DCPREZ-0000-03845 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

McLain January 6, 1987 -2- B. Public recognition of and commitment to the special natural resources here are evidenced by three acts in addition to the Dunn Township open space plan adopted by town referendum and 4iso by the Dane County Boardsl.The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has?g least poil }� bases in the area, including, I am given to understand, one parcel of wetlan retie iy acquired immediately north of the proposed McLain 12-acre purchase which buffers use of this 12 acres from the water where a large portion of the spring and winter waterfowl concentration occurs. This DNR tract is not easily accessible from the waterhile ice-fringed nor from the private lands on the south. 2. The Dane County Regional Planning Commission documented the resource here and recommended graded development pressures around wetlands like this in its 1974 "Wetlands of Dane County," which gave Lower Mud Lake priority 1 rating for protection needs. 3. Finally, recent efforts by the Village of McFarland and the US Corps of Engineers to restrict development, develop- ment impacts, and unregulated public access have resulted in plat design and water detention and wetland corridors and park dedications and restriction of boat access - all for the purpose of maintaining the wildlife resource here. This sort of involvemer of many people and bodies of people is more important than mere designation of refuge lands since it is people, not laws, which ultimately determine what happens. C. The keys to effective wildlife stewardship are (1) informed, flexible but consistent, integrated programs of management, monitoring, research* and education, and (2) Safeguards against later erosion of protection and management. In the past, we have had to rely on three devices for this purposes (a) Zoning, which can be unpalatable to private owners and hence may be changed as economic conditions change. (b) Public purchase or dedication, which may be economically unfeasible on a large enough scale to be effective, as well as providing little facility for guiding public use nor sufficient funds for management and research in many cases. (c) Deed restrictions, which alone may be ineffective no matter how well-meant because they do not provide for an independent enduring and dedicated watchdog. Fortunately, we now have a new tool, and Dane County is the first place in Wisconsin that it may be tried out: The Dane County Natural Heritage Foundation. It is one of some 300 land trusts now in operation in the nation serving to make possible private stewardship of natural resources including open space, wildlife, and farmland. It can purchase or receive gifts of land or certain rights to land, just as the DNR or the Town or County can, but it offers the additional watchdog role which may endure better than units of government and may qualify better for incOme tax writeoffs and may also avoid the problem of dividing a parcel into developed and conservancy parcels. It could be a key tool in protecting this area by setting an example for the other lands around Upper Mud Lake and its wetlands which will come up for development proposals in the near future. This land trust provides a way out for owners with considerable investment in their lands to recover it without developing too close to the wetland and lake, and at the same time can work with the owners for overall management objectives, something a public body seldom can do. D. Therefore, there is hope of initiating a realistic plan for enduring stewardship of Upper Mud Lake and its wetlands. The proposed zoning change re- quired for developing the Schaefer tract must be tied to five conditions which will prevent further subdivisions, provide buffer areas, institute management and monitoring programs, and actively pursue similar agreements with the other property owners surrounding Upper Mud Lake and its wetlandsthese can all be achieved by suit- able deed restrictions donated to the Dane County Heritage Foundation. 1. Subdivision limited to a one-time large-lot-size residential and farming and natural area land plan, as suggested in the Dunn Open Space Handbook, p. 50,under the proposed RH-10 zOning district (minimum ten acre l t size,) ands closest to a senstive+ natural resource area. The dedicatioh�` bs��th°o��soni "' r i1g psermanent. 2. Buffer areas to be kept in "arming or natural vegetation along the borders of the marsh, and also includingA6he open hill west of the proposed McLain 12-acre purchase, in the center of the north half of section 15, since the hill is so exposed that human activity there would be too visible to wildlife. The buffer