Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 Land Management Along the Lewis Creek Ian Burgin Steven Chester Logan Duran Lisa Gerstenberger Gus Goodwin Matt Johnson Caitlin Littlefield Middlebury College Environmental Studies Senior Seminar Fall 2007 i Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables.............................................................................................ii Introduction...................................................................................................................1 Policy..............................................................................................................................3 Existing Policy.................................................................................................................................5 Regulatory Policy.............................................................................................................................6 Incentive Programs.........................................................................................................................7 Evaluation of Regulatory and Incentive Programs...................................................................10 Adoption of New Regulatory Policies and Incentive Programs.............................................11 Finding Solutions: Alternative Agricultures................................................................12 Setting the Stage.............................................................................................................................12 Initial Land Management Decisions...........................................................................................13 Choosing an Environmentally Friendly Crop...........................................................................15 Economic Viability........................................................................................................................17 Upshot.............................................................................................................................................20 Conclusions..................................................................................................................21 The Individual Approach: A Case Study in Willows...................................................22 Striving for Riparian Forest Authenticity...................................................................................22 Evaluating Tree Crop Alternatives.............................................................................................25 Growing and Harvesting Willow for Biomass at Middlebury College..................................27 Economic Sustainability...............................................................................................................28 Works Cited.................................................................................................................30 Appendix A..................................................................................................................34 iii Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Natural versus channelized stream...................................................................................3 Figure 2: Example of Lewis Creek corridor delineation................................................................4 Figure 3: Agriculture lands in Lewis Creek Watershed..................................................................4 Figure 4: Agricultural lands in reach M19 – M22............................................................................5 Figure 5: River corridor land-use decision tree..............................................................................14 Table 1: Profits from different land uses..........................................................................................9 Table 2: National Agricultural Statistics Service price per acre statistics...................................18 iiiii Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 Introduction Humans have modified river landscapes for centuries. River dynamics and floodplains have been impacted by navigation infrastructure, revetments, agriculture and urbanization. Our attempt to control natural river meander for both agricultural and infrastructural needs has historically resulted in inadequate habitat for aquatic creatures, decreased biodiversity, eutrophication and avulsions, among other lost river services. See Figure 1. In the case of Vermont, agriculture is often one of the motivating factors for altering a waterway. Likewise, however, agriculture has played a dominant role in defining both the physical and cultural landscapes of current-day Vermont. The legacy of a once vibrant and diverse agricultural economy exists today in the form of heavy government subsidies for the dairy industry. Since it was once the case that dairy farms were far-and-away the most popular farm types in the state, and since cultural perceptions of Vermonters are very much rooted in that era, dairy farming persists today. The Lewis Creek is an example of a Vermont waterway adversely affected by agriculture, and the community surrounding the Lewis Creek is exemplary of one affected by cultural perceptions of farming. The replacement of natural riparian vegetation with row crops and livestock has had direct impacts on the geomorphology and water quality of the Lewis Creek.1 While all farms must adhere to a set of best management practices, the priority placed on keeping farms in the state has resulted in degraded riparian conditions as compared to the natural state. In an effort to update river management techniques, the Agency of Natural Resources Water Management Program has written and researched extensively on “river corridor” management. A river corridor “consists of the river channel, the banks on either side and the areas close to the river that carry flood water and accommodate the meander 1 Amy Jansen and Alistair I. Robertson, “Relationships between Livestock Management and the Ecological Condition of Riparian Habitats along an Australian Floodplain River,” The Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 38, No. 1, (Feb., 2001), p 64. 1 Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 pattern of the river.”2 See Figure 2. Objectives of a river corridor are both socially and ecologically motivated. They include restoring balance to the stream channel, improving water quality and restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitat.3 Since, however, there are no policies mandating their use, river corridors remain philosophical tools. The Lewis Creek Association (LCA), a watershed advocacy group, is utilizing the framework that the river corridor concept provides, as well as community education, in attempts to implement river corridor planning on the Lewis Creek. Just how to go about getting a river corridor established, or more specifically, how to go about meeting the ecological needs of the corridor without sacrificing agriculture, forms the bulk of this report. Agricultural land use within the Lewis Creek watershed can be explained numerically as follows: The total area of the watershed is 51,124 acres (80 square miles) or roughly 6 times the size of the town of Middlebury. Thirty-three percent of the watershed is classified as ‘prime soils’ by the United Sates Geological Survey and 71% of the watershed agricultural lands are contained within them. According to data provided by the Vermont Center for Geographic Information, agricultural land uses account for roughly 29% of the watershed. See Figure 3. The total area of the river corridor is 3,683 acres or about 25% of the entire watershed. Five percent of all agricultural lands lie within the river corridor. Thus, we can see from the get-go that the amount of farmland that would need to be taken out of production or otherwise altered to accommodate a river corridor is relatively small. In keeping with the methodology of the LCA, our report addresses a single section, or reach, of the waterway. Within our reach, which has a total area of 187.09 acres and occurs between Markers M19 and M22, there are 52.6 acres of agricultural land within the corridor (roughly 28%). Thus, the percentage of agricultural land that is subsumed by a theoretical river corridor is higher in this reach than in the watershed as a whole. See Figure 4. 2 “River Corridor Protection and Management: Fact Sheet #1” http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_rcprotectmanagefactsheet.pdf, (VTDEC River Management Program, 2005a) 3 Lewis Creek Starksboro River Corridor Plan Steering Committee. “River Corridor Management Plan (Draft) Lewis Creek: Starksboro Valley Reaches M19-M22,” February, 2006. 2 Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 Our partnership with the LCA was created so that we could consider what might be required in terms of agricultural land-use changes in a corridor that recognizes the river as a dynamic system. We began by identifying a set of dual goals that reflect the aims of the LCA: The overarching goals of this project are to improve the health of the Lewis Creek and to improve the economy of farming landowners in the Lewis Creek watershed. We choose to first look at policy as a means of achieving those goals, though we conclude that current policy is an inadequate pathway. Next we look at different agriculture types as a means for achieving the goals. Lastly, we provide a case study of willow farming illustrating our vision of alternative agriculture implementation. Figure 1: Natural versus channelized stream 3 Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 Figure 2: Example of Lewis Creek corridor delineation Figure 3: Agriculture Lands in Lewis Creek Watershed Figure 3: Agriculture Lands in Lewis Creek 4 Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 Figure 4: Agricultural lands in reach M19 – M22 Policy Existing Policy Ideally, to achieve ecological goals, land within the river corridor would not have agriculture or development. One efficient method of creating this sort of protected corridor would be to use regulation that requires corridor protection, though today such regulation does not exist in Vermont. Within federal, state and local policy in Vermont, there are gaps in protection for full river corridors. State and Federal laws regulate practices in the portions of the river corridors closest to the river—examples include manure application, following 5 Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 pesticide application labels, acceptable zones for annual tillage and livestock access. Outside of the regulated area, but still within the river corridor there are areas that are not governed for such practices as cultivation and nutrient applications which prohibit the natural vegetation and ecosystem to become re-established.4 Incentives and regulations both play important roles in maximizing participation in environmentally-oriented plans. Thus, regulations, policies and programs that provide incentives for certain types of land use in the river corridor may be useful. This policy review will highlight existing regulations and programs regarding land use in the river corridor as well as illuminate current gaps in the policies. We found it useful when thinking about existing policies, to separate policies providing regulations from those providing incentives. The regulatory policies in Vermont include (a) the Accepted Agricultural Practices Rule, (b) the Large Farm Operations Rule and the (c) Medium Farm Operations Rule. Policies and programs that provide incentives for land-use changes include the following five programs: (a) the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), (b) the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), (c) the Vermont Agricultural Buffer Program (VABP), (d) the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and (e) the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP). A variety of local, state and federal-level funding sources support these programs, including the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets; the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife; the US Department of Agriculture; and Addison County Riverwatch. Portions of the Lewis Creek watershed qualify for enrollment in each of these programs. Regulatory Policy Vermont’s Clean and Clear program supports existing Agency of Agriculture programs that create limited riparian buffers: the Accepted Agricultural Practices Rule, the Large Farm Operations Rule and the Medium Farm Operations Rule. The Accepted Agricultural Practices Rule, which applies to all types of farms, requires various setback 4 L. Hanrahan, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Montpelier, VT, Personal communication with Lisa Gerstenberger (2007). 6 Land Management along the Lewis Creek Fall 2007 distances for specific aspects of farm operations.5 The Large Farm Operation Rule requires 25-foot buffers around waterways that run through croplands on large farms, large being defined by the number of animals kept on the land.6 In March of 2008 the Vermont Medium Farm Operations Rule will come into effect, requiring medium-sized animal farms to create 25-foot buffers around waterways as well.7 These buffers prohibit tilling and manure application but allow annual harvesting and some fertilization, depending on soil test results. Free technical support concerning implementation of water-quality control such as these measures is available to farmers through the Agency of Agriculture’s Agricultural Engineering Program and Agricultural Resources Specialist Program.8 Incentive Programs In order to encourage landowners to extend riparian buffer zones beyond the required distances of 10 feet or 25 feet (depending on the land use) financial incentives may be required. There appear to be various advantages to the existing incentive programs listed above. The first three programs – CRP, CREP and VABP – aim to manage nutrients entering waterways from dairy farms, specifically targeting phosphorous and nitrogen. CRP, which is federally funded, rents agricultural land near waterways on the condition that the farmer removes that land from production.9 The state- and federally-funded CREP program doubles the rental rate that CRP would pay and adds an extra financial incentive.10 Like CRP and CREP, the state-funded VABP pays rent for land near waterways, but unlike the other 5 Division of Agricultural Resource Management and Environmental Stewardship, "Large Farms Operations Rule." (Montpelier, VT: Vermont Agency of Agriculture, 2007). Accessed 7 Nov. 2007, <http://www.vermontagriculture.com/ARMES/awq/documents/DraftLFORules.pdf>. 6 Division of Agricultural Resource Management and Environmental Stewardship, "Large Farms Operations Rule." (Montpelier, VT: Vermont Agency of Agriculture, 2007). Accessed 7 Nov. 2007, <http://www.vermontagriculture.com/ARMES/awq/documents/DraftLFORules.pdf>. 7 Division of Agricultural Resource Management and Environmental Stewardship, "Medium Farm Operations Rule." (Montpelier, VT: Vermont Agency of Agriculture, 2007). Accessed 9 Nov. 2007, <http://www.vermontagriculture.com/ARMES/awq/MFO.html>. 8 Division of Agricultural Resource Management and Environmental Stewardship, "Available Resources." (Montpelier, VT: Vermont Agency of Agriculture, 2007). Accessed 7 Nov. 2007, <http://www.vermontagriculture.com/ARMES/awq/Available_Resources.htm>. 9 Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Conservation Reserve Program." (United States Department of Agriculture). Accessed 22 Oct. 2007, <http://www.vt.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CRP/>. 10 Water Quality Division, “Vermont CREP Process,” 2 Nov. 2004 Draft. (Waterbury, VT: Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, 2004). Accessed 17 Oct. 2007, <http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv_crep-process.pdf>. 7