I find this totally asinine. Over the last couple years I witnessed this hay field just north of pickford along m129, probably 80 acres Id guess, get graded completely flat wit a small berm created around it, then all these little jackstraw log piles arranged. through out.
My curiosity finally got the best of me wondering what the heck is this??
So I turned down the little gravel dead end side road to take a better look and found this sign that was beside the ag barn that stands there. This is a hay field in the middle of hay country. We have had as much rain in the last montn as I can ever remember up here and june, and no more puddles in there than in my driveway at the cabin.
This to me screams stupidity.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/20220625_105627.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1657025976)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/20220625_105714.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1657025923)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/20220625_105721.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1657025885)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/20220625_105729.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1657025817)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/20220705_090724.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1657026203)
I think I agree, barring further education. If you can get through this, it gives an explanation of the intended purpose: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/mitigation-banks-under-cwa-section-404 (https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/mitigation-banks-under-cwa-section-404)
From what I read there it seems to be a bureaucratic 'solution' to reducing wetlands elsewhere and it used like carbon credits, peddled back and forth. Apparently some are creating these things so they can sell the credits, but they are supposed to be wetlands if I read it right, not dry field.
Seems like large scale government sponsored scam.
Similarly, near my home there is a property that someone bought. They did a bangup job of restoring an old shale bed by leveling it off, digging out a drain ditch and lining it with slope stone and putting a deluxe cattle fence around it. They then pastured cattle in there for a period of time and now they use it as a hayfield. I could be wrong, but I'm thinking they got money to do this thru a government program where they are supposed to use it for "agriculture" for at least so many years. This to address the problem of loss of farmlands. My suspicion is that, as soon as the time period passes that they have to keep it in agricultural use, they will be building expensive houses on it. So, in realty, the taxpayers financed all these improvements to make it into prime building sites; exactly the opposite of the stated purpose of that program. Time will tell.
It is a big business. My last four years with Weyerhaeuser was developing wetland mitigation banks in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina. The Clean Water Act in 1972 specified that there could be no net loss of wetlands. Many prior wetlands were converted to other uses. In forestry, a lot of wetlands were ditched and drained and converted to pine plantation, or jurisdictional wetlands formerly in hardwoods were clear cut and converted to pine plantations. In many cases the natural drainage was altered.
To offset loss of wetlands due to development, wetlands mitigation requires that any acre removed from wetland use such as housing development, road construction, etc. must be offset by taking a previously removed wetland and restoring the natural vegetation and drainage. We took some of these pine plantations that were planted on cleared wetlands that were naturally in hardwoods, restored the natural drainage, removed the pine and replanted the hardwoods. This creates wetland mitigation credits that are used to offset loss of wetlands due to development. These credits must be purchases from the mitigation bank by the developer, whether private or government. New roads, pipelines, etc. require mitigation.
These mitigation banks are given a fixed amount of credits by The Corps of Engineers. The banks are set up as conservation easements that must remain in perpetuity. When all the credits are sold, the bank must be maintained in its natural state with no timber harvesting or other man made activities of any type in perpetuity.
What constitutes a jurisdictional wetland is not necessarily the presence of standing water but rather the drainage class of the soil and the presence of obligate wetland plants. The soil must be saturated for a period of the time during the year which shows up in the color of the soil (dark colors black, blue, and gray caused by the absence of free oxygen which causes reducing condition that turn the iron in the soil blue and gray). Bright colors like yellows, oranges, browns, and reds are fully oxidized colors that indicate that the soil is never saturated during the year to the point that free oxygen is not available. Iron rusts red and orange when fully oxidized but turns black, blue, and gray when saturated long enough in anaerobic conditions long enough during the year for the iron to be fully reduced.
Another requirement in defining what is a jurisdictional wetland is the presence of plants that only grow naturally in wetlands. When a bank is being considered, extensive soil surveys and plant surveys are done to establish the nature and extent of the wetlands and The Corps of Engineers have to approve these surveys. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet the Corps requirements and takes years to get a bank fully approved. It is the poster child for red tape. It is a long and exhausting process.
In Jeff's example, that property was not originally a hay field. The natural wetland vegetation was removed and converted to hay grass. The bank now has to regrade/restore the natural drainage and restore the natural plant community. This will take years and lots of $. This expense is borne by the owner of the bank and is offset by the sale of the wetland credits that are created from the restoration. The goal is to sell the credits for a price that justifies the cost to establish and maintain the bank and to also provide a profit and rate of return for the bank owner.
https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/land/mitigation-banking/ (https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/land/mitigation-banking/)
The permitted banks in the link above in Arkansas and Louisiana and one of the banks permitted in North Carolina were all started by me from 2007 to 2011.
Does it make sense? I found that sometimes it felt like the right thing to do on certain properties that were better returned to wetland use and and other times it did not make good walking around sense. But, that was not for me to judge. It was my job to find these sites on Weyerhaeuser's four million acres of timberlands in the South and evaluate them for potential wetlands mitigation banks. My training in Soil Science and knowledge of plants made me well suited for the job.
Remember, to qualify for a mitigation bank, the property must have been converted from its original wetland state into a non-wetland use. Swamps or land that is currently functioning as a natural wetland does not qualify for a wetlands mitigation bank. It must be from degraded or converted wetland being restored to its once natural state.
Wetlands mitigation is the Law of the Land whether we like it or not until something changes. Dealing with The Army Corps of Engineers was very difficult and intensely bureaucratic and made me want to pull my hair out. This explains my premature hair loss and my nervous tics :).
As always, thanks for the insight Danny! It's kind of like an eighty-something year old friend for mine told me once- "Hey, sometimes you come across a rock and think you discovered something new, but then you turn it over and there's all kinds of activity under there!"😊
And here I always thought foresters just rode around in their pickups and bothered the loggers🤷♂️😂
Obviously nobody checked for depth to the water table or soil peculation as one has to do when applying for a septic field permit.
Wet lands have the ground water table at or near the surface that 80 acre plot would only qualify if the animals started lining up 2 by 2 ;D
Government gone wild
Cheers
Al
Ps they are almost if not more nutty up here
Thanks WDH for supplying the proper context.
Did much wetland delineation in my working years and it's worth remembering these practices are attempts to mitigate the near-total disruption of the original hydrology of a site. And to make up for new sites getting leveled, drained, compacted, filled.
Farmland isn't the natural state of any land anywhere.
Just like WDH says of many different criteria to meet. On my CRP they do different payment basis on soil types they have from the maps and arial they have. Guarantee they are not going to put you in a program or payout if you don't meet all the requirements.
Just another "feel good" Federal and State program.. build on wetlands but show creation of some wetland elsewhere to make up the difference. Explained well by WDH. Doesn't have to make sense, as long as it feels good.
Well, in this example the true stupidity of at least some implementations is exposed. This is in front of God and everyone going to sault st marie from the east and south. It is completely surrounded by farm land of the same elevation. The logs are arranged apparently for what?? Fish structure above the grade of m129???
We have spent quite a lot of time trying to find a partner in this space. Around the DC metro the value of mitigation credits is enormous. The problem is so little land available.
From our investigation of the various vendors in this area we found a huge difference between the firms that just do it completely by the book and those that actually make an extra effort. Just an amazing difference.
The banks range from pure Wetland Mitigation banks, to streamside preservation/remediation banks to nutrient banks (for Chesapeake Bay area in particular).
The one thing we did learn is that it's possible to "game" the system by technically being compliant but it being just a bogus project. However the regulators around here have really cracked down on the worst of the bogus sort of projects. We've see streams taken all the way back down to the water level- imagine the deep stream banks all cut away and hauled off- the original floodplain is exposed (just barely above the height of the stream and it explodes with buried dormant seedbanks. Really amazing to see actually and this technique was developed in PA so kudos to the regulators in PA. Those original seeds date back to precolinization and are so vigorous that they outcompete most invasive species.
I can't speak for what you are seeing there or the quality of the regulators in MI. Here in Virginia if it is a new wetland mitigation bank it's going to be adjacent to some sort of stream and will be very strictly designed. It could be they are looking for upland wetlands in that area? It will be highly regulated and monitored- if you are really curious as to the process and objectives call the regulator and ask for a meeting.
Oh and the people paying for that are developers or infrastructure owners that are taking wetlands. Even the monitoring for the future is paid for by someone other than you and I (unless we were the ones building in a wetland).
Wetland Mitigation banks are regulated by The Corps of Engineers on the Federal level. There are numerous Corps of Engineers Districts but I do not believe the the States have any regulatory involvement. They did not when I was developing Wetlands Mitigation Banks.
Right. The place where we did projects reported to the US-ACE branch in Green Bay, which was part of a region headquartered in Minneapolis St. Paul. Same monitoring reports, as-builts, etc. were also forwarded to WI-DNR.
A major regional office receives thousands of request for wetland fill permits each year.
This stuff is the exact opposite of feel good. It's just probably too little too late against what's going on. But it is actual effort being put forth, not a TV commercial. Each project varies and of course there's abuse. But what'd they used to say, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Beavers are the original Wetland Mediators. Definitely recommend reading some modern literature about them, one book is
Eager: The Surprising, Secret Life of Beavers and Why They Matter
by Ben Goldfarb
Can't find right now or remember the names of decent other books/pubs.
One big role they play is to prevent the channel incision that nativewolf mentioned. Also hugely important in places like out west with the huge water issues of today.
Thanks WDH for your breakdown, this method of soil and plants used to determine wetland designations is how it was explained to me by a state Biologist at a recent stream crossing workshop here in NY. Here is an ACE publication https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/Forms/Recognizing_Wetlands.pdf
I know in Wyoming, Game and Fish will relocate beavers to areas that could benefit from their activities. They will even dump a load of brush for them to work with if it is treeless country😊 My uncle tells me of streams out there that used to flow year round when there were beavers. Coyotes got out of control and killed all of the beavers. Without the beavers, now the streams are only seasonal.
Wetlands are plant and wildlife meccas. The law may not be perfect but there do need to be processes in place to protect and maintain them, otherwise they will all be filled and dredged Walmart parking lots.
Wetlands are an issue here too. Traditionally swamps were looked at as "wasted land". The Polynesians didn't have the machinery to clear them, but used them for fishing / hunting and collected flax leaves for their fibre (ropes / mats / baskets etc). But once Western agriculture arrived, most of the"swamp" land was drained.
Now we don't have Beavers here, but it's still bad news if you are a Mudfish or Fernbird as they are now quite rare and various other plants like Swamp Maire are much less common. So hence a push to preserve / restore the remaining patches.
It's relatively easy to get Conservation efforts for the "big ticket" Items like Kauri / Redwood or Kiwi / Bald Eagles. But most people don't even know Mudfish exist, and I've never actually seen a fernbird (Have heard them nearby, but they are masters of camouflage )
Mudfish: New Zealand freshwater fish (https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/freshwater-fish/mudfish/)
Fernbird/m?t?t?: Wetland birds (https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/fernbird-matata/)
https://www.trc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Guidelines/Biodiversity-infosheets/BioInfo-28-SwampMaireWaiwaka.pdf
I'd also suggest that even if the land in question never reverts to true "wetland", it's still going to play host to a lot of plants and animals that may otherwise become very rare, Might not be as impressive as an original old growth cypress swamp, but something will call it home, even if it's only the Nth American equivalent of a Mudfish. ;)
Quote from: WDH on July 05, 2022, 07:49:48 PM
Wetlands are plant and wildlife meccas. The law may not be perfect but there do need to be processes in place to protect and maintain them, otherwise they will all be filled and dredged Walmart parking lots.
Absolutely well said!!
Wetlands also play a critical role in filtering runoff. The last 10-15 years has seen a lot of CRP land revert and get plowed under for "fence to fence" agriculture. In MN, rivers like the Minnesota River that flies through nothing but farm country have seen a marked decline in water quality, especially with elevated phosphates from fertilizer. With the land lacking any filtering capacity, it all runs right into waterways. I guess one upside is that the Minnesota River is growing some massive fish from all the fertilizer present in the food chain.
That fertilizer runoff also causes algae blooms (some toxic) that impact water quality and plant/wildlife communities.
Those beavers help reduce siltation, store water and drive it underground to restore water table levels, create habitat for other animals and plants, lots of stuff... Walmarts don't do anything good as far as I can tell ;D
It is hard to get behind the practice of allowing folks to fill in a swamp as long as they "restore" one somewhere else, but if the alternative is just letting them fill in a swamp and not doing anything else, whaddayagonnado?
We are looking to work with some local bureaucrats to "restore" a spring fed wetland on our property that has been considerably filled in with sand that erodes off the side of the road. Mostly sand they dump on the road all winter, but a lot that was exposed and allowed to erode after an "improvement" project by the highway dept. Don't really want to, but not allowed to and can't afford to take it on by ourselves.
Wetlands, I like 'em and it sounds like a bunch of you do too 8)
Here in Scandinavia it's peat bogs...traditionally drained to expand/create (marginal) farmland, but more recently for building sites. There is also a huge market for home potting "soil", which is peat mixed with a bit of actual soil and some granulated calcium to lift the pH. Draining the peat bogs is now regulated or even banned, so we import our potting "soil" now, tons of it--in plastic sacks :).
Quote from: barbender on July 05, 2022, 08:03:38 PM
Wetlands also play a critical role in filtering runoff. The last 10-15 years has seen a lot of CRP land revert and get plowed under for "fence to fence" agriculture. In MN, rivers like the Minnesota River that flies through nothing but farm country have seen a marked decline in water quality, especially with elevated phosphates from fertilizer. With the land lacking any filtering capacity, it all runs right into waterways. I guess one upside is that the Minnesota River is growing some massive fish from all the fertilizer present in the food chain.
All true.
Another detrimental effect is the clearing of forest cover right up to the stream banks, especially if animals are grazing. Now you have the fertiliser runoff (artificial AND natural), plus the sunlight now getting at the stream. Soon becomes an algae and weed infested mess.
There has been a big push for Riparian planting on the local farms, to the extent that the Dairy Company made it a condition of the supply contract that farmers have a planting plan for any "exposed" streams. They have to get them fenced off, and can get subsidised native plants. By creating a small buffer zone there is some nutrient filtering plus the shade improves the water quality. It's not so practical for larger rivers, but the water in those large rivers started out in the smaller streams, so if the water quality there can be improved, it helps downstream too. It's still a struggle to keep the water quality up and downstream rivers "safe" to swim etc.
Quote from: WDH on July 05, 2022, 04:54:25 PM
Wetland Mitigation banks are regulated by The Corps of Engineers on the Federal level. There are numerous Corps of Engineers Districts but I do not believe the the States have any regulatory involvement. They did not when I was developing Wetlands Mitigation Banks.
Depends on the State for monitoring and compliance. Here the power is in the state Dept of Env Quality (DEQ). Someone has to have responsibility for ongoing local compliance and supervision and that's usually outsourced to the state. That's why the pictures don't say contact the Corps.
Quote from: mudfarmer on July 05, 2022, 06:20:14 PM
Beavers are the original Wetland Mediators. Definitely recommend reading some modern literature about them, one book is
Eager: The Surprising, Secret Life of Beavers and Why They Matter
by Ben Goldfarb
Can't find right now or remember the names of decent other books/pubs.
One big role they play is to prevent the channel incision that nativewolf mentioned. Also hugely important in places like out west with the huge water issues of today.
Thanks WDH for your breakdown, this method of soil and plants used to determine wetland designations is how it was explained to me by a state Biologist at a recent stream crossing workshop here in NY. Here is an ACE publication https://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/regulatory/Forms/Recognizing_Wetlands.pdf
We will work with a group that specifically creates beaver like structures to recreate wetlands.
Quote from: nativewolf on July 06, 2022, 05:35:06 AMDepends on the State for monitoring and compliance. Here the power is in the state Dept of Env Quality (DEQ). Someone has to have responsibility for ongoing local compliance and supervision and that's usually outsourced to the state. That's why the pictures don't say contact the Corps
I imagine that there could be local laws and programs that go above and beyond the Federal Regulations? The National rules would be the minimum, if State or Local Govt want to apply rules or create programs that comply with, but enhance the Fed rules, they can.
The reasons for that are complex but mostly the Corps of Army Engineers doesn't have the ability to monitor most of the sites, there are lots and lots of small banks out there. In fact in PA they are working on sites down to 10 acres or so. The other reason is that Congress wants the Corps to have a state entity involved. Usually that is a state agency dept of environmental X. The bank developers have to find someone to do the long term monitoring because these sites are not like CREP. A wetland mitigation bank is supposed to stay wetland forever. They are checked via site visits and imagery on a regular basis.
In Virginia an NGO may also be able to take on the long term monitoring of conservation related easements. Also the title to the property includes restrictions. In most states in the USA the land records are recorded at the county level under some process established by the state.
One thing with doing it at the state level, we are under the Chesapeake Bay act. Our creeks feed the Gulf of Mexico :D. That said the riparian buffers and sedimentation requirements that come with that are a good idea, if not a total pain in the rear. Cows in the creeks are our biggest problem. Even if the landowner is on board it is nigh on impossible to fence the critters out of all the water. As a contractor I cannot tear up more than 10,000 sf without being a registered disturber and following BMP's. I can look over my berms and silt fences, across the creek at the pigs wallowing and farmers plowing, right above that same creek. We try not to study on that wisdom too hard.
Nobody remembers because it has been the HS ball field and shopping center parking lot for so long in town. That whole bottom used to be a lake 100 years ago. I've worked on what was the ice house nearby. They recently tore down and rebuilt the grocery store and parking lot. I'm guessing they fell under something I've been warned of "no water leaves the site". Under the parking lot is a large drainfield. I've seen drawings of parking areas on many feet of chambers. If we keep conveniently running water away the aquifers will not recharge.
Once all the credits are sold on the banks that I was involved with, title to the property is transferred to a 3rd party monitoring agency to ensure that the bank is maintained according to the terms of the mitigation banking agreement in perpetuity. In our case it is a non-profit Environmental organization. For example, a bank in Louisiana that was adjacent to one I was developing was managed by The Nature Conservancy. Perpetuity is a long time.
The policy that makes me wonder is wetlands mitigation for the ditches that are built next to highways. They were not wetlands before, they were designed to drain water away from the highway yet they must be mitigated when the highway is expanded to additional lanes. When they are done adding the lane there will be new ditches that will form wetlands but they do not count.
I ran into that same thing when a solar development company did a wetlands and vernal pool survey on my land. Of 21 vernal pools, 20 were next to the winter truck road ( "borrow pits ") That would make them 3-4 years old. And they flagged every skidder rut ( almost... ) as being wet. The land is sloped, the wet is caused by compaction.
I was disappointed that it was flagged so heavily for wet and ultimately dropped by the solar people.
Yes, there is to be "no net loss of wetlands". Good explanation of the process by WDH and others. Some states such as Michigan can be given overseeing authority of the Federal Wetland process if they meet and apply agreed to Federal procedures and compliance.
Wetlands are priceless to our ecosystems, and it is difficult to replicate their natural hydric soils and vegetation acreage wise.
I like all the points made, I personally think they are going over board with the wet land thing, I know a few years ago VT classified wetland as any parcel that was saturated 8" deep for more than 12 consecutive days in one year that is a lot of the state in September and once a area is brought to the state attention it's on the state map forever do not touch, do not look at it but pay full boat in taxes.
As I drive down the interstate (at a much slower pace this year to conserve fuel) I have took more notice to what look like natural watershed to one of our main rivers the Winooski, have been blocked but I89 interstate that the government has put into place cause excessive amounts of so called wet land,standing stagnant water. Which brings me to one of the complaints that arises every year why is lake Champlain so low? Why is the fishing not what it used to be?
Listening to a few of elders in my town that are now in there 70/80 when they where kid before the interstates and the government made wet land on either side, the rivers where narrow and deeper and the fishing was good
I did not excell in school i went to the university of hard knocks with led to a career of excavation and timber cutting wich I take pride in and respect anybody in those trades ( and to be honest I respect the working person no matter what they do it takes all kinds to make the world turn) but back to my point is that from what I learned in science class if I remember right is that shallow water will heat quicker and hold it's temp longer so with all this shallow stagnant water that people are trying to create is slowing the flow to the rivers and lakes wich in turns in my mind is heating the water more, one of the big things you hear on the news is the rise of ocean temperature
In my opinion I think they should dredge the rivers and release some of the standing bodies of water,I do agree we need the wetland for the eco system but no need to add protect the ones we have
Just my thoughts
Dredging is typically a double edged sort of weapon to addressing issues, especially in shallow coastal waters.
I'm curious as to the idea that fishing is not good on the lake, I don't live there obviously but just googled up and trout breeding is so strong the state of VT cut off stocking from hatcheries because they feared over stocking. Or is it that you are targeting some species (bass? salmon?) . Anyway the wetland remediation would normally happen far upstream of something like this lake and would serve to protect the waters itself. We've been invited up to stay with friends that have a family campground there but I'm due in for cancer surgery so no go this summer. Maybe next? Hope so. I wanted to do a bit of fishing.
https://www.weather.gov/btv/lakeLevel?year=2022 That's the lake levels . Can't help you there, seems normal or as normal as any natural thing is.
This thread has grown legs since Jeff posted a picture of the hay field. In my part of the world, we have karst topography, with porous limestone beneath the surface and huge, underground aquifers. Years ago, dredging and ditching were the normal practices to create more pasture, farmland or inhabitable spaces.
I live on the edge of the Green Swamp, which is a major recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer. We are limited to one residence per 10 acres here now (in 1993, I was able to get a waiver due to it being family land). The strain on the water as a resource now is much more than it was 100 years ago. Phosphate mining, agriculture, golf courses, and people use a lot of water - most of which is pumped out of the aquifer. In 1918, the year my maternal great grandmother died of the Spanish Flu, there were less than 900,000 people living in all of Florida. Last year, our population was nearly 23,000,000 and we had over 91,000,000 visitors. All of these folks use a lot more water than the average person did in 1918 due to frequent bathing, flushing toilets and lawn irrigation, all of which were less common in 1918. Where do all of these folks keep coming from?
Large landowners are able to sell development rights because their land is valued as a natural resource for water, plants and animals. When I was on the soil board, sometimes grants/cost sharing would come available for landowners to install solar wells, cross fencing, plant longleaf pines or other things deemed advantageous to the soil and water of our area. It still amazes me of the wetland destruction that can take place if the owners have enough money and influence and of course, the land for mitigation.
To add to this, the state FFA land judging contest in 2017 was held near Plant City on the Audobon Ranch. The water table had to be provided to the students instead of them looking for stripping or rust deposits in the soil to make that determination due to the water, to supply Tampa's needs, was pumped so far down. The soils were spodasols, the seasonal high water table should have been above the spodic layer (only a foot or so beneath the surface). The seasonal high water table for several years prior to 2017 were 10-12' below the surface. The potentiometric head has dropped so much in some areas nearby that springs have dried up. Kissingen Springs, near Bartow, Florida dried up around 1950 due to excess pumping from the aquifer.
The area pictured is off of Dale Mabry, in north Tampa, not far from the Buc's home stadium. A bank or some other building was being built in a pond cypress swamp. At least we were able to get the logs.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/22883/IMG_3659.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1566681443)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/22883/IMG_3658.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1566681448)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/22883/IMG_3660.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1566681450)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/22883/IMG_3682.JPG?easyrotate_cache=1567372244)
Crazy that they'd build a bank on a cypress stand site.
I was very surprised that they would be building anything there too. A friend of mine called and said we could have some free cypress logs if we could get them loaded and hauled off.
I can't believe how rapacious land use is in Florida. Really tough for a guy like me to see. Clearly, cypress stands and oh my gosh-pine flatwoods have no standing value.
Scrub? Forget about it! That's a new Walmart!