|
able* to contP.i and
<br />Ilowevor. a*; the
<br />nore dc*vf*lo[ td. the
<br />rrosion at:d runoff is
<br />ud. the proc(‘«.->es of
<br />lied throughout the
<br />•nco or a!)st*nre of
<br />ferencc. 'i'hi.s control
<br />»n.
<br />lecessity for and the
<br />iliir.'il procosaes is
<br />ort. The design of
<br />y in the cfmtext of
<br />shed controls exist,
<br />itical environmental
<br />ivencss of wetlands
<br />>n.
<br />y of the difficulties
<br />lisition. The regula-
<br />lickly designed and
<br />ublir participation,
<br />t functions of the
<br />by the use of buffer
<br />ols over runoff and
<br />g the probh.in of
<br />LT zone regulations
<br />sic principle in the
<br />simply he that the
<br />naintenance of the
<br />bocal connuiinities
<br />ransfers or perhaps
<br />> preserve these
<br />onal uses in less
<br />ace of development
<br />IS, and throughout
<br />litio.s should move
<br />Lion. The goal is to
<br />i wetland, such as
<br />for adjacent lakes
<br />iity for an area. In
<br />rk t he goal is more
<br />kSISTANCK
<br />et prairie to deep
<br />ifferent vegetation
<br />wetland areas is
<br />ctualing nature of
<br />mt of confu.sion to
<br />rmnl'on on where
<br />or whether or not
<br />:>gical Survey has
<br />cate the locations
<br />almost all areas of
<br />for some areas at
<br />many public and
<br />ores and from the
<br />on, Virgini.'i. and
<br />s USCiS brarch in
<br />e indicates which
<br />tvdhiiul area. S«*coiul. the buffer might take a minimum
<br />Ji\cd area, coupled with the flexibility to incorporate
<br />sen.siiive land areas beyond the fixed area. The Central
<br />.New York Kegional Planning Commission has
<br />recotnineiuled that the wetlands regulation include a
<br />l.(MH) f«H»i buffer with n limitation of five per cent
<br />impervious surface within this area. In Wa.shington the
<br />Shoreline Mana^ment Act established a buffer zone
<br />running 200 feet in all directions from the mean high water
<br />line to all wetlands above a minimum size. Within this
<br />fixwl area, the objective is to establish stringent environ
<br />mental controls over a larger list of i>ermitted or special
<br />usc-s. Key among the controls would be protection against
<br />the by-products of increased use, such as liquid wastes,
<br />runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. The control could be
<br />exercised through limitations on impervious surface,
<br />through extensive performance requirements for control of
<br />erosion and runoff, or in the case of liquid waste, through
<br />strin^nt regulation of private sewer systems. If com
<br />mercial and industrial uses were allowed in this zone, it
<br />would also be necessary to give careful attention to the
<br />{lossibility of waste disposal resulting from internal
<br />commercial pnicesses. In most cases, the objective should
<br />be to limit commercial and industrial uses to those with no
<br />significant licjuid waste products.
<br />The floating buffer would be directed toward essentially
<br />the same purposes. The use list might be expanded, but
<br />more stringent controls would be placed on the
<br />by-products of the various uses. With the floating buffer,
<br />the local community might establish a minimum buffer,
<br />coupled with the potential to expand, depending upon the
<br />presence of related sensitive land areas. The dimensions of
<br />the buffer could easily be taken from maps indicating soil
<br />lyiHJ, slope, drainage patterns, and so on. The buffer
<br />Imundary would vary with the presence or absence of
<br />adjacent sensitive land areas. For any specific dcvclo|)-
<br />ment within this area, the proponent would be required to
<br />show the relation between the proposed use and related
<br />sensitive land areas. In this way, the buffer could float
<br />and account for the sensitivity of land.
<br />The principal disadvantage of the floating buffer is
<br />simply the availability of the requisite information. In
<br />tho.se .'-reas with a paucity of environmental information,
<br />the fixed buffer would be more attractive. In those areas
<br />with extensive topographical information, the floating
<br />buffer would make more sense. In both cases, the
<br />objective of the buffer is to allow for an expanded range of
<br />uses while placing strict controls over the by products of
<br />these uses. The use of the buffer zone complements the
<br />basic wetlands control by minimizing negative develop
<br />mental consequences in lands adjoining the wetland area.
<br />Controlling the Attendant Watershed
<br />The final difficulty with the sole reliance upon wetlands
<br />districts is simply that the wetland is, in large measure, a
<br />reflectio.i of the larger watershed. What happens in the
<br />watersluKl will eventually have conse({uences for the
<br />wetland. So, the effectiveness of wetlands regulations is
<br />closely tied to the control of development in the watershed.
<br />In the watershed, two key natural processess are
<br />directly related to the health of the well. nd. These are the
<br />processes of runoff and erosion. Under natural watershed
<br />conditions, the wetland is generally able to controi and
<br />nutiniain its iin{Kjriant funclinns. However, the
<br />watershed becomes progressively more developed, the
<br />capacity of the wetland to deal with erosion and runoff is
<br />civcrwhelnied. To maintain the wetland, the proces.^es of
<br />runoff and erosion must Ire controlled throughout the
<br />watershed. With no control. pre.sence or absence of
<br />wetl.-md districts unukl make little difference. This control
<br />is a precoiubtion to wetluiHl regulation.
<br />A more complete discussion of the nece.ssity for and the
<br />methods of control over the.se natural processes is
<br />emuained in Chapter A of this reixrrt. The design of
<br />wetland regulations should occur only in the conte.xt of
<br />these larger controls. If these watershed controls exist,
<br />then the wetland district receive.s critical environmental
<br />support. If not, the long-tcr'*i effectiveness of w'ctlands
<br />regulation would be in serious (piestion.
<br />Wetland regiilatuin surmounts many of the difficulties
<br />associated with .sole reliance upon acquisition. The regula
<br />tions cover broader areas, may be quickly designed ami
<br />impl(‘mentcd, and allow for wider public participation.
<br />However, to preserve the inqiortant functions of the
<br />wetland th'^y should be conipleinented by the use of buffer
<br />zones for adjacent areas and by controls over runoff and
<br />erosion in the watershed. In facing the problein of
<br />restricted use lists, wetland and buffer zone regulations
<br />should allow for special uses. Thu basic principle in the
<br />evaluation of the special uses would .simply be that the
<br />uses would be compatible with the maintenance of the
<br />important functions of the wetland. Local Cfmnnunities
<br />might also con.sider the use of density transfers or perhaps
<br />transferable development rights to preserve Uicse
<br />functions, while alk»wing f(»r additional uses in less
<br />sensitive areas.
<br />In accounting for tin? negative influence of d(!V’eloj»ment
<br />at the wetland site, in adjacent land areas, am* throughout
<br />the allendunl wjitershed, local communitio.s should move
<br />clos<!r to the real goal of wetland regulation. The goal is to
<br />preserve the important functions of the wetland, sueb as
<br />moderutitig water flow, filtering water for adjacent lakes
<br />and rivcTs, and providing species diver.sity hir an area. In
<br />this more inclusive ivgulntory framework the goal is more
<br />likely to be achit^ved.
<br />DATA NRKDS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
<br />Since wetlands types range from wet prairie to deep
<br />cattail marsh atul are characterized by different vegetation
<br />and water levels, identification of wetland areas is
<br />somewhat difficult. The cyclical and fluctuating nature of
<br />wetland wali*r levels adds another element of confitsion to
<br />mapping them. If you need basic information on where
<br />your community's wetlands are located or whether or not
<br />any exist in your hrea. the State Geological Survey has
<br />topographic quadrangle maps that indicate the locations
<br />of wetlands. The maps are availatilc for almost all areas of
<br />the country in a degree scali;, and for some areas at
<br />the more detailed 7'., degree scale, at many public and
<br />university libraries and selected bookstores and from the
<br />USCiS Distribution Branches in Arlington, Virginia, and
<br />Denver. (Ala.ska maps available froin the USGS branch in
<br />I'tiirlinnks.) An index map for each state indicates which
<br />topograpliic map covers your area.
<br />' "ifc. ?
<br />It >•
<br />.• t.' r
<br />fj*
<br />Sinve peat soil
<br />alsct helpful in id
<br />S(*il types Few I
<br />local SCS oflici
<br />the State Con-
<br />Chapter .q.
<br />The next .slei
<br />evaluate its reia
<br />and animal inv<
<br />.sedimentation.
<br />You'll need :
<br />biologist, or an
<br />vegetation and
<br />Extension Servii
<br />Within the S('l
<br />conservationist (
<br />soil scientists,
<br />foresters, and ot
<br />vution. The stall
<br />or local office of
<br />have a more spe
<br />Since the Cooj:
<br />the USD A, some
<br />SCS. The CES o
<br />and colleges. As
<br />almost every cc
<br />contacted throuf
<br />can draw u|M>n tl
<br />for expertise in a
<br />would rather
<br />1. Samuel P.
<br />the United Stc
<br />Waterfowl and
<br />Government Pr
<br />2. Peter L.
<br />York: Open Spa
<br />3. “Need Lai
<br />House and Horn
<br />4. Johnson,
<br />5. The EPA
<br />Federal Registei
<br />6. John Cla
<br />Considerations /
<br />Conservation Fo
<br />7. For figure s
<br />eutrophication a
<br />traps, see Barb:
<br />and James H. 2
<br />IViscon.s/n (Ma<
<br />Planning Agencj
<br />8. For an in-<
<br />management. s«
<br />Study of East J
<br />Arboretum, M.S
<br />BSSS NllKg::iiaiusum
|