In early October the search was on for a site in the Bay watershed for the November 18 Bay Program Forestry Workgroup meeting. Educational workgroup meetings are good because members can get out of their offices and visit the fields and forests of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. After a few calls, the Virginia Tech Mare Equine Center in Middleburg, Virginia, separated itself from other choices. It was a perfect location for the forestry workgroup meeting because it has a 23-acre riparian forest buffer, and forest buffers would be the focus of the meeting.
Riparian forest buffers are a topic near and dear to my everyday life. People often tell me I live in “buffer land” because my job is very specific to that area of forestry. I really am very interested in watersheds as holistic ecosystems and think of forest buffers as the integral link between what happens on the land and how those actions are reflected in the water quality of streams and rivers.
Along with other Bay goals, the riparian forest buffer goal will fall short of the 10,000-mile commitment made for the 2010 deadline. The number of riparian buffer miles achieved annually has dropped off from 1,122 miles in 2002 to 385 miles in 2007. Since Forestry Workgroup members represent state forestry agencies, NGOs, and other groups interested in Bay forests, they are the logical group to come up with ways to address barriers that stand in the way of achieving state riparian forest buffer commitments. We spent the afternoon of the Forestry Workgroup meeting discussing the barriers to riparian forest buffer plantings and ways to eliminate those barriers.
The Forestry Workgroup meeting also featured two presentations on new riparian forest buffer tools intended for use by local governments, watershed groups, and local foresters. The first presentation, given by Fred Irani from the U.S. Geological Survey team at the Bay Program office, was about the RB Mapper, a new tool developed for assessing riparian forest buffers along shorelines and streambanks. The other presentation, given by Rob Feldt from Maryland DNR, was about a tool for targeting the placement of riparian forest buffers for more effective nutrient removal. (You can read all of the briefing papers and materials from the Forestry Workgroup meeting at the Bay Program’s website.)
After all the business, it was time to experience the Mare Center, their streamside forest buffer and the rolling hills of Virginia. A tractor and wagon provided transportation to the pasture to see the buffer, which was planted in 2000 with 2,500 tree seedlings. It was a cold and windy day, and there were actually snowflakes in the air. We had planned to ride the wagon out and walk back, however, with a little bit of a bribe, the wagon driver waited while we checked out the forest buffer for survival, growth, and general effectiveness for stream protection.
The Forestry Workgroup meeting was productive, educational, and enjoyable. How often can we say that about group meetings? Sometimes it is worth the extra effort to provide a meeting place with an outdoor component that conveys the endeavors that the Bay Program workgroups are all about.