The North Street Neighborhood Association recently engaged Hyla Ecological Services to compare Northampton's new wetlands buffer zones to those found elsewhere in Massachusetts. As a refresher, here are the buffer zones in Northampton (Municipal Code, Chapter 337-10-E-2). Note the multiple zoning districts where encroachment to within 10 feet is permitted:

The City's general policy is no encroachment within 50 feet of wetlands. The Commission may allow work within the fifty-foot non-encroachment zone in response to a written request for a waiver, which shall include a written and plan view assessment as part of the application process as follows:

(a)	Projects in areas downgradient of wetlands and projects in areas already degraded by impervious surfaces from existing structures or pavement.
(b)	Projects in certain infill areas, in accordance with Table (1) in § 337-10, where development includes mitigation measures that will improve the existing condition of the wetlands or adjacent upland area and is otherwise permissible under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act.
(c)	Limited development projects, as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act regulations. Zoning District No-Encroachment Zone Central Business, General Business, Neighborhood Business, General Industrial, Special Industrial, Planned Village, Medical 10 feet from wetlands Urban Residential-B and Urban Residential-C 35 feet from wetlands 10 feet from wetlands may be allowed at the discretion of the Conservation Commission if applicant provides extraordinary mitigation, replication, restoration or open space preservation measures All water supply protection overlay areas zoned residential as of January 1, 2006, regardless of the underlying zoning, and all other areas Only in conformance with the performance standards of this chapter Business Park See § 337-10C

Hyla reviewed wetland bylaws and regulations compiled by the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions to generate a representative survey of buffer zone regimes around the state. The chart below summarizes their findings. The text of the bylaws analyzed may be downloaded as a PDF.

* NB = Hopkinton allows 10' utilities, 15' driveway, Manchester allows 25' driveway

Northborough has lowest no disturb setback of 15', Methuen has 20', all others have min. of 25'

With 10-foot buffer zones, Northampton is clearly at the narrow end of the spectrum. Sturbridge wetland regulations give some of the reasons for having larger buffer zones:

REGULATIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE

TOWN OF STURBRIDGE WETLAND BYLAW

Based on systematic field observation in the Town of Sturbridge by the Sturbridge Conservation Commission, any structures less than 50 feet from a resource area create temporary construction and long-term “normal daily use” impacts within the 25-foot buffer. The minimum distance for a new structure will be 50-feet from any resource area. The new structure setback will not apply to any structure existing prior to the adoption of these regulations. However structures being removed and replaced must comply with the regulations in effect at the time of the reconstruction.

Naturally		Sediment and	Wildlife Habitat Values Associated with Specific Buffer Width
Vegetated		Pollution
buffer strip		Removal
(width in feet)		(approx %)
25		50	Poor habitat value; useful for temporary wildlife activities
35		60	Minimally protects stream habitat; poor habitat value; useful for
			temporary activities of wildlife
50		≥60	Minimal general wildlife and avian habitat
65		70	Minimal Wildlife habitat value; some value as avian habitat
100		70	May have use as a wildlife corridor; general avian habitat value
165		75	Minimal general wildlife habitat value
250		80	Fair to good general wildlife and avian habitat value
330		80	Good general wildlife habitat value; may protect significant wildlife habitat

See also:

Hyla Ecological Services Analyzes the Proposed Wetlands Ordinance
"Buffers of less than 50 feet in width are generally ineffective in protecting wetlands. Buffers larger than 50 feet are necessary to protect wetlands from an influx of sediment and nutrients, to protect wetlands from direct human disturbance, to protect sensitive wildlife species from adverse impacts, and to protect wetlands from the adverse effects of changes in quantity of water entering the wetland... (Castelle et al., 'Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness', 1992)

"Buffer function was found to be directly related to the width of the buffer. Ninety-five percent of buffers smaller than 50 feet suffered a direct human impact within the buffer, while only 35% of buffers wider than 50 feet suffered direct human impact. Human impacts to the buffer zone resulted in increased impact on the wetland by noise, physical disturbance of foraging and nesting areas, and dumping refuse and yard waste. Overall, large buffers reduced the degree of changes in water quality, sediment load, and the quantity of water entering the adjacent wetland." (Castelle et al., 1992)

Just Released: Planner's Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments
Most striking is that some locales desire wider buffers in areas of intense land use to address the higher levels of pollution and runoff. By contrast, Northampton has its narrowest buffers in these areas.

Planner's Guide to Wetland Buffers for Local Governments
Environmental Law Institute, March 2008

[emphasis added]

Depending on site conditions, much of the sediment and nutrient removal may occur within the first 15-30 feet of the buffer, but buffers of 30-100 feet or more will remove pollutants more consistently. Buffer distances should be greater in areas of steep slope and high intensity land use. Larger buffers will be more effective over the long run because buffers can become saturated with sediments and nutrients, gradually reducing their effectiveness, and because it is much harder to maintain the long term integrity of small buffers. In an assessment of 21 established buffers in two Washington counties, Cooke (1992) found that 76% of the buffers were negatively altered over time. Buffers of less than 50 feet were more susceptible to degradation by human disturbance. In fact, no buffers of 25 feet or less were functioning to reduce disturbance to the adjacent wetland. The buffers greater than 50 feet showed fewer signs of human disturbance...

...The Environmental Law Institute’s (2003) review of the science found that effective buffer sizes for wildlife protection may range from 33 to more than 5000 feet, depending on the species...

Enacted local government buffer ordinances show a wide range of wetland buffer dimensions. The lowest we found was 15 feet measured horizontally from the border of the wetland, with the highest approximately 350 feet. Several ordinances set 500 feet as a distance for greater regulatory review of proposed activities, but do not require nondisturbance at this distance. Often the ordinances provide a range of protections, with nondisturbance requirements nearest the wetland and various prohibitions and limitations as the distance from the wetland increases. Among the ordinances we examined, the largest number of ordinances clustered around nondisturbance or minimal disturbance buffers of 50 feet or 100 feet, with variations (usually upward variations) beyond these based on particular wetland characteristics, species of concern, and to account for areas with steeper slopes. The largest ordinance-prescribed buffer distances (350 feet or more) tended to be for tidal wetlands and vernal pool wetlands...

Springfield Wetland Regulations: "A Minimum of a fifty (50) foot undisturbed buffer"
A minimum of a fifty (50) foot undisturbed buffer shall be established adjacent to any vegetated wetland, bank, lake, stream or river, intermittent or continuous, natural or artificial and certified or uncertified vernal pools. No work, structures or alterations will be allowed within the fifty (50) foot buffer...

Connecticut River Watershed Action Plan: Remove impervious surfaces within 50 feet of streams

Gazette guest column: "Don't ease controls on wetlands" (10/25/07, emphasis added)
[Alexandra Dawson, chair of Hadley's Conservation Commission, writes,] ...Northampton has adopted changes to its bylaws that limit the setback between development and wetlands in the business district to 10 feet, although it is obvious that 10 feet is not even enough space to accommodate the big yellow machines that do the building. It is true that a recent court decision indicates that wetlands ordinances (or conservation commission regulations adopted under them) should enumerate setbacks so that builders need not guess what will be required of them. Unfortunately, there is also case law stating that whatever is so established limits the commission's discretion to ask for more unless there is a specific showing of why one proposal stands out from the others. If the setback in the ordinance is 10 feet, it will be very hard for the commission to justify a permit restricting building for 50 feet. For this reason, most eastern Massachusetts bylaws that contain setbacks start at 25 to 50 feet.

The proposed ordinance is not consistent with past practice, and favors substantial new encroachments on Northampton's wetlands
The following chart makes clear that the proposed ordinance is not consistent with past practice, that it favors substantial new encroachments on Northampton's wetlands, and that recent revisions have made it ever more lopsided in favor of developers:



Note: Public officials have given us to understand that at least one permit to encroach within 10 feet of wetlands has been issued in the Industrial Park district in recent years. Nevertheless, we believe that a 50-foot no-build buffer zone has been the more general rule.

Is the Proposed Wetlands Ordinance Similar to Current Buffer Zone Policy? Judge for Yourself
...in a review of the Commission's minutes from 2004 (PDF), we found one case where the applicant proposed to disturb 26% of a 50-foot buffer. The minutes report: "Sweetser asked if the NCC has ever permitted a project with this much disturbance. Body and Carbin said no."

City Council Enacts New Wetlands Ordinance, Including 10-Foot Buffers
Councilor Dostal proposed two amendments to the ordinance, but neither was approved by the majority. One amendment called for compensating landowners whose use of their land would be restricted by the vernal pool regulations in the new ordinance. The other called for 50-foot no-disturbance wetlands buffers throughout the city, with an exception for industrial and business districts representing 5% of Northampton's land area. In those districts, 10-foot buffers would have been permitted in exchange for extraordinary mitigation or open space preservation measures. We applaud Councilor Dostal's attempt to reduce the risks of narrow buffer zones, especially for those who reside in Northampton's urban areas. On this latter amendment, he was joined in support by Councilor Raymond LaBarge.

During the discussion of the ordinance, Conservation and Land Use Planner Bruce Young asserted that wetlands buffer zones were less important in Northampton's more built-up areas, as opposed to those on the outskirts. This seems plausible with respect to wildlife and natural habitats. The wetlands in-town tend to be hemmed in, surrounded by disruptive human activities, and more fragmented. Some are degraded with invasive species and man-made materials such as masonry.

We believe, however, that our in-town buffers are more important than average when it comes to flood mitigation and water pollution. A disproportionate percentage of the people and property of the city are found in the areas now subject to 10-foot wetlands buffers. Our drainage systems there are already under stress. Flood damage reports from Tropical Storm Floyd show clusters of red flags in our urban areas, even under the previous, more restrictive buffer zone regime.

It also stands to reason that stormwater runoff, with its chemicals, oils, sand, silt, and other contaminants, is a more serious issue in our more urban areas, with their large concentrations of human activity, cars and impervious surfaces. Narrow wetlands buffers will enable that pollution to enter our streams and rivers more quickly, with less processing, and in higher volumes. This runs contrary to the spirit of the Connecticut River Strategic Plan (2003), which "proposes the removal of impervious surfaces within 50 feet of streams..." As former Councilor Alex Ghiselin observed during the public comment period, cleaning up the Connecticut River has been one of the region's signal achievements during the past generation. It's a shame to imperil this work.

When illustrating how the new ordinance might be applied, Bruce Young dwelt on the hypothetical example of a homeowner who wants to build an accessory apartment on their property, and how relaxed buffer zone requirements could facilitate that. While this came across as innocuous and benign, there was no discussion of the cumulative impact of many landowners encroaching on wetlands. It's easy to see how the Conservation Commission, by giving away our flood protection piecemeal over time, could materially impact the city's experience during the next major rainstorm.

Also glossed over was the impact of major projects, such as Kohl Construction's 26 condo units proposed for the woods behind North Street (original plan, latest update). Besides the units themselves, this project calls for new roads and numerous parking spaces--a considerable amount of new impervious surface. It would result in major disturbance of a large zone within 50 feet of wetlands, a far cry from the impact of one accessory apartment.

Councilor Narkewicz objected to the holding up of Springfield's wetlands regulations as a model for Northampton. He said that while Springfield requires a minimum of a 50-foot undisturbed buffer, it will grant variances. He neglected to mention that these variances are conditioned on the applicant demonstrating that "work or alterations within the fifty (50) foot buffer will enhance the wetland interests specified under this ordinance". We stand by our claim that Springfield's regulations are considerably more friendly to the environment than Northampton's new ordinance. As the Valley Advocate reports this week, "A member of the Springfield Conservation Commission who declined to be identified stated that Northampton’s 10-foot buffer zone in parts of the city was not smart, as developers usually are afforded a five-foot discretion either way. Also, the official noted, it is nearly impossible not to impact wetlands when working at such close range..."

Gazette: "Council adopts wetlands ordinance"
At-large City Councilor James M. Dostal proposed an amendment Thursday that called for increasing the 10 feet no-encroachment zones in urban residential districts to 50 feet because of serious concerns about homes flooding, saying "We shouldn't be building there..."

"It seems as if this city's administration has had its imagination seized by development," said Paige Bridgens, of 12 Northern Avenue. "I'm concerned for the well-being of this town that's getting paved over."

Adam Cohen, of North Street and an organizer of the North Street Neighborhood Association said he believes a 50-foot no-[en]croachment zone would be better for the city's urban residential districts. That, he said, represents "consumer protection for homeowners."

Northampton's Flood and Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan: Floyd Flood Damage Reported Behind View Avenue; Avoid Building on Filled Wetlands
In a table of Existing Mitigation Strategies, the plan includes a "100 foot buffer around wetlands and the wetland resource area itself..." It says this strategy has been "Effective", and says that an option to improve it would be to "Strengthen Wetland Ordinance"...

One of the "Priority Actions" is to "Consistently enforce the Wetlands Protection Act to maintain the integrity of the 200’ riverfront area, wetlands and wetland buffer areas."

Flooding is already affecting Northampton's built-up areas during major storms. Weakening wetlands buffer zone requirements downtown will make this worse

EPA: Wetlands and Flood Protection
Wetlands within and downstream of urban areas are particularly valuable, counteracting the greatly increased rate and volume of surface-water runoff from pavement and buildings...

Snow and Slush Expose Limits of Storm Drains
If infill is to mean adding more impervious surface to the already built-up areas of Northampton, this will increase pressure on our man-made stormwater drainage system. The limits of this system were on display this week, as snow, sleet and nearly 3 inches of rain came to Pioneer Valley.

Gazette: "Region's storms going to extremes, report finds"
Wetlands can moderate both flooding and drought, absorbing excess water during storms and releasing it slowly during periods of dryness. Today's report underscores the value of our remaining wetlands in Northampton.

Paved Surfaces, Salt and Water Bodies: A Bad Mix
...Kohl Construction's proposed condo development off North Street calls for paved surfaces as close as 35 feet or less from the wetlands surrounding Millyard Brook.

Topographical Map Shows How Kohl Condo Proposal Will Eat Into a Rare Stand of Mature Trees in Downtown
The following view dramatizes the considerable amount of impervious surface already surrounding the area off North Street that Kohl Construction proposes to develop, especially around King Street and the Coca-Cola plant. Kohl's "infill" project will convert a significant amount of the remaining greenspace to impervious surface. The presence of Millyard Brook shows that this area serves as a natural sink for water in the neighborhood.