Science

A. 2. g. “Investigate and describe how weatheraffects water supply and waterconservation.” (Tie in: Where doesrainfall go when it runs off of the land?)

GRADE 3:II. Life Science

C. 2. a. “Describe how habitats and organismschange over time due to manyinfluences (effects of natural forces,wind, rain, water, air, sunlight andtemperature).” (Tie in: What happens toaquatic plants when the water is cloudyand they can’t get sunshine? Whathappens to some fish if the water getstoo hot or cold?)

III. Earth ScienceB.1. d. “Infer how human behavior, such as

farming, mining, construction, changesthe Earth’s surface.” (Tie in - selfexplanatory.)


B. 3. a. “Describe changes in the environmentcaused by humans.”

B. 3. b. “Infer the impact of agriculturaltechnology (e.g., air/land/water pollutionand improved crop yield) on society andthe environment.”

B. 3. c. “Infer the impact of industrialtechnologies (e.g., air/land/ water

pollution and improved standard of living)on society and the environment.” (Tie in -self explanatory.)


B. 4. e. “Draw conclusions about the influenceof human activity on ecosystems.”

B. 4. f. “Discuss ways to minimize the negativeimpact of technology/industrialization onthe ecosystem and maximize thepositive impact.”

IV. Physical ScienceA. 2. f. “Research and identify common

pollutants, and their sources, and infertheir impact as they relate to waterquality, since water is the universalsolvent.” (Tie in - self explanatory.)


A. 2. b. “Infer the effects of water on theweathering of the Earth’s surface interms of solubility.” (Tie in - sedimentand how it comes to be in rivers/streams/lakes.)


A. 2. c. “Explain why soil (sediments) can be amajor pollutant of streams.”

A. 2. d. “Evaluate ways in which humanactivities have effected soil and themeasures taken to control the impact(silt fences, ground cover, farming, landuse, nutrient balance).”

A. 3. a. “Define groundwater, runoff, drainagedivide and drainage basin (watershed).”

A. 3. b. “Infer what happens to water that doesnot soak into the ground or evaporate.”

A. 3. c. “Analyze the factors that affect runoff.”

A. 3. f. “Identify technologies designed to reducesources of point and non point waterpollution.” (Tie in - self explanatory.)

GRADE 8:No specific standards - some may loosely tie in.

GRADES 9-12:II. Life Science

D. 5. b. “Discuss the conflicts that could occurbetween developers andconservationists.” (Tie in - selfexplanatory)

Appendix XIREFERENCES

Adams, T.O., D.D. Hook, and M.A. Floyd. 1995.Effectiveness monitoring of silvicultural bestmanagement practices in South Carolina.South.J.Appl.For. 19(4): 170-176.

Anderson, S. and R. Masters. 1993. Riparian ForestBuffers. Division of Agriculture Sciences andNatural Resources. Oklahoma State University.Cooperative Extension Service. Fact sheet No.5034.

Beaufort County, SC, Beaufort County Zoning andDevelopment Standards Ordinance (April 26,1999).

Beaufort County, SC, Beaufort County River QualityOverlay District (in draft).

Belt, George H., Jay O’Laughlin, and Troy Merrill.1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips forthe Protection of Water Quality: Analysis ofScientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife andRange Policy Analysis Group, Report No. 8.

Bureau of Water Pollution Control. 1996. The Stateof South Carolina Water Quality AssessmentPursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal CleanWater Act. South Carolina Department of Healthand Environmental Control, Columbia, SC

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994.Wetland and stream buffer size requirements—AReview. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1996. Forest andRiparian Buffer Conservation: Local Case Studiesfrom the Chesapeake Bay Program. USDA ForestService, Annapolis, MD.

Chester County, SC., River Preservation District(1999).

Comerford, N.B., D.G. Neary, and R.S. Mansell.1992. The effectiveness of buffer strips forameliorating offsite transport from silviculturaloperations. National Council of the Paper IndustryTechnical Bulletin No. 631, New York, NY. 48 pp.

Coyne, M.S., R.A. Gilfillen, R.W. Rhodes, and R.L.Blevins. 1995. Soil and fecal coliform trapping bygrass filter strips during simulated rain. Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation 50(4): 405-408.

Crawford, J.K. and D.R. Lenat. 1989. Effects of landuse of the water quality and biota of three streamsin the Piedmont Province of North Carolina. In:Water Resources Investigation Report 89-4007.Raleigh, NC: US Geological Survey.

Daniels, R.B. and J.W. Gilliam. 1996. Sediment andchemical load reduction by grass and riparianfilters. Soil Science Society of America Journal6:246-251.

Desbonnet A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994.Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone: A summaryreview and bibliography. Providence. RI:University of Rhode Island.

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mostaghimi,and V.O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation ofvegetative filter strips as a best managementpractice for feed lots. Journal of the WaterPollution Control Federation 60(7): 1231-1238.

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Montaghimi, and D.Lee. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agriculturalnonpoint source control. Transactions of theASAE 32(2): 513-519.

Dillaha, T.A. and S.P. Inamdar. 1997. Buffer zones assediment traps or sources. pp 33-42. in: BufferZones: Their Processes and Potential in WaterProtection, N. Haycock, T. Burt, K. Goulding andG. Pinay (eds). Harpenden, U.K.:QuestEnvironmental

Environmental Education Association of SouthCarolina (EEASC). 1997. The Russ ShererSouth Carolina Environmental EducationResources Directory. EEASC, Hartsville, SC.

Environmental Law Institute. 1998. Almanac ofEnforceable State Laws to Control NonpointSource Water Pollution. Washington, D.C. 293pp.

Frick, E.A., D.J. Hippe, G.R. Buell, C.A. Couch, E.H.Hopkins, D.J. Wangsness, J.W. Garret. 1998.Water Quality in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, 1992-1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1164.

Gilliam. J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and waterquality. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:896-900.

Gilliam, J.W., J.E. Parsons, and R.L. Mikkelsen.1996. Nitrogen dynamics and BufferZones. pp 54-61. in: Buffer Zones: TheirProcesses and Potential in Water Protection., N.Haycock, T. Burt, K. Goulding and G. Pinay (eds).Harpenden, U.K.:Quest Environmental.

Hansen, W.F. and D.L. Law. 1993. RiparianManagement on the National Forests of SouthCarolina. In Conference Proceedings of RiparianEcosystems in the Humid US, Atlanta, GA.Published by the National Association ofConservation Districts, Washington, DC

Hansen, W.F. Identifying Stream Types andManagement Implications, in press

Heraty, M. 1993. Riparian Buffer Programs: A guideto developing and implementing a riparian bufferprogram as an urban stormwater bestmanagement practice. Metropolitan WashingtonCouncil of Governments U.S. EPA Office ofOceans, Wetlands, and Watersheds. 152 pp.

Jones, D. 2000. Implementation Monitoring ofForestry Best Management Practices forHarvesting and Site Preparation in South Carolina1997-1999. South Carolina Forestry Commission,Columbia, SC. BMP-4, 16 pp.

Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll and D.E. Weller. 1993.Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receivinginputs from adjacent cropland. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 22:467-473.

Knuston, K.L. and V.L. Naef. 1997. ManagementRecommendations for Washington’s PriorityHabitats: Riparian. Wash. Dept, Fish and Wildl.,Olympia. 181pp.

Kundell, J.E. and T.C. Rasmussen. 1995. Erosionand Sedimentation: Scientific and RegulatoryIssues. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.

Lowrance, R.L. and 12 others. 1997. Water qualityfunctions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake

Bay watersheds. Environmental Management21(5):687-712.

Lowrance, R.L., S. McIntyre and C. Lance. 1988.Erosion and deposition in a field/forest systemestimated using cesium-137 activity. Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation 43: 195-199.

Lowrance, R., R. Leonard and J. Sheridan. 1985.Managing Riparian Ecosystems to ControlNonpoint Source Pollution. Journal of Soil andWater Conservation 40(1): 87-91.

Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D.Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal byvegetated filter strips. Transactions of the ASAE32(2):663-667.

Miller, G.T. 1996. Living in the Environment:Principles, Connections and Solutions. WadsworthPublishing Company, Boston Massachusetts

Municipal Association of SC & SC Association ofCounties. 1994. Comprehensive Planning Guidefor Local Governments: 10.

National Resources Inventory. 1992. SummaryReport. U.S. Department of Agriculture, SoilConservation Service, Iowa State University.

Neary, D.G., P.B. Bush and J.L. Michael. 1993. Fate,dissipation and environmental effects of pesticidesin southern forests: A review of a decade ofresearch progress. Environmental Toxicology andChemistry 12: 411-428.

Norris, V. 1993. The use of buffer zones to protectwater quality: A Review. Water ResourcesManagement 7: 257-272.

North Carolina, Neuse River Basin: Nutrient SensitiveWaters Management Strategy: Protection andMaintenance of Riparian Areas with ExistingForest Vegetation (July 22. 1997)

Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrientdynamics in an agricultural watershed:Observations on the role of a riparian forest.Ecology 65(5): 1466-1475.

Plakfin, E.T., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross,and R.M. Huges, 1989. Rapid Bioassessmentprotocols for use in streams and rivers. Benthicmacroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. EPA, Office ofWater, EPA/444/4-89-001. Washington, DC.

Rabeni, C.F, and M..A. Smale. 1995. Effects ofsiltation on stream fishes and the potentialmitigating role of the buffering riparian zones.Microbiologia 303:211-219.

Report of the Citizens’ Task Force on Urban StormwaterRunoff. Escambia County, FL (March 21, 2000)

Reynolds, W. in press. The Economics of VegetatedBuffers and Their Effects on Property Values.Office of Ocean and Coastal Research, SouthCarolina Department of Environmental Health andControl, Charleston, SC

Reynolds, Ward. 1999. Guidelines for VegetatedRiparian Buffers and Buffer Ordinances. Office ofCoastal Resource Management, Charleston, SC.

Scheuler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban StreamProtection. Silver Springs, MD: Center forWatershed Protection.

Schueler, T. 1995. The architecture of urban streambuffers. Watershed Protection Techniques 1(4):155-163.

South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control (SCDHEC). 2000. Actionfor a cleaner tomorrow: A South CarolinaEnvironmental Curriculum Supplement. SCDHEC,Columbia, SC

South Carolina Department of Health and Control(SCDHEC). 1999. Recommendations forVegetated Buffer and Buffer Ordinances in SouthCarolina. Columbia, SC.

South Carolina Forestry Commission. 1994. TheSouth Carolina’s Best Management Practices forForestry. SC Forestry Commission, Columbia, SC

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources(SCDNR). 1999. Education Programs of theSouth Carolina Department of Natural Resources.SCDNR, Columbia, SC

Strahler, A.N., 1957. Quantitative analysis ofwatershed geomorphology. Transactions,Am.Geophys. Union, Vol. 38, No. 6. 913-920.

Tonning, B. 1998. Nonpoint Source News Notes.April/May 1998, p11.

Town of Bluffton, SC., Ordinance to Reconfirm theAdoption of the River Protection Overlay Districtand to Expand the Development SetbacksProvided in the River Protection Overlay District(in draft)

Wahl, M.H., H.M. McKellar, T.M. Williams. 1997.Patterns of Nutrient Loading in Forested andUrbanized Coastal Streams. Journal ofExperimental Marine Biology and Ecology213:111-131.

Welsch, D.J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers:Function and Design for Protection andEnhancement of Water Resources. Radnor, PA:USDA Forest Service.

Wenger, Seth and Laurie Fowler. 1999. Guidebookfor Developing Local Riparian Buffer Ordinances.Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Institute ofEcology, Office of Public Service & Outreach.

Wenger, S.J. 1999. A Review of the ScientificLiterature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent, andVegetation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia,Inst. Of Ecology Office of Public Service andOutreach.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997.Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)Conservation Practice Standard for RiparianForest Buffer. USDA, Washington, DC

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. 1997 Censusof Agriculture, South Carolina AgriculturalStatistical Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. AgriculturalStatistics 1999, Agricultural Conservation andForestry Statistics.

U.S. General Services Administration. 1996.Inventory Report on Real Property Owned by theUnited States Throughout the World.

U.S. EPA. 1992. Managing Nonpoint SourcePollution. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 197pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1991. Bufferstrips for riparian zone management. Waltham.MA:USACE.

Uusi-Kämppä , J., E. Turtola, H. Hartikainen, and T.Yläranta. 1997. The interactions of buffer zonesand phosphorus runoff. pp 43-53. in: BufferZones: Their Processes and Potential in WaterProtection., N. Haycock, T. Burt, K. Goulding andG. Pinay (eds). Harpenden, U.K.:QuestEnvironmental.

York County, SC., Catawba River Buffer (May 3, 1999)

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods and W. Anderson. 1980.Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips oncontrolling pollution from feedlot runoff. Journal ofEnvironmental Quality 9(3): 483-487.

Zirschky, J.D., D. Crawford, L. Norton, and D.Deemer. 1989. Metals removed in overflow land.Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation16: 470-475.

Website References

Alliance Public Policy Program. 1999. RiparianForest Buffers. http://www.acb-online.org/forest.html

American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).2000. Homepage. http://www.asla.org

Chesapeake Bay Program. Homepage. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/index.htm

Farmsource. Operation Green Stripe: For Land andCommunity. Homepage. http://www.farmsource.com/Conservation/OGS.asp

Georgia Pacific. Homepage. http://www.gp.com/

Home Builders Association of Greater Columbia.2000. About the HBA and its members. http://www.columbiabuilders.com/about.htm

International City/County Management Association(ICMA). 2000. ICMA Wetlands And WatershedManagement Program. http://www.icma.org

International Paper. Homepage. http://www.internationalpaper.com/

Investigating Your Environment (IYE). 2000.Homepage. http://willow.ncfes.umn.edu/con_ed/iye/iyeintro.htm

JASON Project. 2000. Homepage. http://www.jasonproject.org

Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act. Homepage.http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/dep/consumer/rpa.htm

Maryland Department of Natural Resources.Homepage. http://www.dnr.state.md.us/Forests/Pulications/buffers.htm

Municipal Association of South Carolina (MASC). 2000.Homepage. http://www.masc.state.sc.us

Palmetto Conservation Foundation (PCF). 2000.http://www.palmettoconservation.org

Project Learning Tree (PLT). 2000. Homepage.http://www.plt.org

South Carolina American Planners Association(SCAPA). Homepage. http://www.scapa.org

South Carolina Association of Counties (SCAC).2000. Homepage. http://www.sccounties.org

South Carolian Aquarium. 2000. http://www.scaquarium.org

South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control (SCDHEC). 2000.General website, http://www.state.sc.us/dhec/eqc

South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control (SCDHEC). 2000b. WaterWatch Homepage. http://www.state.sc.us/SCDHEC/eqc/water/html/wrwatch.html

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources(SCSCDNR). 2000. Riparian Land Managementalong State-Designated Scenic Rivers. http://water.SCDNR.state.sc.us/water/envaff/river/stewardship.html#education

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.Homepage. http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/water

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources(SCDNR). 2000. Riparian Land Managementalong State-Designated Scenic Rivers. http://water.dnr.state.sc.us/water/envaff/river/stewardship.html#education

South Carolina Forestry Commission. 2000.Homepage. http://www.state.sc.us/forest

South Carolina Science Council (SC2). 2000. http://www.scssi.scetv.org/sc2

South Carolina Science Curriculum Standards. 2000.http://www.state.sc.us/sde/educator/standard/science

South Carolina Society of Professional Engineers(SCSPE). Homepage. http://www,scspe.org

South Carolina State Museum. 2000. Homepage.http://www.museum.state.sc.us/Index.htm

South Carolina Water Watch. 2000. Homepage.http://www.state.sc.us/dhec/eqc/water/html/wtrwatch.html

South Carolina Wildlife Federation. 2000. Homepage.http://www.scwf.org

Teaching KATE. 2000. Homepage. http:/4hcamps.clemson.edu/kate.htm

University of Connecticut Cooperative ExtensionSystem. 2000. Nonpoint Education For MunicipalOfficials. http://www.lib.uconn.edu/CANR/ces/NEMO

U.S. EPA. Homepage. http://www.epa.gov/surf2/SC/stateiwi.html

U.S. EPA. 1998. Clean Water Action Plan.Homepage. http://www.cleanwater.gov/action/toc.html

York County Association of Realtors. 2000.Homepage. http://www.ycar.com/

SC Department of Health and Environmental Control contributed to the design of this publication.CR-003083 8/00

USC Institute of Public AffairsCenter for Environmental Policy

1516 Carolina PlazaColumbia, SC 29208

(803) 777-4568(803) 777-4575 Fax

e-mail: [email protected] address: http://www.iopa.sc.edu

riparian forest buffers - clemson universitymedia.clemson.edu/public/restoration/carolina...

Documents