Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Nitrogen credit trading as an incentive for riparian buffer establishment on Pennsylvania farmland

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agricultural nitrogen loading is a leading cause of eutrophication within the Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is responsible for a large portion of the nitrogen load entering the bay. Vegetated riparian buffers are a common agroforestry practice used to intercept surface runoff and subsurface leaching of nutrients such as nitrogen from upland agricultural fields. Watershed-wide nutrient credit trading has been suggested as a mechanism for reducing nutrient pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. The cost of producing nitrogen credits through the establishment of riparian buffers on Pennsylvania farmland was analyzed to determine if nitrogen credit trading could provide an incentive for buffer establishment. Forest buffers were shown to have marginally lower nitrogen credit production costs and payback periods than grass filter strips. Larger riparian buffers were shown to have higher credit production costs than smaller buffers due to increases in establishment costs outpacing increases in nitrogen credit trading revenue. Nitrogen credit trading was determined to be an inadequate incentive for agricultural riparian buffer establishment due to the high cost of producing nitrogen credits. Furthermore, nitrogen credit trading was shown to be less lucrative compared to the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, a common riparian buffer cost share program. However, increases in the market price of nitrogen credits or bundling nitrogen with other nutrient credits such as phosphorus could ultimately result in credit trading providing an adequate incentive for agricultural riparian buffer establishment. These results could be used to guide the framework for nutrient credit trading programs within other watersheds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data should be reproducible given methodology in manuscript.

References

  • Branosky E, Jones C, Selman M (2011) Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. World Resources Institute

  • Chesapeake Bay Commission (2012) Nutrient credit trading for the Chesapeake Bay: an economic study

  • Chesapeake Bay Program 2017 and 2025 Watershed Implementation Plans. https://www.chesapeakeprogresscom/clean-water/watershed-implementation-plans. Accessed November 2018

  • Cooper E, Jacobson M (2009) Establishing conservation easements on forested riparian buffers: opportunities for long-term streamside protection. Small-Scale For 8(3):263–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll DL (1997) Buffer zones and water quality protection: general principles. In Buffer zones: their processes and potential in water protection. In: Haycock NE, Burt TP, Goulding KWT, Pinay G (eds) The Proceedings of the International Conference on Buffer Zones. (Quest Environmental, pp 7–20

  • Hill AR, Devito KJ, Campagnolo S, Sanmugadas K (2000) Subsurface denitrification in a forest riparian zone: interactions between hydrology and supplies of nitrate and organic carbon. Biogeochemistry 51:193–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C, Branosky E, Selman M, Perez M (2010) How nutrient trading could help restore the Chesapeake Bay. World Resources Institute

  • Kavian A, Saleh I, Habibnejad M, Brevik EC, Jafarian Z, Rodrigo-Comino J (2018) Effectiveness of vegetative buffer strips at reducing runoff, soil erosion, and nitrate transport during degraded hillslope restoration in northern Iran. Land Degrad Dev 29(9):3194–3203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King SE, Osmond DL, Smith J, Burchell MR, Dukes M, Evans RO, Knies S, Kunickis S (2016) Effects of riparian buffer vegetation width: A 12-year longitudinal study. J Environ Qual 45(4):1243–1251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KH, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (2003) Sediment and nutrient removal in an established multi-species riparian buffer. J Soil Water Conserv 58:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance R, Altier LS, Newbold JD, Schnabel RR, Groffman PM, Denver JM, Correll DL, Gilliam JW, Robinson JL, Brinsfield RB, Staver KW, Lucas W, Todd AH (1997) Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environ Manage 21(5):687–712

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer PM, Reynolds SK, Canfield TJ, and McCutchen MD (2005) Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: a review of current science and regulations. United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/R-05/118

  • Palone R, Todd A 1998 Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: a Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers. USDA Forest Service. NA-TP-02-97. Radnor, PA

  • Pennsylvania Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (PA CREP). CREP Payment Descriptions. https://www.creppa.org/about/payments/. Accessed December 2020

  • Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) (2016) DCNR leading statewide forest buffer planting effort to help improve water quality. http://www.apps.dcnr.state.pa.us/news/resource/res2016/16-0427-forestbuffers.aspx. Accessed 21 July 2016

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2016) A DEP strategy to enhance Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. http://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/ChesapeakeBayOffice/DEP%20Chesapeake%20Bay%20Restoration%20Strategy%20012116.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2016

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Nutrient credit registry. https://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Water/CleanWater/NutrientTrading/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed December 2020

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) (2016) Phase 2 Watershed Implementation Plan Nutrient Trading Supplement

  • Penn State Extension (2018) The agronomy guide 2017–2018. Pennsylvania State University; 2017. http://extension.psu.edu/agronomy-guide

  • Ribaudo M, Savage J, and Aillery M (2014) An economic assessment of policy options to reduce agricultural pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay. USDA Economic Research Service ERR-166

  • Sweeney BW, Newbold JD (2014) Streamside forest buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, habitat, and organisms: A literature review. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50(3):560–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talberth J, Jones C, Perez M, Selman M, and Branosky E (2010) How baywide nutrient trading could benefit Pennsylvania farms. World Resources Institute

  • United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA). Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-enhancement/index. Accessed 24 July 2016

  • United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA). Soil Rental Rates by soil type for Pennsylvania counties. Obtained from, 2015United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency (FSA). Soil Rental Rates by soil type for Pennsylvania counties. Obtained from 2015 correspondence with Pennsylvania Farm Service Agency, Harrisburg, PA

  • United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2015) Quickstats 2.0. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

  • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Environmental Quality Incentives Program. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/. Accessed July 24, 2016

  • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2015) Pennsylvania Field Office Technical Guides. 2015 Conservation Practice Cost Scenarios. Accessed July 21, 2016. http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx

  • United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2006) Partnership agreement between the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service and the United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. Washington, DC. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/16/stelprdb1043600.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2016

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2017) Interim evaluation of Pennsylvania’s 2016–2017 milestones. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/pa_interim_2016_2017_milestone_eval_20170630.pdf

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary

  • United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2003) Water Quality Trading Policy. US EPA Archive

  • Weller DE, Baker ME (2014) Cropland riparian buffers throughout Chesapeake Bay Watershed: spatial patterns and effects on nitrate loads delivered to streams. J Am Water Resour Assoc 50(3):696–712

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Woodbury P, Kemanian A, Jacobson M, Langholtz M (2017) Improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay using payments for ecosystem services for perennial bioenergy feedstock production. Biomass Bioenergy 114:132–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Boleman.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

Michael Jacobson is associate editor with Agroforestry Systems.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boleman, P., Jacobson, M. Nitrogen credit trading as an incentive for riparian buffer establishment on Pennsylvania farmland. Agroforest Syst 95, 1033–1045 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00595-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00595-w

Keywords

Navigation