Assessment of the Reestablishment of Riparian Buffers Along Steven ’ s Brook, St. Albans, Vermont

1. Assessment of the Reestablishment of Riparian Buffers Along Steven’s Brook, St. Albans, Vermont Presented by Students of ENSC 202: Reuben Baris, Richard Balouskus, Lindsay Fletcher, Kimberly Parker, and Perry Scofield May 6, 2005

2. Problem Statement • Development encroachment on riparian forests along Stevens Brook, west of Downtown St. Albans, has resulted in increased stream and stream corridor degradation: • Impact on water quality • Increased stream bank erosion • Increased sediment loading

3. Site Description

4. Site Description • Split between agriculture land and urban development • Associated issues • Lawns • Crops • Sediment deposition, bank stability, etc… • Where to go now?

5. Background • Riparian zones are of concern • Development has decreased effective ecological functions • Long history of farming • Move toward incentive programs in agriculture areas

6. Goals • Identify areas of risk • Assess the probable impact of the reestablishment of riparian buffers • Predict the effectiveness of these buffers to aid: • Reduction of sediment load • Bank stabilization • Improvement of water quality • Make recommendations about the probability of reestablishment of riparian buffers

7. Objectives • Identify areas of Steven’s Brook that have reduced or removed riparian forests • Assess level of risk of identified areas • Utilize GIS capabilities • Assess feasibility and likelihood of reestablishment

8. Urban Determined potential for a buffer. Looked at two sites with potential. Gained perspective from Staci Pomeroy. Agriculture Looked to assess areas with buffers in place. Approaches 1. Site Visit

9. Approaches 2. GIS

11. GIS

12. Urban Findings

13. Urban characteristics • Roughly 8,000 citizens • 2.0 square miles • Highly centralized urbanization in downtown area

14. Urban Characteristics • Highly manipulated through urban reaches • Flow restrictions and channelization • Pavement and grass right up to stream • 9.47 acres of urban land use in 300 ft buffer. 1375 ft of riverbank.

15. Urban Buffer • 44% of this area is on hydrogroup C soils. 600 ft of riverbank. • This further compounds impervious area issues • 16% of the urban area is both on C hydrogroup soil and occurs on steeper slopes. 219 ft river bank • These are areas of most concern on the stream

16. Agriculture Findings

17. Agriculture Characteristics • Over 32,000 acres of agricultural land used primarily for dairy production • Agriculture fields are flush against riverbanks • Increased loading into Steven’s Brook http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/rcwp/vtprof.html

18. Agricultural Buffer • 12.55 acres of agricultural land use in 300 ft buffer. 1823 ft riverbank • 61% of this area is on C or D hydrogroup soils • 42% of the 12.55 acres is on these impervious hydrogroup soils and on high slopes. 750 ft riverbank

19. Agricultural Buffer • Roots hold soil in place and absorb water -help prevent eroding banks and landowners from losing valuable agricultural land • Plant help trap sediments -help prevent degrading drinking water, and filling of lakes and wetlands • Needed on farmland due to the harsh impacts agricultural practices -runoff; pesticides, fertilizers, sediment • Benefits to landowners, the general public, and of course the environment

20. Agricultural Buffer

21. Recommendations Urban Buffer Focus on hydrogroup C, with highest slopes Work with landowners (individually) Install 30-40ft buffers where possible Agricultural Buffer Focus on hydrogroup D, with highest slopes Farmer incentive programs Education Cooperation with Fish and Wildlife Service

22. Constraints Urban • Because of development, buffer width is confined to pervious areas • Landowner cooperation • Some LOVE their lawns Agriculture • Long history of farming • Economic loss….incentives enough? • Effectiveness in the eyes of farmers • education

23. Constraints • Interest of landowners was not gauged • Spatial analysis and recommendations done on coarse scale • 25mx25m grid size • 300 ft buffer unrealistic • Who’s responsible? • Maintenance

24. Conclusion • St. Albans offers two distinct possibilities for riparian buffer installation • Prioritizing reaches at the highest risk for stream degradation is step one • Gauging landowner interest and education must follow