Journal of Hydrology, 110 (1989) 221-237 221

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

[1]

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS OF

RIPARIAN FORESTS ALONG A COASTAL PLAIN RIVER

JONATHAN D. PHILLIPS
Department of Geography and Planning, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353
(U.S.A.)
(Received November 22, 1988, accepted after revision January 16, 1989)

ABSTRACT

Phillips, J.D., 19S9. Nonpoint source pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests along a
coastal p:ia~n river. J. Hydrol., 110: 221-237.

A detention-time model of water quality buffer zones is used to evaluate the nonpoint source
pollution control effectiveness of riparian forests in a two-county area of the lower Tar River basin,
North Carolina. Soil map units, which represent specific combinations of soil, topography, and
vegetation characteristics, are compared in terms of their relative ability to filter nitrate in
agricultural runoff. All typical riparian forests provide significant water quality protection, but
there is a wide variation in buffer effectiveness. This suggests a need for flexibility in determining
buffer widths. A range of 15-80 m is appropriate for the soil-landform-vegetation complexes fuund
in riparian zones within the study area. Buffer widths of 60m - - and often much less - - are
generally adequate on the soils likely to be used for agricultural production.

INTRODUCTION

One of the simplest and most effective measures for reducing loadings of
agricultural nonpoint source pollutants to surface waters is the maintenance
of riparian forests as runoff buffer zones (Lowrance et a!., 1985). A number of
studies have shown that vegetated buffers in germral, an~ riparia~ fnr~.sts in
particular, are effective in filtering sediment, nutrients, pesticides, particulate
organic matter, and bacteria from farm and feedlot runoff (Asmussen et al.,
1977; Brockway, 1977; Karr and Schlosser, 1978; Mitsch, 1978; Vanderholm et
al., 1979; Lowrance et al., 1983, 198,1, 1986, 1988: Peterjohn and Correll, 1984).
Several studies in eastern North Carolina, in or near the study area for this
paper, have also demonstrated the water qua}ity maintenance role of riparian
forests (Kuenzler et al., 1979; Jacobs and Gilliam, 1983; Brinson et al., 1984;
Chescheir et al., 1987; Cooper et al., 1987).
Howe~er, all riparian forests are not created equal. Even within a restricted
area, riparian environments show significant variation in topographic
roughness, slope gradients and lengths, soil hydrologic properties, and
vegetation; all of which affect Che streamside zone's ability to delay or
assimilate runoff and associated contaminants. A study of factors affecting the

0022-1694/89/$03.50 © 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

 222

pollution control effectiveness of estuarine shoreline buffer zones in Carteret

County, N.C., revealed a wide variation in filter effectiveness (Phillips, 1989).
It is not unreasonable to expect similarly wide variations in streamside en-
vironments. These variations in buffer effectiveness have implications for the
utilization of riparian buffers as a water quality management tool.
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the nonpoint source pollution
control effectiveness of riparian environments in the lower Tar River basin,
N.C. This will enable the relative buffer effectiveness of common streamside
environments to be determined, and will provide guidelines for establishing
riparian buffer dimensions. The evaluation will also assist in the estimation of
watershed nutrient budgets by enhancing the ability to predict efficiency of
floodplains and other riparian zones.

STUDY AREA

The study area covers Pitt and Edgecombe counties, N.C. (Fig. 1). The two
counties include the main stem of the Tar River, from its entry onto the
Atlantic Coastal Plain to its confluence with the Pamlico River estuary at
Washington, N.C. The 3023 km 2 study area also includes many of the lower
Tar's major tributaries.

r,,,
LOUISBURG
/ ! •
/ %'__

LEGEND w
.ou.T, / ~- DGECOMBE

TARBORO
CO.
"-

WATERSHED BOUNDARY

TAR RIVER \ ~,/ P I T T "" - x

i
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
(" %%
%% %
\
'~\ ~ SHING-
N.C.

"L__ r) 15 30 ~ !
= I II %% I
LOCATION MILES x J
MAP % t"
\ J

Fig. 1. The study area, shown above, inc] ~'.~lesthe Pitt and Edgecombe County portions of the lower
Tar River basin, North Caro]ina.
 223

The Tar River riises in the Piedmont physiographic province, and enters the
coastal plain near the city of Rocky Mount, on the western border of
Edgecombe County. In Edgecombe and western Pitt County, the Tar is a
typical sand-bed flatwater coastal plain stream, flanked by bottomland
hardwood forests and occasional alluvial swamps. Where geologically recent
lateral channel migration has occurred, high bluff shorelines may exist, and
upland soils may lie adjacent to the streams. At Greenville in Pitt County, the
Tar takes on a different character, as this is the upstream limit ef tidal and
ponding effects from the estuary downstream. The channe! gradients are low,
sediments are finer, and flow is often visually imperceptible, and may be
influenced by wind tides. This lowest reach of the river is flanked in many
places by regularly-flooded a]luvial swamps.
The estuarine lower reach of the Tar, which is called the Pamlico River, has
suffered from a severe and widely-publicized decline in water quality in recent
years. The fluvial portion of the river also suffers from significant local water
quality problems, in addition to serving as the major conduit of contaminants
to the estuary. Except in the vicinity of some major point-source dischargers,
the chief water quality concerns are nutrients (particularly nitrogen) and
sediment. The major source of these pollutants on a basin-wide scale is agricul-
ture (Rader et al., 1987).
Soils in the study area developed primarily in mariim and fluvial sediments.
Because of the hot, moist climate, most soils are strongly leached, acid, and low
in natural fertility. Upland soils are generally very old (Ruhe, 1983) with strong
horizon development. The younger soils occur generally in recent alluvium.
Due to the broad similarities in climate and parent material within the study
area, variation in soil properties along floodplains, stream terraces, and valley
bottoms is strongly related to hydrologic and topographic factors. Elevation
relative to local base levels, frequency of flooding, and depth to seasonal high
water tables all influence these variations. Because of this, soil mapping units
reflect the variety of geomorphic and hydrologic environments (and, tn a lesser
extent, vegetation types) along the Tar and its tributaries. A soil mapping unit
consists of a soil serie3 or a complex. The latter is a mosaic pattern of two or
more series or land types, which is too spatially complex for individual soil
bodies to be mapped.

METHODS

Riparian Buffer Delineation Equation

The ability of the riparian soil types to assimilate upland runoff was
compared using the Riparian Buffer Delineatio~ Equation (RBDE). This model
compares the effectiveness ~2f a given buffer (Bb) to that of a reference buffer
(Br), for a given imposed flow. The output is a buffer effectiver~ess ratio, where
a value less than unity indicates a buffer less effective than the reference and
greater than 1.0 a buffer more effective than the reference.
224

There are two versions of the RBDE. The detention time version is based on
how long a given imposed flow is detained within a buffer, and is applicable to
nonconservative pollutants, ~uch as nutrients, bacteria, anti oxygen demand.
The hydraulic version of the RBDE is applicable to solid-phase pollutants
where transport depends o~a the energy of overland flow, such as sediment and
adsorbed contaminants.
Only the results of the a;zplication of the detention version are presented
here. The key pollutants of concern are nitrate and sediment. The former is
more difficult to control, as it travels in dissolved form, and calls for application
of the detention time model.

Model development

Riparian water quality buffer zones work by assimilating, cleansing, or

delaying pollutants in runoff. Buffer effectiveness varies according to runoff
quantities, types of pollutants, and management goals. These factors must be
considered in site-specific applications, but for this analysis it is sufficient to
assume buffer effectiveness is directly related to the time it takes water to pass
through the buffer. This is obviously true for most common nonconservative
pollutants and water quality indicators (i.e., substances which are decomposed
or transformed during hydrologic transport), including biochemical oxygen
demand, nutrients, and coliform bacteria. In most cases their concentration
over time can be described by first-order kinetics in the form of a negative
exponential model (Krenkel and Novotny, 1980; Hammer and Mackichan,
1981):
ctlco- e -kt (1)
where Co and ct are concentrations initially and at time t, and k is a rate
coefficient.
Detention time is also an index, though not a direct predictor, of pollutant
removal for conservative pollutants. Delaying flow prevents the rapid flushing
of large quantities of contaminants into surface waters, reducing receiving
water concentrations. Longer detention times are also associated with lower
flow velocities, reduced overland flow energy, and, as a result, lower par-
ticulate transport capacity. Finally, delaying flow can create opportunities for
removal of conservative pollutants via deposition, adsorption, and bioassimi-
lation.
The detention time model is given by:
Bb/Br = (nb/nr)°'6(Lb/Lr) 2 ( K b / K r ) °'4 (Sb/Sr) -°'7 (Cb/Cr) (2)
wh~re Bb/Br is a buffer effectiveness ratio, comparing the runoff detention time
of any given buffer (b) with a r~ ference condition (r). Other variables and their
units are: n = Manning roughness coefficient (dimensionless); L = buffer
width [L]; K = satura~.ed vertical hydraulic conductivity [LT-']; s = slope
gradient [LL- ' ] and C = soil moisture storage capacity [L]. A brief description
 225
of the model and its development is given below. A more detailed development
is given in an earlier paper (Phillips, 1989).
in assessing the relative ability of vegetated buffers to detain an imposed
flow, the first consideration is the relative proportion of surface and subsurface
flow, since surface flow is considerably more rapid than subsurface flow. This
can be estimated from saturated hydraulic conductivity (K), which is
equivalent to the steady-state infiltration rate when the soil is saturated.
Models of ponded infiltration have a general form consisting of a constant term
(hydraulic conductivity) added to, or multiplied by, a second term related to
time-specificconditions such as initialmoisture, depth to the wetting front, and
other factors (Skaggs and Khaleel, 1982). The Green-Ampt equation, based on
D'Arcy's Law, is one example:
fp = Ks(Ho + Sf + Lf)/Lfyit (3)
where fp is infiltration capacity, K~ is hydraulic conductivity of the trans-
mission zone, H0 is depth of water at the surface, Sf is the effective suction of
the wetting front, and Lf the effective depth to the wetting front. In comparing
the relative ability of two buffers to assimilate runoff, iIo is in effect a constant,
and Ks, Sf, and the variation of Lf through a storm can all be described as
functions of K (Skaggs and Khaleel, 1982, pp. 143-144). The parameter K alone
cannot describe absolute infiltration capacity, but the saturated hydraulic
conductivity ratio provides a reasonable reflection of relative ability to
infiltrate a given imposed flow.
Overland flow in a vegetated buffer is assumed to be uniform, turbulent,
kinematic, and steady-state, with constant specific gravity, and thus describ-
able by the Manning equation. These classic "kinematic" assumptions are
c~rarnon in hydrologic analyses, and have bee'a shown to be especially
app}~ ~able to overland runoff (Hager and Hager, 1985). Detention time (T) of
surface flow on a slope is given by:
T = n 0"6 L 8 ..0.3 q s 0"4 (4)

where qs is surface discharge.

For subsurface flow, D'Arcy's law gives:
V = Ks (5)
where V is velocity and K is a conductivity coefficient which in this case is the
saturated hydraulic conductivity, since downslope throughflow occurs almost
entirely in saturated conditions (Kirkby, 1985). Then:
T = KsL (6)
Considering both surface and throughflow, an index of detention time (7*)
for a given imposed flow is:
7* = [n°~ L s -°3 (qs/q) -°4] [K s L (qg/q)] (7)
where q is total downslope discharge and qg iS the subsurface component.
226
As the objective is an evaluation of relative detention times over a range of
inputs (q), it is not necessary to know the absolute values of q, qs, and qg. The
surface-subsurface partitioning is a function of the infiltration capacity, which
is a function of K. On the surface, detention time varies as the - 0 . 4 power of
qs. For a given imposed water mass, since K is an index or surrogate for q~, T
is inversely related to K; i.e., T = f(K-°'4).
The preportion of a given imposed flow infiltrated is a direct function of K.
Substituting K -°'4 for (q~/q)-O.4 and K for (qg/q) in eqn. (7), and rewriting as a
detention time ratio (where the subscript r refers to a reference buffer, and b
to any buffer being evaluated), we obtain:
T'kb/T~ r --- ( n b / n r ) °'6 ( L b / L r ) 2 ( K b / K r ) °'4 (Sb/Sr) -0"7 (8)

We can also account for the proportion of subsurface water flowing

downslope, as opposed to percolation in unsaturated conditions. The relative
tendency of the buffer areas to become saturated can be determined by
comparing the available moisture capacity. The relative abilities of proposed
and reference buffers to assimilate infiltrated water is given by the ratio Cb/C~.
C is the soil moisture storage capacity, obtained by multiplying the available
water or moisture capacity [LL -~] by the thickness of the soil profile above a
confining layer. Only that portion of the profile lying above a seasonal high
water table should be used to compute C. Adding this term to eqn. (8), we
obtain:
Bb/B r = T~Cb/ T ~ r

-- ( n b / n r ) °'6 ( L b / L r ) 2 ( K b / K r ) °'4 (Sb/Sr) -0"7 (Cb/Cr) (9)

which is equivalent to eqn. (2).

Applying the detention time model

When the range of properties of the parameters in eqn. (9) is known, the
RBDE may be converted to a form where the contribution of each parameter
to the maximum expected variation in buffer effectiveness can be determined.
Since properties within any mapping unit or riparian environment can be quite
variable, this was used to determine which factors are most important in
controlling overall variability in buffer effectiveness within mapping units.
For the detention version:
MD = (nx/nt) °e (LxlLz) 2 (Kx/Kz) °4 (sx/s~) -°'7 (C~ICI) (10)
where MD is an index of the maximum expected variation in buffer effective-
ness, and x and I refer to the maximum and minimum values for each parameter.
Every term on the right has the general form (z~/zt)Yz where z is any of the
i = 5 parameters and Yz the exponent for that parameter. The relative contri-
bution of any zj to the maximum likely variation in buffer effectiveness is then:
Mz/MD = [(Zx/Zl)iY'l/[Z (Zx/Zl), y'] (11)
 227

More details about the RBDE's and their development and use are given by
Phillips (1989).

Data collection

The soil surveys of Edgecombe and Pitt counties [Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), 1974; Goodwin, 1979] along with field traverses of the Tar and several
major tributaries, were used to identify the soil types (mapping units) found
immediately adjacent to watercourses in the counties. A soil type was included
if it occupied, in aggregate, at least two linear kilometers along a perennial
stream draining to the Tar River. A total of nineteen riparian soil types were
identified.The typical topographic or geomorphic setting was determined from
aerial photographs, the soil surveys, and the field traverse. Results are given
in Table 1.
Data needed for the R B D E were taken from the soil surveys. Because of the
natural variability in soil properties and the imprecise nature of soil property
estimations (SCS, 1983), values are given in ranges. For this reason,
evaluations of buffer effectiveness are given for median conditions (median
values for each parameter), and for the most optimal and least optimal com-
bination of properties likely to be found within a soil mapping unit. Saturated
hydraulic conductivity values were taken from the permeabilit~ values for the
surface layer, as given in the survey. In this context conductivity and per-
meability are interchangeable. Moisture storage capacity values were
obtained by multiplying the available water capacity [LL- '] values in the soil
survey given for each horizon by the thickness of the horizon, for the portion
of the profile above a seasonal high water table (in the study area a high water
table was always encountered at a shallower depth than a confining layer).
Depth to water table was taken directly from the survey. Where the seasonal
high water table was at or near the surface, an arbitrary depth of 5.08 cm (2 in)
was used. Slope ranges for each unit were taken from the survey, where they
are given as percentages. W h e n a 0 % slope was listed, a value of 0.5% (0.005)
was used. In soil survey preparations, slope is estimated only to the nearest I%.
Field observations showed that even apparently level surfaces had a gradient
of at least 0.005 within the study area.
Roughness, as measured by the Manning coefficient,must be estimated from
tables relating sin-face properties to n values. E n g m a n (1986) established n
values for nonsubmerging overland flow through a variety of dense grass and
cropland covers. Assuming a riparian forest floor with dense undergrowth,
abundant leaf litter, and trees and fallen woody debris, with nonsubmerging
flow, it seems reasonable that such a surface should have a roughness
equivalent to that of a dense grass cover. E n g m a n (1986) found a m a x i m u m
likely n value for surface runoff of 0.45, which is adopted here as a typical value
for conditions as described above. A lower limit, assuming continuous riparian
forest cover, was set ~t 0.20. Chescheir et al. (1987), in a study in coastal North
Carolina, found a roughness value in wetlands of 0.46 in one measurement,
228

which is adopted as an upper limit here. There is a potential for manipulating

roughness via structures, vegetation establishment and enhancement, and
other means for improving buffer effectiveness. The influence of such changes
in n on the buffer effectiveness ratio can be evaluated using eqn. (2). Values of
n thought to represent the typical range in riparian forests in the study area
are used here, since the goal is a general assessment of the effectiveness of
riparian buffer areas.

TABLE 1

Geomorphic setting of riparian soil units of the lower Tar River area, North Carolina

Soil mapping Parent material Topographic setting

unit

Bibb loam Recent alluvium Floodplains

Portsmouth fine Alluvium Stream terraces
sandy loam
Roanoke loam Alluvim a Stream terraces
Tuckerman fine Alluvium, colluvium Stream terraces,
sandy loam depressions
Lake]and sand Coastal plain sediment, Stream terraces,
alluvium low-relief uplards
Alaga loamy Coastal plain sediment, Broad interfluves,
sand alluvium stream terraces
Altavista fine Alluvium Stream terraces
sandy loam
Ocilla loamy Coastal plain sediment, Broad interfluves,
fine sand alluvium smooth valley sides,
stream terraces
Wagram loamy Coastal plain sediment Uplands
sand
Chipley sand Coastal plain sediment, Low-relief uplamis,
alluvium, dredge spoil stream terraces,
floodplains
Byars loam Coastal plain sediment Upland depressions,
older stream terraces
Rains fine sandy Coastal plain sediment Uplands
loam
Chewacla silt Recent alluvium Floodplains
loam
Congaree silt Recent alluvium Floodplains
loam
Johnston Recent alluvium Floodplains
mucky loam
Wehadkee silt Recent alluvium Floodplains
loam
Meggett loam Coastal plain sediment Low-relief uplands
Tarboro loamy Alluvium, eolian Stream terraces
sand sediment
Ballahack fine Alluvium Stream terraces
sandy loam
 229

Reference buffer
The reference buffer was designed on the basis of controlling nitrate.
Assuming first-order kinetics, which has been shown to adequately describe
nitrogen removal in wetland buffers and in overland flow wastewater
treatment systems (Smith, 1982; Abernathy et al., 1985; Chescheir et al., 1987),
percent nitrate removal may be estimated by eqn. (1). Based on values from past
studies of nitrate removal in wetlands, a rate constant value of k = 0.0115 (for
t in hours) was chosen. This value is less than that found in studies of nitrate
filtration of pumped drainage water in coastal North Carolina, where
Chescheir et al. (1987) determined coefficients of 0.0132-0.0284 for specific
events. It is greater than the value found by McCutcheon (1987) for sluggish
flow conditions in the Chattachoochee River, Georgia (k = 0.0104). The
selected value is thus conservative, reflecting the fact that denitrification rates
can show considerable variability. For the reference buffer, a value of 90%
removal efficiency was chosen.
Values for K, C, s, and n were selected based on typical values for riparian
soils in the study area (Table 2). After computing the residence time necessary
for 90% removal in surface flow, the buffer width necessary to provide that time
was computed. Again assuming uniform, turbulent, kiner, atic flow, residence
time on a buffer can be computed by eqn. (4). A q value of 0.085 cm was chosen,
based on runoff calculations for a 20ha (50acre) field of row crops in poor
condition, with wet antecedent moisture conditions and soils of hydrologic
group C. Calculations were made using the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
curve number method (McCuen, 1982). This value is also within the range of
typical daily pumping rates into wetland buffers from artificially-drained land
on the outer coastal plain, east of the study area (Chescheir et al., 1987, p. 26).
Equation (4) was then solved for L, yielding a value of 30.216m. ~ince
subsurface flow is slower than surface flow for the values of K and s chosen, it
can be assumed that the subsurface portion of flow is alsn sufficiently delayed
to achieve 90% or more removal efficiency.
The choice of the exponent k and reference buffer conditions, and details of
the calculation procedure are somewhat arbitrary, and viable arguments could
be made for other reference conditions and other approaches for determining
the reference condition. The emphasis here was on developing a reference
buffer that meets two criteria: (1) conditions typical of those found within the

TABLE 2

Reference buffer

Length 30.216 m
Roughness (Manning's n) 0.45
Slope 0.01
Saturated hydraulic conductivity 5.08 cm h-
Water storage capacity 2.286 cm
230

s t u d y a r e a , so t h a t c o m p a r i s o n s a r e m o r e m e a n i n g f u l , a n d (2) a b u f f e r w h i c h
w o u l d p r o v i d e a n effective filter u n d e r v e r y " p e s s i m i s t i c " c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; i.e.,
h i g h r u n o f f v o l u m e s a n d a l o w r a t e c o n s t a n t . W h i l e t h e c h o i c e of r e f e r e n c e
c o n d i t i o n s o b v i o u s l y i n f l u e n c e s t h e specific n u m b e r s p r o d u c e d by t h e R B D E , it
does n o t a f f e c t t h e r e l a t i v e filter e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e soil types.

RESULTS

Buffer effectiveness
W h e n a d e n s e v e g e t a t i o n a n d l i t t e r c o v e r is a s s u m e d a n d b u f f e r w i d t h is h e l d
c o n s t a n t (n = 0.45; L = 30.216), t e n of t h e r i p a r i a n soils p r o v i d e a buffer a t
l e a s t as effective as t h e r e f e r e n c e buffer u n d e r t h e b e s t l i k e l y s e t of c o n d i t i o n s ;
seven of t h e n i n e t e e n do so u n d e r t h e w o r s t l i k e l y c o n d i t i o n s ( T a b l e 3). S i m i l a r
r e s u l t s a r e o b t a i n e d w h e n t h e r o u g h n e s s coefficient is a l l o w e d to v a r y from 0.2
to 0.46 ( w i t h L c o n s t a n t ) . T h i s r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n in b u f f e r effective-
ness of r i p a r i a n soil m a p p i n g u n i t s , a n d s h o w s t h a t n o t all r i p a r i a n a r e a s will
provide a n effective buffer for t h e g i v e n b u f f e r w i d t h .
W h e n b u f f e r w i d t h is a l l o w e d to v a r y as well, w i t h v a l u e s of 15 m for t h e
minimum, 100m for t h e m a x i m u m , a n d 30.5m for t h e m e d i a n , r e s u l t s a r e

TABLE 3-

Buffer effectiveness ratios for lower Tar River basin riparian soil types, assuming constant rough-
ness (n = 0.45) and buffer width (30.2 m)

Soil type Buffer effectiveness ratio

Optimum Median Least optimum
conditions conditions conditions

Bibb 1.20 0.45 0.20

Portsmouth 0.45 0.27 0.19
Roanoke 0.45 0.27 0.19
Tuckerman 0.30 0.28 0.24
Lakeland 10.28 3.10 1.91
Alaga 13.71 4.34 2.87
Altavista 6.50 2.85 1.73
Ocilla 4.17 1.70 1.14
Wagram 35.50 11.56 7.80
Chipley 5.14 1.81 0.95
Byars 0.39 0.37 0.33
Rains 0.43 0.25 0.17
Chewacla 1.61 0.94 0.62
Congaree 6.69 3.84 2.46
Johnston 0.94 0.58 0.43
Wehadkee 0.65 0.40 0.30
Meggett 0.72 0.44 0.32
Tarboro 15.13 4.08 2.01
Ballahack 0.72 0.38 0.21
 231

TABLE 4

Buffer width necessary to achieve a buffer effectiveness ratio of 1.0, with Manning's n = 0.45 and
n = 0.2

Soil type Buffer width (m)

Optimum Median Least optimum

conditions conditions conditions

n = 0.45
Bibb 27.53 45.08 68.24
Portsmouth 45.20 57.88 68.98
Roanoke 45.20 57.88 68.98
Tuckerman 55.52 57.48 61.05
Lakeland 9.42 17.15 21.86
Alaga 8.16 14.50 17.85
Altavista 11.85 17.89 23.00
Ocilla 14.80 23.21 28.31
Wagram 5.07 8.89 10.82
Chipley 13.33 22,48 30.97
Byars 48.55 49.78 52.28
Rains 45.86 60.27 73.25
Chewacla 23.84 31.23 38.51
Congaree 11.68 15.42 19.26
Johnston 21.16 39.74 46.33
Wehadkee 37.45 47.65 55.37
Meggett 35.52 45.5(i 55.49
Tarboro 7.77 14.97 21.33
Ballahack 35.52 49.21 65.52

n = 0.2
Bibb 35.12 57.49 87.04
Portsmouth 57.65 73.82 87.98
Roanoke 57.65 73.82 87.98
Tuckerman 70.81 73.31 77.87
Lakeland 12.02 21.88 27.88
Alaga 10.41 18.49 22.76
Altavista 15.12 22.81 29.33
Ocilla 18.87 29.60 34.11
Wagram 6.47 11.33 13.~0
Chipley 17.00 28.68 39.50
Byars 61.92 63.49 66 :~9
Rains 58.50 76.88 93.43
Chewacla 30.41 39.84 49.12
Congaree 14.90 19.68 24.56
Johnston 39.74 50.69 59.09
Wehadkee 47.76 60.78 70.62
Meggett 45.31 58.11 68.23
Tarboro 9 91 19.09 27.21
Ballahack 45.31 62.77 ~3.56
232

somewhat different. Under median conditions, eight soil types achieve a buffer
effectiveness ratio of 1o0 or more, as was the case for the analyses with L, or n
and L, held constant. However, only one soil type has a ratio of 1.0 or more for
the worst-case combination of properties, and all nineteen do for the best
combination of properties.
Table 4 shows the necessary buffer width for optimal, suboptimal, and
median soil conditions for two different roughness values. For n = 0.45, it can
be seen that a 73m buffer is adequate for the worst soil under the worst
conditions, and as little as 5 m for the best soil under the best conditions. For
a typical bottomland wet soil under typical conditions, a 40-58m buffer is
required. For a typical moderately well-drained soil under median conditions,
a 15-40m buffer is adequate.
For a lower roughness value, Table 4 shows t h a t a 93 m buffer is adequate for
the least optimal soil under the worst likely conditions. As little as 6.5 m will
suffice for the best soil under optimal conditions. Typical bottomland, poorly-
drained soils under median conditions will requi~¢e buffer widths of 57-77 m,
while better-drained soil units will require 19-58 m under typical conditions.
These results show that, for planning purposes, a 93m width adjacent to
streams will be adequate to provide for an effective riparian buffer in any
circumstances likely to be encountered. In general, 15-80m buffers are likely
to be effective m 40-80 m for poorly-drained soils and 15-60 m for better-drained
soils. Since the greater widths are required for soils which are least attractive
for agriculture, the wider buffers needed for some soils may not result in
economic hardships for farmers.
An analysis of the results in terms of the U.S. Soil Classification System
shows that, in a general sense, the order and suborder levels of the classifi-
cation provide a rough guide to buffer effectiveness. The soil order is the
highest, most gen ~ralized level of the classification system. Four of the ten
orders are found among the riparian soils in the study area (Alfisols,
Inceptisols, Entisols, and Ultisols). The next-highest classification level, the
suborder, distinguishes the soils in each order based on major formative
elements. These two broad levels of the soil classification system provide a
reasonable guide to buffer effectiveness of riparian soil types within the study
area. The two Alfisols included among the riparian soil types (Meggett,
Tuckerman) are the least effective buffers, having buffer effectiveness ratios of
<0.5 for median conditions (width and roughness constant). The three
Inceptisols (Ballahack, Chewacla, Johnston) are a bit better, but all have ratios
less than unity. Five of seven Entisols (Congaree, Tarboro, Alaga, Chipley, and
Lakeland) are good filters, with buffer effectiveness ratios t> 1.0. All of the five
are Psamments (Entisols derived from quartzic sandy parent material) or
Fluvents (Entisols formed on floodplains, and generally of sandy texture). Two
Entisols have ratios of < 0.5, and both are Aquents, which is a suborder of
Entisols with aquic (wet) moisture regimes (Bibb, Wehadkee). Ultisols are
similarly split. All three Udults (Ultisols with udic, or moist, moisture regimes)
 nnrt

have ratios of > 1.0 (Altavista, Wagram, Ocilla). All four Aquults (aquic
moisture regime) have ratios of < 0.5 (Portsmouth, Rains, Roanoke, Byars).

Factorz influencing buffer effectiveness

The considerable variation in effectiveness among riparian buffers is largely

controlled by slope gradient, though all other factors have significant
influences (Table 5).
When roughness and buffer width are held constant, slope gradient is found
to be more important than saturated hydraulic conductivity or soil moisture
storage capacity in contributing to the maximum expected variation in buffer
effectiveness for each soil type. Slope contributed the greatest amount of
variance for all nineteen soil types. In seven cases the contribution was more
than 50%, and in only two cases less than 40% (Table 1). However, each factor

TABLE 5

Proportion of maximum likely variation in buffer effectiveness attributable to specific soil or site
properties for representative soil types (K = saturated hydraulic conductivity, C = soil moisture
storage capacity, s = slope gradient, L = buffer width, n = roughness)

Soil type Variable Number of variables considered:

3 4 5

Bibb 1 K 0.28 0.21 0.17

C 0.26 0.19 0.16
.~, 0.46 0.33 0.28
L 0.27 0.22
n 0.17
Chipley 2 K 0.20 0.16 0.14
C 0.25 0.20 0.17
s 0.54 0.43 0.37
L 0.21 0.18
n 0.14
Byars 3 K 0.37 0.24 0.20
C 0.26 0.15 0.14
s 0.37 0.25 0.20
L 0.33 0.26
n 0.20
Tarboro 4 K 0.17 0.14 0.12
C 0.22 0.18 0.16
s 0.60 0.49 0.43
L 0.18 0.16
n f:.12

1Represents the general variance pattern of Portsmouth, Roanoke, Rains, Chewacla, Congaree,
Johnston, Wehadkee, Meggett, and Ballahack units
2Represents the general variance pattern of Altavista and OciUa units
3Represents the general variance pattern of the Tuckerman unit
4Represents the general variance pattern of the Lakeland, Alaga, and Wagram units
234

contributed at least 15% of the maximum expected variation; usually

somewhat more.
An analysis was also conducted allowing buffer width to vary from 15m,
which is generally considered to be a minimum riparian corridor width, to
100m. In this analysis, buffer width usually accounted for 20-25% of the
maximum variation, and was the major contributor in two cases. Slope was the
major contributor in seventeen of nineteen cases.
When roughness, allowed to vary as n - 0.2 to 0.46, is included along with
the other factors, slope still contributes the major portion of the maximum
expected variation for seventeen of nineteen soil types. Buffer width is the
major variance contributor for two soil types, and is the second most important
variance source for the seventeen others. Even in this case, the minimum
contribution of any factor for any soil type was nearly 11%.

DISCUSSION

Results of the I~BDE model illustrate the wide variation in buffer effective-
ness of vegetated riparian areas in the lower Tar River basin. While the results
do not contradict the assertion that riparian forests are effective water quality
buffers, they do suggest that some are far better filters than others. The model
also shows that it would be difficult to specify a single recommended buffer
width. A low figure, such as 15 or 20 m, would not provide an adequate filter in
many situations. A wider buffer, such as 50m or more, would be needlessly
broad in some cases. Management plans incorporating riparian buffers for
agricultural nonpoint source pollution control should thus consider a range of
buffer widths, with exact dimensions depending on site conditions. Though
buffer implementation is beyond the scope of this paper, some general recom-
mendations for determining appropriate widths are discussed later in this
section.
Improving effectiveness of a given buffer is problematic. Slope gradient is
the most important contributor to the variation in effectiveness, but manipu-
lation of slope is not feasible in most cases, due to expenses involved, adverse
effects on field drainage, and undesirability of disturbing riparian ecosystems.
If roughness is judged to be below n = 0.4, vegetation establishment or surface
manipulation to increase n can be effective in improving buffer effectiveness.
This is likely to be viable only for managed bottomland forests, however, and
encouraging dense undergrowth or litter accumulation may be inconsistent
with other management goals. For n values greater than 0.4, the flow resistance
approaches a maximum value and cannot be manipulated to improve filter
effectiveness. Since soil hydrologic properties are generally beyond manipu-
lation, at least at reasonable expense, adjustment of buffer width is the best
option for improving buffer effectiveness. This, again, suggests that a range of
buffer widths, rather than a single suggested dimension, is an appropriate
management tool.
In the lower Tar Basin, buffer widths of 5-93 m for vegetated riparian areas
 235

would encompass the entire iikely range of values for buffer effectiveness.
Setting the lower limit at 15 m to provide or enhance ecological and recreation-
al values of stream corridors (see B.:dd et al., 1987), and disregarding the
worst-case conditions for the five poorest soils, the range becomes 15-80 m. This
is the recommended range for management considerations. The UoS. Conser-
vation Reserve Program contains provisions allowing credit for streamside
buffers 20-30m (66-99ft) in width. The reserve program applies to cropland
taken out of production, and for the riparian soils widely used for agriculture,
the model shows that a width of 20-30m is adequate from a water quality
perspective. If a single figure for minimum buffer widths is required, the
information generated by the RBDE also provides guidelines. For good
roughness conditions (n - 0 . 4 5 ) and median soil properties, a 50m buffer
would yield a buffer effectiveness ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 for fifteen
of nineteen riparian soil types. For buffer widths of 45, 40, 35, 30, and 20 m the
number of soil types for which the buffer width is adequate (median conditions)
is 11, 10, 9, 8, and 6, respectively.
This study has considered the problem only from the perspective of filtering
runoff from adjacent land. If a riparian area is inundated, its filter effectiveness
for runoff from adjacent land is essentially zero, since runoff enters stream
floodwaters directly. However, in these conditions the riparian zone i~ serving
as a filter or bottleneck for stream-borne pollutants. To some extent variations
in flooding frequency are reflected by other soil properties, such as depth to a
seasonal .high water table, and the tendency of the soil to become saturated i s
accounted for in the RBDE. It should be noted, however, that this analysis was
based on the assumption of non-submerging flow from uplands, across riparian
soil units, to streams. The role of flood inundation, when dominant flow is
downstream and some roughness elements are submerged, in filter effective-
ness needs further investigation. Such studies are now underway.

CONCLUSION~

A model of detention time of surface and subsurface runoff through a

vegetated streamside buffer area shows considerable variation in buffer effec-
tiveness. Riparian soil types in the lower Tar River basin show distinct dif-
ferences i:a their abilities to detain and clean polluted agricultural runoff.
The reference standard was a hypothetical buffer designed to remove 90% of
the nitrate nitrogen from runoff volumes typical of 50 acres of row crop on
relatively poorly-drained soils. In gene:al, udic upland soils (udults) and sandy
entisols (psamments and fluvents) meet or exceed these standards (assuming
continuous forest vegetation cover). Poorly-drained ultisols and entisols
(aquults; aquents), and Alfisols and Ince~Ssole: on floodplains and stream
terraces require much wider buffer areas to meet the reference standard.
In terms of buffer dimensions required to meet the standard filter effective-
ness, widths range from 5 to 93m for the various soil units and conditions
encountered. The wide variation in buffer effectiveness suggests that a range
236

of suggested dimensions, rather than a single value, is appropriate for delineat-

ing riparian water quality buffers. In the lower Tar River basin, a range of
15-80m is suggested. Since the larger widths are associated with soils poorly
suited for agriculture, riparian filters at the high end of the range would not
necessarily pose undue hardships on landowners.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, A.R., Zirschy, J. and Borup, M.B., 1985. Overland flow wastewater treatment at Easley,
S.C.J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 57: 291-299.
Asmussen, L.E., White, A.W., Hansen, E.W. and Sheridan, J.M., 1977. Reduction in 2,4-D load in
surface runoff down a grassed waterway. J. Environ. Qual., 6: 159-162.
Brinson, M.M., Bradshaw, H.D. and Kane, E.S., 1984. Nutrient assimilative capacity of an alluvial
floodplain swamp. J. Appl. Ecol., 21: 1041-1057.
Brockway, C.E., 1977. Vegetative buffer strips for sediment retention in irrigation runoff. In: Water
Management for Irrigation and Drainage (Vol. I). Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., New York, N.Y., pp.
236-244.
Budd, W.W., Cohen, P.L., Saunders, P.R. and Steiner, F.R., 1987. Stream corridor management in
the Pacific Northwest. 1. Determination of stream-corridor widths. Environ. Manage., 11:
587-597.
Chescheir, G.M., Gilliam, J.W., Skaggs, R.W., Broadhead, R.G. and Lea, R., 1987. The hydrology
and pollutant removal effectiveness of wetland buffer areas receiving pumped agricultural
drainage water. Univ. of N.C.. Water Resour. Res. Inst. Rep. 231, Raleigh, N.C., 170 pp.
Cooper, J.R., Gilliam, J.W., Daniels, R.B. and Robarge, W.P., 1987. Riparian areas as filters for
agricultural sediment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 51: 416--420.
Engman, E.T., 1986. Roughness coefficients for routblg surface runoff. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., Am.
Soc. Cir. Eng., 112: 39-53.
Goodwin, R.A., 1979. Soil survey of Edgecombe County, North Carolina. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil
Conserv. Serv., Raleigh, N.C., 118pp.
Hager, W.H. and Hager, K., 1985. Application limits for the kinematic wave approximation. Nord.
Hydrol., 16: 203-212.
Hammer, M.J. and Mackichan, K.A., 1981. Hydrology and Quality of Water Resources. Wiley, New
York, N.Y., 486pp.
Jacobs, T.C. and Gilliam, J.W., 1983. Nitrate loss from agricultural drainage waters: implications
for nonpoint source control. Univ. of N.C., Water Resour. Res. Inst. Rep. 209, 99pp.
Karr, J.R. and Schlosser, I.J., 1978. Water resources and the land-water interface. Science, 201:
229-234.
Kirkby, M.J., 1985. Hillslope hydrology. In: M.G. Anderson and T.P. Burt (Editors), Hydrological
Forecasting. Wiley, New York, N.Y., pp. 37-76.
Krenkel, P.A. and Novotny, V., 1980. Water Quality Management. Academic, New York, N.Y.,
671 pp.
Kuenzler, E.J., Ruley, L.A. and Sniffen, R.P., 1979. Water quality in North Carolina coastal plain
streams and effects of channelization. Univ. of N.C., Water Resour. Re~. Inst. Rep. 127, 160pp.
Lowrance, R.R., Todd, R.L. and Asmussen, L.E., 1983. Waterborne nutrient budgets for the riparian
zone of an ~gricultural watershed. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 10: 371-384.
Lowrance, R., Todd, R.L. and Asmussen, L.E., 1984. Nutrient cycling in an agricultural watershed.
J. Environ. Qual. 13: 22-32.
Lowrance, R.R., Leonard, R. and Sheridan, J., 1985. Managing riparian ecosystems to control
nonpoint pollution. J. Soil Water Conserv. 40: 87-91.
Lowrance, R.R., Sharpe, J.K. and Sheridan, J.M., 1986. Long-term sediment deposition in the
riparian zone of a coastal plain watershed. J. Soil Water Conserv., 41: 266-271.
 237

Lowrance, R.R., McIntire, S. and Lance, C., 1988. Erosion and deposition in a field-forest system
estimated using cesium-137 activity. J. Soil Water Conserv., 43: 195-199.
McCuen, R., 1982. A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 79pp.
McCutcheon, S., 1987. Laboratory and instream nitrification rates for selected streams. J. Environ.
Eng., 113: 628-646.
Mitscb, W.J., 1978. Interactions between a riparian swamp and a river in Southern Illinois. In
Proc., Natl. Riparian Ecosystems Syrup. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-WO-12, pp. 63-7~.
Peterjohn, W.T. and Correll, D.L., 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed" Oh~er-
vations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology, 65: 1466-1475.
Phillips, J.D., 1989. An evaluation of the factors determining the effectiveness of water quality
buffer zones. J. Hydrol., 107: 133-145.
Rader, D., et al., 1987. Surface water quality concerns in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. N.C. Dep.
Nat. Resour. Community Dev., Raleigh, N.C., ll9pp.
Ruhe, R.V., 1983. Aspects of Ho~ocene pedology in the United States. In H.E. Wright (Editor), Late
Quaternary Environments of the United States. Vol. 2: The Holocene. Univ. of Minn. Press,
Minneapolis, Minn., pp. 12-25.
Skaggs, R.S. and R. Khaleel, 1982. infiltration. In C.T. Haan (Editor), Hydrologic Modeling of
Small Watersheds. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., pp. 119-166.
S~ith, R.G., 1982. The overland-flow process. Environ. Prog., 1: 195-205.
Soil Conselvation Servi~c (SCS), 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, North Carolina. U.S. Dep.
Agric., SCS, Raleigh, N.C., 74pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1983. National Soils Handbook. U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington,
D.C., variously paginated.
Vanderholm, D.H., Dickey, E.C., Jackobs, J.A., Elmore, R.W. and Spahr, S.L., 1979. Livestock
feedlot runoff control by vegetative filters. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency EPA 600/2-79-143,
Washington, D.C., 143 pp.