Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 18 OF 89

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Cumulative Impacts on Wetlands: Linking Scientific Assessments and Regulatory Alternatives.
Author Lee, L. C. ; Gosselink, J. G. ;
CORP Author Corvallis Environmental Research Lab., OR. ;Georgia State Univ., Atlanta. ;Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge. Center for Wetland Resources.
Publisher c1988
Year Published 1988
Report Number EPA/600/J-88/494;
Stock Number PB90-186222
Additional Subjects Topography ; Hardwoods ; Forestry ; Terrain ; Estimating ; Regulations ; Reprints ; Wetlands ; Environmental impacts ; Southeast Region(United States) ; Natural resources management ; Ecosystems
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB90-186222 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 06/15/1990
Collation 14p
Abstract
The article is an extension and application of Preston and Bedford (1988), especially as relevant to bottomland hardwood (BLH) forests of the southeastern United States. The most important cumulative effects in BLH forests result from incremental forest loss (nibbing) and from synergisms resulting from nibbing. Present regulatory procedures are ineffective in preventing incremental forest loss because of the focus on permit site evaluation, rather than on large landscapes. Three examples are given to illustrate the need for a landscape focus. The perspective requires preplanning or goal setting to establish the desired conditions to be maintained in the regulated landscape unit. Reference data sets must be developed, relating BLH function to structure. The data sets can be used to set goals for individual watersheds, based on their present conditions and the magnitude and type of perceived development pressures. The crucial steps in establishing a successful program appear to be: establish study unit boundaries; assess the condition of study unit landscape integrity; set goals; and consider the impacts of permit proposals with both goals and the existing condition of the study unit landscape in mind.