1. Streamside forests reduce nutrient pollution of aquatic ecosystems Donald E. Weller, Thomas E. Jordan, and Matthew E. Baker Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

2. Ecosystem services Terrestrial –Wildlife habitat –Carbon sequestration –Forest products Aquatic –Aquatic food chain –Control temperature –Pollutant regulation –Nutrient removal

3. Field studies of nitrogen removal

4. Distance from field toward stream (m) Nitrate concentration (mg N/l) Mid-Atlantic removal results

5. National stream and river restoration Riparian restorations 1990-2003 > 20,000 projects > $5 billion

6. Buffer prevalence varies widely

7. Problems “scaling up”... Watershed results mixed Transect results striking ?

8. (Mal)adaptive management Knowledge Evaluation Measurement Implementation

9. Overlay sources and streams on elevation Identify downhill transport pathways transport pathway for 1 pixel Quantify width & aggregate paths Well- buffered pathway Not so well-buffered New geographic analysis sources flowpaths sinks

10. Prioritizing management efforts

11. Chesapeake Bay example  321 watersheds  3 physiographic provinces  focus on cropland and buffers  empirical models for stream nitrate

12. Benefits differ among regions Stream Nutrient Levels <no buffers <current buffers <complete buffer <no cropland

13. Overall reductions 16% 32% 68%

14. Policy implications Protect riparian areas –Conserve existing forest buffers –Restore missing forest buffers Outreach and education Focus incentive funding –Regional targeting –Site level targeting Implement adaptive management –Improve models for estimating benefits –Measure outcomes