Ecology of Red Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: A ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

y capturing sediment, reducing nutrient loads, and fdtering other pollutanb before they reach the wetland (Brown and Schaefer 1987). A considerable body of experience has developed on pollution attenuation in artificial buffer strips (Clark 1977). Research on natural systems is more limited, but recent findings are encouraging. For example, forested buffer zones in Maryland and North Carolina have been shown to remove as much as W / o of the excess nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural runoff (Hall et al. 1986). In a 2-year study conducted in southern Rhode Island, Gold and Simmons (1990) injected a "spike" of nitrate, copper, and a tracer into the ground upgradient from forested upland and red maple swamp monitoring stations at three sites. They found complete attenuation of copper in the groundwater at all stations. Nitrate removal ranged from 14 to 87% in the forested upland, where soils were moderately well drained or somewhat poorly drained; in the swamp, it was almost complete in both poorly drained and very poorly drained soils. The highest attenuation occurred where groundwater levels were closest to the surface. The authors concluded that forested buffer zones can protect wetland and surface-water systems from water quality degradation throughout the year; however, long-term performance may vary because plant uptake and microbial immobilization of nitrate are temporary nutrient sinks. One of the unique aspects of many buffer zones is the high species richness of both plants and animals porter 1981). As a transitional area between wetland and upland, the buffer zone commonly contains species that are representative of both communities (Anderson et al. 1980; Davis 1988). Moisture is characteristically abundant in this zone, but not limiting to plant growth; as a result, forest productivity is often higher there than in more droughty upland soils (Braiewa et al. 1985). Upland habitats along the wetland edge have also been cited as the main source for seeds contributing to the spatial heterogeneity of wetlands (Brown and Schaefer 1987). The Issue of Buffer Width One of the most vigorously contested issues in public hearing rooms throughout the Northeast in recent years has been the minimum width of buffer zone required to safeguard wetland ecosystems from the adverse impacts of development. Proposals have ranged widely, from as much at3 150 m to as little as 15 m. There has been so little research on the basic characteristics and functions of wetland buffer zones that the development of scientifically valid criteria for determining buffer zone width has been difficult (Jordan and Shisler 1988). As a result, buffer zone widths established by regulatory agencies often have been arbitrary. The Rhode Island Freshwater Wetlands Act (G.L., Chap. 2-1, Sect. 18 et seq.), passed in 1971, was the first inland wetlands law to include a buffer; all land within 15 m of the edge of ponds, marshes, swamps, and bogs is considered part of those wetlands and is regulated accordingly New Jersey's Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (NJ S.A. 13:9B-1 et seq.), which was passed in 1987, contains the most sophisticated treatment of buffer zones (termed transition areas m the law) to date. The act requires that all freshwater wetlands be classified as exceptional, intermediate, or ordinary. Exceptional wetlands, which provide habitat for threatened or endangered species or which border trout production waters, have a 46-m transition area. Transition areas are not required for ordinary wetlands, which include ditches, swales, detention basins, and isolated wetlands less than 465 m2 in area with development along at least 50% of their borders. All other wetlands, which are considered to be of intermediate value, have 15-m transition areas. A major contribution toward the development of buffer zone criteria was made by researchers in the New Jersey pinelands (Roman and Good 1985). In their buffer delineation model, buffer width is determined by numerically rating both the natural quality, values, and functions of a wetland and the potential for site-specific, cumulative, and watershed-wide impacts of development. Indices for relative wetland quality and relative environmental effects are averaged, and the resulting buffer index is translated into a buffer width by using a conversion table. This is the only quantitative procedure that rates both wetland values and impacts. Working in the Wekiva River Bmin of central Florida, Brown and Sehaefer (1987) also developed quantitative criteria for buffer delineation. Key functions addressed were water quality maintenance, water quantity maintenance, and wildlife habitat. Buffer width was determined from existing scientii'ic data on soil erodibility, depth to the water table, and the habitat requirements of representative wildlife species known to inhabit the area. Buffer zone widths were calculated for each function, and the largest width was considered to be controlling in any given area. Buffer widths
I Does the buffer meel minimum habitat sulability guidelines? E3uffer does not have sufficient value to wildlife; buffer restoration needed. Are there threatened or endangered animal species in the wetland or buffer area? I Calculate minimum buffer requirements for noise attenuation. Range = 13 - 85 m. Fig. 8.6. Wetland buffer width model developed for wildlife habitat functions in Rhode Island red maple swamps (after Husband and Eddleman 1990). ranged from as little as 13 m for water quality ceeding 100 m was recommended for swamps with maintenance in areas with low slope and low soil threatened or endangered species. Figure 8.6 outto much as 163 m for individual wet- lines the decisions leading to a final buffer width lmd-depndent animals of most species living in determination In the Rhode Island model. the watershed. Husband and Eddteman (1990) developed a preliminary buffer width model for Rhode Island red maple swamps using four wildlife habitat factors outlined in the Wekiva River basin study (Brown and Schaefer 1987): (1) habitat suitability, (2) wildlife spatial requirements, (3) access to upland or transitional habitats, and (4) noise impacts on wildlife life functions. Buffer widths calculated for these four variables ranged from 13 m for noise attenuation under optimal conditions (i.e., forested buffer and residential noise) to 100 m for spatial requirements of forest Interior bird species, small mammals, and reptiles and amphibians. A buffer ex- Exempted Wetlands One additional problem hindering wetland protection is the wetland loss that results from exemptions on the basis of wetland size or type. As noted earlier in this report, several northeastern states have size minima for protection. In Rhode Island, swamps smaller than 1.2 ha are not regulated as stringently as larger swamps (G.L., Chap. 2-1, Sect. 20). In New York, the minimum size limit for all regulated wetIands is 5 ha unless the wetland can be shown to be of unusual local importance @%exinger 1986). In Maine, inland wetlands are protected only if they are 4 ha or larger mtle 38,
Page 2 and 3:
Technical IIbpg~rt Series U.S. Fish
Page 5 and 6:
Preface In many areas of the glacia
Page 7 and 8:
Acer rubrum (red maple) diagnostic
Page 9 and 10:
Zone 111 . St . Lawrence Valley and
Page 11 and 12:
Fig . 3.7. Red maple swap with unde
Page 13 and 14:
Table 4.5. Flood tolerance of trees
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter I. Introduction Wetland kbr
Page 17 and 18:
Regional Setting throughout the gla
Page 19 and 20:
C-J Spruce-Fa Beech-Birch-Maple Mit
Page 21 and 22:
Fig. 1.4. The range of red maple (a
Page 23 and 24:
~ b 1.5, h fircort~ of Wet landc Ir
Page 25 and 26:
Fig. 22. &~lrit~ve Irtndtici~pe yos
Page 27 and 28:
egional groundwakr table by the roc
Page 29 and 30:
y e~rr~mtrtm~~,irzst ion. Cat~t,inu
Page 31 and 32:
inflow^ Outflows OF SWQ SWI Fig. 25
Page 33 and 34:
Fig, 23.6,Soasonally flmded red map
Page 35 and 36:
Fig. 27. Water levels in six mode I
Page 37 and 38:
The duration of soil saturation has
Page 39 and 40:
Organic soils are always very poorl
Page 41 and 42:
Chapter 3. The Plant Community The
Page 43 and 44:
.dar02f 'B Xi? s%u?mma -?sway+xqq p
Page 47 and 48:
Community S tructare Red maple swam
Page 49 and 50:
suggesta a strong correlation betwe
Page 51 and 52:
Table 3.2. Stmtuml chumcteristics o
Page 53 and 54:
Table 3.3. Continued. "- -- - Speci
Page 55 and 56:
Table __ 3.3. _ Continued ._.lll.__
Page 57 and 58:
Table 3.3. Continued. . * - __.. ^.
Page 59 and 60:
Zone I II III TV C" Drppnmriad* sp.
Page 61 and 62:
on Long Island, pin oak, swamp whit
Page 63 and 64:
fern moea (?ki.c&inz &limfulum), an
Page 65 and 66:
countered (Table 3.3). The herb lay
Page 67 and 68:
~akareous Seepage Swamps England si
Page 69 and 70:
and globeflower are. listed in four
Page 71 and 72:
was the most likely reason for diff
Page 73 and 74:
kvei fluctuation during the gmwing
Page 75 and 76:
Table 4.2. .Rektit.e ~bmchnce w Q)
Page 77 and 78:
difficuit to delineate in many inst
Page 79 and 80:
in the librature btlx>~ithe moi~ttl
Page 81 and 82:
Origin. an$ Relationship to Water R
Page 83 and 84:
Influence on Swamp Vegetation Flori
Page 85 and 86:
taka wpra-x li)wcir, t raac* df~rla
Page 87 and 88: dwuL 4.3 6.3. C ~ ~ ~ strisk- P C I
Page 89 and 90: Chapter 5. Ecosystem Processes Irr
Page 91 and 92: - 0 2 E E 0l *" C 8 g 00 - c_ m 3 -
Page 93 and 94: Ehnzdoltf (IWj wm mmht~nt, rru@w on
Page 95 and 96: 1976; I">irwia RE& vari iier Vdk 18
Page 97 and 98: Xletritus Exprort and 'sod Chain Su
Page 99: Chapter 6. Wetland Dynamics Most no
Page 102 and 103: since forested wetland is the endpo
Page 104 and 105: kettle bogs, lakes, or large rivers
Page 106 and 107: mmdwakr depression wetlands. Becaus
Page 108 and 109: (Mniotila varia), regularly breed i
Page 110 and 111: EXusbtand arid Eddleman (1Y30) quan
Page 112 and 113: census results. Twenty-five (40%) o
Page 114 and 115: elated to avian richness and abunda
Page 116 and 117: Fig. 7.6. Wood duck (Aix sponsa). T
Page 118 and 119: Table 7.5. Small-mammal communities
Page 120 and 121: ing the latter years of flowage occ
Page 122 and 123: Chapter 8. Values, Impacts, and Man
Page 124 and 125: of the bordering upland. Both studi
Page 126 and 127: Fig. 8.1. ST folia) in pel fer. .bu
Page 128 and 129: Table 8.1. Emrnpks ofgmss loss rate
Page 130 and 131: Fig. 8.3. Southern New England red
Page 132 and 133: Fig. 8.4. Electric utility lines pa
Page 134 and 135: e expected to cause more drastic fl
Page 136 and 137: and enhancement has been a highly c
Page 140 and 141: M.R.S.A., Sect. 480.A). Research by
Page 142 and 143: Broadfoot, W. M., and H. L. Willist
Page 144 and 145: Fefer, S. I. 1980. me palushe syste
Page 146 and 147: Jordan, R J. 1978. Glacial geology
Page 148 and 149: Xew Hampshire Xatural Areas Program
Page 150 and 151: Ren MAPLE SWAMR 137 Smith, H. 1984.
Page 152 and 153: Appendix A. Sources of Floristic Da
Page 154 and 155: Appendix B. Plants of Special Conce
Page 156 and 157: Appendix B. Continued Species d Car
Page 158 and 159: Appendix C. Vertebrates That Have B
Page 160 and 161: Mourning warbler ... Nashville warb
Page 162 and 163: Appendix D. Vertebrates of Special
Page 164 and 165: ~tnte"and ronsewat ion stat ilu' d
show all

Ecology of Red Maple Swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: A ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?