DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Wetland Resource Area Buffer Zone Distances

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Wetland Resource Area Buffer Zone Distances Review of Wetland Resource Area Buffer Zone Distances February 2013 Prepared By: Town Of Tewksbury Conservation Commission By-law Subcommittee 1.0 Introduction and Background As part of the Town of Tewksbury’s October 2012 Special Town Meeting warrant, an article had been submitted by residents which would have amended the local wetlands protection bylaw (see Appendix A for article). The primary amendment requested by this article was to change buffer zone distances surrounding wetland resource areas. Following discussions between the Conservation Commission and the article proponents, the article was withdrawn with the understanding that the Conservation Commission would further evaluate the requested amendments. A bylaw subcommittee was formed to perform this evaluation, along with evaluation of other potential bylaw changes/improvements. This report was developed to summarize information collected during the research phase of the buffer zone distance evaluation. The existing wetland bylaw is summarized, along with any available historical background information regarding the basis for the existing buffer zone distances and a master plan evaluation of the bylaw. A summary of various technical research papers is provided, many of which were developed in an attempt to determine appropriate protective buffer zone distances for various land use applications. Review was also performed on distances utilized by Massachusetts municipalities. In most cases, the basis for these distances was unavailable, but they are useful for comparison purposes. Finally, implications of changes to the buffer zone distances are reviewed. 1.1 Buffer Zones - General The need for buffer zones around waterbodies and wetlands is well-documented and will be summarized later in this document. However, the appropriate width of a protective buffer is not clear. Many factors can be used in determining this distance, including: x Wetland function and value; x Intensity of adjacent land use; x Buffer characteristics (e.g., slope and soil type) as it relates to sediment/pollutant removal (both above and below the ground surface) and microclimate protection; and x Wildlife habitat protection and connectivity. Buffer zone management varies by state and municipality. While evaluations of impacts are often performed on a case-by-case basis, due to the amount of effort necessary for determination of an appropriate buffer zone distance, many by-laws and ordinances set minimum buffer widths with various restrictions to make it easier on both developers and reviewers. However, the basis for these set distances is not always based on scientific evidence, but rather “politically” based, where consideration for landowner use, historic decisions, and how neighboring municipalities handle the issue is utilized. In a municipality like Tewksbury, where there are many wetlands/waterbodies and much of the available land is already developed, all of the factors listed above, both scientific and political, must be evaluated to determine the best method for buffer zone management in the municipality. Review of Wetland Resource Area Buffer Zone Distances – February 2013 1 For the purposes of this document, no-disturb zones are those where little to no activity is allowed, maintaining an undisturbed zone, typically right next to the wetland resource area or water body. A no- build zone is typically an additional distance from a no-disturb zone where building of structures is limited so as to protect the no-disturb zone from encroachment. For example, if a no-disturb zone were set at 25 feet from a wetland resource area and there are no limitations to construction beyond this zone, a building could be placed just beyond the 25-foot boundary. This would likely result in future disturbance around the building, at a minimum, for maintenance, thereby encroaching in the no-disturb zone. In this document, distances are defined as being from and parallel to the wetland boundary. 1.2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations As summarized in Boyd, 2001: “The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MWPA), (Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Chapter 131 Section 40) first passed in 1972, is implemented by Chapter 310, Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), Section 10. The purpose of the MWPA is to provide protection to wetland resources with respect to the following eight interests: -Protection of public and private water supply -Protection of ground water supply -Flood control -Storm Damage Prevention -Prevention of Pollution -Protection of Land Containing Shellfish -Protection of Fisheries -Protection of Wildlife Habitat” The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not defined no-disturb and/or no-build zones. It is left up to local municipalities to enforce how they choose within 100 ft of wetland resource areas (or within 200 ft of rivers/perennial streams). Although this authority is granted to municipalities, decisions are reviewed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection for consistency and potential mis- interpretation of the MWPA. “The Rivers Protection Act (RPA) was an amendment to the MWPA and is also found in Massachusetts general laws (MGL) Chapter 131 Section 40. It was passed in 1996 and implemented in 1997 by Chapter 310, Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Section 10. The regulation states that riverfront areas protect the same eight interests as the MWPA, and so must be preserved.” Review of Wetland Resource Area Buffer Zone Distances – February 2013 2 1.3 Town of Tewksbury – Wetlands Protection Bylaw [Note that this section summarizes Bylaw information at the time of publication. The Bylaw subcommittee is discussing revisions/clarifications to improve understanding by both residents/developers and Conservation Commissioners.] In the Town of Tewksbury Wetlands Protection Bylaw (August 2012), a 25-foot no-disturb zone and 50- foot no-build zone has been established, with various waivers/activities allowed for each zone. Waivers are often allowed for existing developments/residences in the no-build zone; however, limitation of activities in the no-disturb zone is adhered to in most cases. The bylaw is presented as Appendix B, with the distances defined in Section 18.04.30 and exceptions/variances defined in Section 18.04.40 and performance standards listed in Section 18.04.45. General allowances/prohibitions are presented below (both summarized and via specific excerpts). Following the discussion of the existing bylaw, example scenarios for residents are presented to potentially provide a better understanding of some of the typical scenarios reviewed by the Commission. In addition, the history of the existing bylaw buffer zone distances is summarized for improved understanding. Note that maintaining, repairing or replacing, but not substantially changing or enlarging, an existing and lawfully located building (residential/commercial) does not require an application to the Commission. Additional exemptions are allowed for facilities used in the service of the public (i.e., utilities), agricultural use, and mosquito control. Maintenance of existing landscaping, including lawn mowing and pruning, is exempt from Commission review regardless of location in the buffer zone or any wetland resource area. 25-foot No-Disturb Zone – Undisturbed, natural vegetation. Except for certain cases, no activity is permitted within this zone, including, but not limited to, grading, landscaping, vegetation clearing, cutting, filling, excavating, road construction, and driveway construction. “This standard has been adopted because the alteration of land immediately adjacent to a wetland is likely to result in the alteration of the wetland itself. Alterations typically result from extension of lawns, depositing/ dumping of yard waste, over grading, siltation, deposition of construction debris, unregulated filling, and clearing of vegetation, all of which is prohibited.” Note that historic alteration of this zone (e.g., lawn encroachment) does not reduce this distance as being enforceable under the existing bylaw. However, a presumption of significance (of any part of the buffer zone) may be overcome upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the buffer zone does not play a role in the protection of the wetland/water body. Discussion of variables contributing to buffer zone protectiveness is presented later in this report. Review of Wetland Resource Area Buffer Zone Distances – February 2013 3 50-foot No-Build Zone – x Proposed (new) buildings or structures must stay outside of this zone; x Mitigation options are provided for unavoidable partial encroachment into this zone. x Stormwater management structures/components are allowed in this zone; x These tasks do not need review by the Commission: o Unpaved pedestrian walkways for private use; o Fencing that does not create a barrier to wildlife movement; o Stone walls without mortared foundations; o Stacks of cordwood; o Vista pruning (see bylaw text for restrictions); o Planting of native trees, shrubs, or groundcover, but not turf lawns [turf lawn installation in this zone requires review by the Commission]; o Conversion of lawns to decks, sheds, patios, and pools that accessory to single family homes which existed prior to May 1, 2002 (runoff controls must be used during construction); o Conversion of patios, pools, sheds, or other impervious surfaces to lawn or natural vegetation; and o Activities, such as monitoring wells, exploratory borings, soil sampling, and surveying, that are temporary, have negligible
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Long-Term Land Cover Changes in the Western Part of the Korean Demilitarized Zone
    land Article Long-Term Land Cover Changes in the Western Part of the Korean Demilitarized Zone Jae Hyun Kim 1,2,3 , Shinyeong Park 2, Seung Ho Kim 2 and Eun Ju Lee 3,* 1 Research Institute for Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea; [email protected] 2 DMZ Ecology Research Institute, Paju 10881, Korea; [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (S.H.K.) 3 School of Biological Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: After the Korean War, human access to the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) was highly restricted. However, limited agricultural activity was allowed in the Civilian Control Zone (CCZ) surrounding the DMZ. In this study, land cover and vegetation changes in the western DMZ and CCZ from 1919 to 2017 were investigated. Coniferous forests were nearly completely destroyed during the war and were then converted to deciduous forests by ecological succession. Plains in the DMZ and CCZ areas showed different patterns of land cover changes. In the DMZ, pre-war rice paddies were gradually transformed into grasslands. These grasslands have not returned to forest, and this may be explained by wildfires set for military purposes or hydrological fluctuations in floodplains. Grasslands near the floodplains in the DMZ are highly valued for conservation as a rare land type. Most grasslands in the CCZ were converted back to rice paddies, consistent with their previous use. After the 1990s, ginseng cultivation in the CCZ increased. In addition, the landscape changes in the Korean DMZ and CCZ were affected by political circumstances between South and North Citation: Kim, J.H.; Park, S.; Kim, Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load
    DRAFT Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Maine Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission April 2007 DRAFT Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................ii Tables ..........................................................................................................................................................iv Figures.........................................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................vi Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................................xiii Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................................xvi
    [Show full text]
  • WEST NEWBURY TRAINING FIELD Where Newbury Men Trained for the Revolutionary War and West Newbury Men Trained for the Civil War ANNUAL STATEMENT of the RECEIPTS
    WEST NEWBURY TRAINING FIELD Where Newbury men trained for the Revolutionary War and West Newbury men trained for the Civil War ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES OF THE Together with the Reports of the School Committee, Board of Engineers, Trustees of the Public Library, Assessors, Auditor, Treasurer and Collector and the Statistics of the Town Clerk. Printed by ~ NEWBURYPORT P11Ess, INc. lln )mlemnrhnn Harold T. Daley January 8, 1911 December 9, 1977 Selectman Assessor Board of Public Welfare Board of Health 1936-1938 Selectman Assessor Board of Public Welfare Board of Health 1951-1956 Member of First Water Board 1936 DIRECTORY OF TOWN OFFICERS BOARD OF SELECTMEN Stephen F. Burke, Jr., Chairman, 1978 Ann S. Reilly, 1979 Albert E. Elwell, 1980 BOARD OF PUBLIC HEAL TH Albert E. Elwell, Chairman, 1980 Stephen F. Burke, Jr., 1978 Ann S. Reilly, 1979 BOARD OF ASSESSORS Dorothea B. Crowley, Chairman, 1978 George E. Schofield, 1979 Steven W. Cashman, 1980 MODERATOR William A. Cook, 1979 TOWN TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR Norman H. Hobson, 1979 TOWN CLERK Norman H. Hobson, 1980 SCHOOL COMMITTEE William P. Bannister, Chairman, 1980 Louis A. Porcelli, 1978 Wayne G. Maglione, 1979 Barbara M. Wells, 1979 Gunter Waehling, 1980 BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS Charles D. Courtemanche, Chairman, 1979 Edward Vansickle, 1978 David Jennell, 1980 CONSTABLES Charles b. Courtemanche, 1980 Wilbert H. Thompson, 1980 Eugene M. Willis, Jr., 1980 BOARD OF TRUSTEES G.A.R. MEMORIAL LIBRARY David D. Hindle, Chairman, 1979 Ann S. Lape, Recording Secretary, 1978 J. Jackson George, 1979 Philip J. Crowley, 1980 Hugh F. Cawley, 1978 Sarkis M.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Here and There: Buffer Zones in International Law Eian Katz†
    Between Here and There: Buffer Zones in International Law Eian Katz† INTRODUCTION On a December morning in 2015, H.A. left early from his home in central Gaza to tend to his fields of wheat, barley, peas, and fava beans a couple hundred meters from the Israeli border fence. He arrived to find a low-flying Israeli aircraft spewing a thick, white substance over his farmland as it traveled south along the Palestinian side of the divide. Two days later, H.A. observed signs of damage to the leaves of his plants. Within ten days, his entire crop had shriveled and died, leaving him without his only source of income and unable to repay a loan for agricul- tural inputs.1 Like many Palestinians, a substantial portion of H.A.’s lands lies within the Israeli-imposed “no-go zone” inside the Gaza Strip, which in recent years has also been converted into a “no-grow zone” for farmers.2 Facing threats of rocket attacks, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and border infiltration, Israel sprays herbicides throughout this area in order to preserve a clear line of sight.3 Access to certain areas is restricted entirely, with Israel regularly firing on encroaching Palestinians, civilians and mili- tants alike.4 The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have issued contra- dictory pronouncements as to the precise boundaries and rules of † BA 2013, Yale University; JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School. 1 Israel Sprays Gazan Farmland Close to Border Fence, Destroying Crops and Caus- ing Heavy Losses (B’Tselem, Feb 4, 2016), archived at http://perma.cc/56FA-2NGZ.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Pollution in Massachusetts' Waters
    Photo: Supe87, Under license from Shutterstock.com from Supe87, Under license Photo: ToXIC WATERWAYS Mercury Pollution in Massachusetts’ Waters Lauren Randall Environment Massachusetts Research & Policy Center December 2011 Executive Summary Coal-fired power plants are the single larg- Human Services advises that all chil- est source of mercury pollution in the Unit- dren under twelve, pregnant women, ed States. Emissions from these plants even- women who may become pregnant, tually make their way into Massachusetts’ and nursing mothers not consume any waterways, contaminating fish and wildlife. fish from Massachusetts’ waterways. Many of Massachusetts’ waterways are un- der advisory because of mercury contami- Mercury pollution threatens public nation. Eating contaminated fish is the main health source of human exposure to mercury. • Eating contaminated fish is the main Mercury pollution poses enormous public source of human exposure to mercury. health threats. Mercury exposure during • Mercury is a potent neurotoxicant. In critical periods of brain development can the first two years of a child’s life, mer- contribute to irreversible deficits in verbal cury exposure can lead to irreversible skills, damage to attention and motor con- deficits in attention and motor control, trol, and reduced IQ. damage to verbal skills, and reduced IQ. • While adults are at lower risk of neu- In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection rological impairment than children, Agency (EPA) developed and proposed the evidence shows that a low-level dose first national standards limiting mercury and of mercury from fish consumption in other toxic air pollution from existing coal- adults can lead to defects similar to and oil-fired power plants.
    [Show full text]
  • The Futility of Buffer Zones in International Politics
    Lionel Beehner and Gustav Meibauer The futility of buffer zones in international politics Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Beehner, Lionel and Meibauer, Gustav (2016) The futility of buffer zones in international politics. Orbis. ISSN 0030-4387 (In Press) DOI: 10.1016/j.orbis.2016.01.004 Reuse of this item is permitted through licensing under the Creative Commons: © 2016 Elsevier CC-BY-NC-ND This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65684/ Available in LSE Research Online: March 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. The Futility of Buffer Zones in International Politics January 2016 By Lionel Beehner and Gustav Meibauer Lionel Beehner is an instructor at the U.S. Military Academy of West Point’s Modern War Institute and a Ph.D. candidate at Yale University. Gustav Meibauer is a Ph.D. candidate at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Abstract: Buffer zones as a concept have a long history. Despite their frequent occurrence in international relations past and present, however, they have been treated in passing by scholars and policymakers alike, and then usually from a purely historical perspective. Their importance in conflict management, third-party intervention and power politics are not adequately mirrored in scholarly research. This article seeks to remedy this lapse by re-introducing the buffer zone as a tool of international conflict management in a new and systematic fashion.
    [Show full text]
  • Us Epa Archive Document
    Author’s Copy of Article Published in Water,Air1 and Soil Pollution (2008) 191:15-31. DOI: RUNNING HEAD: Fish Mercury Hotspot 10.1007/s11270-007-9604-9. The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com TITLE: FRESHWATER FISH MERCURY CONCENTRATIONS IN A REGIONALLY HIGH MERCURY DEPOSITION AREA AUTHORS: Michael S. Hutcheson,1 C. Mark Smith,1 Gordon T.Wallace,2 Jane Rose,1 Barbara Eddy,3 James Sullivan,3 Oscar Pancorbo,3 and Carol Rowan West1 AFFILIATIONS: 1 Office of Research and Standards, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108,USA. 2 Earth, Environmental and Ocean Sciences Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125-3393,USA. 3 Sen. W. X. Wall Experiment Station, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 37 Shattuck Street, Lawrence, MA 01843-1398, USA. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR ADDRESS: Michael Hutcheson Office of Research and Standards Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 1 Winter St., Boston, MA 02108 USA Phone: 617-292-5998; fax: 617-556-1006; email: [email protected] 2 ABSTRACT. We sampled and analyzed individually, edible dorsal muscle from largemouth bass (LMB), Micropterus salmoides (n=138) and yellow perch (YP), Perca flavescens (n=97) from 15 lakes to investigate potential local impacts of mercury emission point sources in northeastern Massachusetts (MA), USA. This area was identified in three separate modeling exercises as a mercury deposition hotspot. In 1995, 55% of mercury emissions to the environment from all MA sources came from three municipal solid waste combustors (trash incinerators) and one large regional medical waste incinerator in the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Massachusetts Vegetated Buffer Manual
    TThhee MMaassssaacchhuusseettttss BBuuffffeerr MMaannuuaall Using Vegetated Buffers to Protect our Lakes and Rivers Prepared by the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission For The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 2003 Massachusetts Vegetated Buffer Manual About The Massachusetts Buffer Manual In 2001 the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission was awarded a Nonpoint Source Pollution grant to conduct a demonstration and outreach project. The goal of this project was to promote the bene- fits of vegetated buffers. The three main objectives to achieve this goal were to 1) create a buffer guidance document, 2) plant five buffer demonstration sites and 3) talk about vegetated buffers to the public. This document, three of the buffers seen in Chapter 2 and several presentations made to lake groups and conservation commissioners are direct outcomes of this project. Russ Cohen of the Riverways Program was our partner and co-presenter for three of our "on the road" presentations. Many thanks, Russ. Acknowledgements To our Partners: A very special thank you goes out to our project partners, without whose contributions the Buffer Project would not have been made possible. These plant specialists, landscape professionals and nurseries have voluntarily contributed their time, expertise and materials to our demonstration projects and to this document. Their support is greatly appreciated. Robert Akroyd, landscape architect, Greylock Design Associates Rachel Fletcher and Monica Fadding, Housatonic River Walk Rick Harrington, landscaper, Good Lookin' Lawns Dorthe Hviid, horticulturist, Berkshire Botanical Garden Dennis Mareb, owner, Windy Hill Farm Christine McGrath, landscape architect, Okerstrom Lang, Ltd. Craig Okerstrom Lang, landscape architect, Okerstrom Lang, Ltd. Greg Ward, owner, Ward's Nursery and Garden Center Raina Weber, plant propagation, Project Native (an undertaking of the Railroad St.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Regional Mercury TMDL (PDF)
    Northeast Regional Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Maine Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission October 24, 2007 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................ii Tables ..........................................................................................................................................................iv Figures.........................................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................vi Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................................xiii Definition of Terms..................................................................................................................................xvi
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Fish Tissue Mercury Studies: Long-Term
    MassDEP Long-Term Monitoring MASSACHUSETTS FISH TISSUE MERCURY STUDIES: LONG-TERM MONITORING RESULTS, 1999 - 2004 by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Office of Research and Standards 1 Winter St., Boston, MA 02043 and Wall Experiment Station Lawrence, MA 2006 MassDEP Long-Term Monitoring PREFACE In 1994, the first comprehensive Massachusetts statewide examination of mercury in freshwater fish was conducted (MassDEP 1997). This study was followed in 1999 by an investigation of fish mercury concentrations in a region of the state predicted to have regionally high atmospheric deposition of mercury (MassDEP 2003b). That study was complemented by a study of historical mercury deposition into one lake in this region through the analysis of a sediment core using radioisotope dating techniques (Wallace et al. 2004). Additional work addressing mercury emissions and deposition is ongoing. A number of additional studies have been conducted as part of the Department’s continuing efforts to better elucidate the status of the Commonwealth’s freshwater fish populations and environments with respect to mercury contamination. A long-term monitoring network of lakes was established in 2001 to provide temporal tracking of changes in the mercury contamination status of fish in the Commonwealth, particularly as comprehensive mercury use and emissions reductions efforts have been implemented in Massachusetts and regionally. Results from these lakes will also provide a perspective on the scale of natural variability in tissue mercury concentrations for comparison with other sources of variation. The results from the first 5 years of this effort are contained in this report and in particular highlight the changes in fish tissue mercury concentrations which have taken place in the high mercury deposition area during a period when emissions from major point sources of mercury to the atmosphere have declined substantially in Massachusetts and across the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Buffer Zones Around Protected Areas: a Brief Literature Review
    UCLA Electronic Green Journal Title Buffer Zones Around Protected Areas: A Brief Literature Review Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/02n4v17n Journal Electronic Green Journal, 1(15) Author Martino, Diego Publication Date 2001-12-01 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Buffer Zones Around Protected Areas: A Brief Literature Review Diego Martino Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Canada ..................................... This literature review is based on 53 articles (26 from peer-reviewed journals). Forty-two of these articles specifically refer to the type of buffer zones analyzed here. The main goals set for this review are to identify the principal issues around the buffer zone concept at the present date and to determine the main problems and advantages of the concept. It is clear from the review that there is no agreement among conservationists regarding what is, or should be, the role of buffer zones. Due to this, confusion arises on what the objectives of buffer zones are. Two antagonist positions are identified. One proposes buffer zones as an extension of national parks and the other argues for buffer zones whose major role is to integrate parks and people. I conclude that regardless of the position taken there is an urgent need for a clear definition on the objective of buffer zones. The importance of a literature review on buffer zones is highlighted in a recent article by Prins and Wind (1993) which indicates that buffer zones, and the effective use of them, is one of the major priorities in the conservationists' and wildlife managers' agenda (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Redrawing the 151-Mile Border Between North and South Korea
    The Demilitarized Zone: Redrawing the 151-Mile Border Between North and South Korea THE DEMILITARIZED ZONE The demilitarized zone between North and South Korea is “one of the most closed and tightly controlled borders of the world” (Wastl-Walter, 4). The Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is a 4-km-wide (2.5 mile), 250-km-long (151 mile) military buffer zone between North and South Korea. The DMZ is the first main case study of my larger ongoing research titled “border as urbanism.” The current form Dongsei Kim of the demilitarized zone was established after the Korean War Armistice Columbia University was signed between the United Nations and North Korea with China, some 60 years ago on July 27, 1953.1 WHY IS THE DMZ AS A CASE STUDY? The primary justification of the DMZ being the central case study in explor- ing the notion of “border as urbanism” is that it is one of the most extreme cases of a tightly closed and controlled border. In addition, it is one of the most heavily militarized borders in the world, one that withstood the fall of Communism and the end of the Cold War (Gelézeau, 325, 327). Despite this extreme impermeability, the DMZ’s inherent flows, processes, and reciproc- ities, over time clearly prove that borders are never static or fully closed. Furthermore, because of this extreme condition, the DMZ becomes the best illustration of comprehending the inherent porosities and malleability of borders. The second rationale of the DMZ as a case study is related to it being a rep- resentation of a conflict that is common among many nation-state border territories.
    [Show full text]