Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Logging is a separate issue from biased groups using vernal pools as back door zoning. As an aside if Loggers aren't required to be licensed how do you get 'Rogue loggers?'
Loggers normally file the basic form recording wetlands impacts from logger operations, if they are minimal. The operations are allowed to start logging as soon as the form is submitted. Most loggers follow the standard environmental guidelines to ensure a successful and sustainable timber harvest.
However, "rogue" loggers can file the "petition" and then blatently clearcut huge tracts without regard to topography or nearby wetlands. This is known as "carcass forestry" because it takes down nearly every standing stick of timber. This can result in large-scale erosion problems, landslides, and mudslides. This results in a whole host of problems that impact water tributaries and drinking water quality. That is why the state DES takes action in a case like this. A prime example of a violation like this would be along Halls Brook Road in Groton. This individual logger "has been a repeat offender of state wetlands and logging laws, frustrating advocates of responsible forestry and collecting dozens of violations. The Department of Environmental Services has investigated him for poor practices in New Hampton in 2000, in Sanwich and Loudon in 2005, in Webster and Warner in 2006, in Bradford in 2007, in Bristol in 2008, and in Groton in 2008.
also some of the larger, successful logging companies have licensed foresters on staff and certified loggers. The certification process if voluntary, but it definitely helps to get the job to begin with.
That is true. Most people including myself have no problem with sustainable and well managed forestry operations that have licensed foresters. The problem is with a few rogue loggers that can cause substantial damage in the state.
Here is an excerpt from a recent article.
"Brad Simpkins, director of the Division of Forests and Lands, said the state agencies are limited in their ability to keep a logger who has amassed violations from going from one project to the next. As long as a logger or someone can pay the fine, we really don't have a legal mechanism to prevent them from logging in the future," Simpkins said.
"Jasen Stock, executive director of the Timberland Owners Association, said he is working with legislators to look at changing that. He said motor vehicle drivers lose their right to operate a vehicle if they break a law too many times. The fact that the individual is being fined shows that the mechanism works, Stock said. The question is, are the penalties effective in preventing that behavior from being repeated.
Why are vernal pools and wetlands a very important conservation priority (besides the fact that we have lost so many of them)? I am on the fence about this, and really want to know the impact of diminished wetlands as opposed to diminished property rights. Does anyone have any more specific scientific and/or social arguments/evidence on either side?
The positives for wetlands conservation include: improvements in water quality in a river watershed. A buffer between undeveloped land and developed land is generally a good compromise depending on the exact situation. The total sq/ft of protected area could vary.
Another positive for wetlands conservation include benefits to wildlife and endangered species in NH that depend on seasonal or permanent vernal pools.
Another positive for wetlands conservation is it acts as a buffer against storm surge. A prime example of this is Hurricane Katriana in Louisiana. Many of the existing wetlands were drained or filled for development purposes. When a larger hurricane struck with less of a buffer between the swampy areas and New Orleans the results were devastating. Wetlands add another friction point between the Gulf or Ocean and the slightly higher elevated lands onshore.
I remember when I was house-hunting seeing vernal ponds or what I would call swampy areas in wooded areas very close to some homes that otherwise would seem nice. Bedford comes to mind.
With all the granite and shale the ground in NH usually has poor drainage. With a good rain added to the spring thaw my basement sump pump is sure to be busy.
I have seen many of these vernal ponds up close and I can tell you that by the 4th of July, you don't want to go near them unless you like mosquitoes.
I have often wondered "If the landowner would dig out the swampy, leaf-filled spot, they would have a real pond which might support frogs which would eat the mosquitos." But that would probably be considered messing with wetlands and bring the wrath of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who have already ruled that wetlands are lands where the water table is within 3 feet of the surface!
I think its important to realize that not every pond that forms from snow-melt/spring rain is a vernal pool. It has to exist for a certain period of time and be dry for a certain period of time in order to count (as in specific periods of time...but I don't know what they are). Otherwise its just a normal puddle or pond.
Why are vernal pools and wetlands a very important conservation priority (besides the fact that we have lost so many of them)?
There are a myriad of reasons that wetlands are important. I suppose first and foremost to people is that they serve as natural filters for toxins, sediments, runoff, etc. They are a buffer for flooding as well. Without wetlands, your drinking water wouldn't be clean, or require FAR more expensive treatment systems in order to make it potable.
In grad school I studied E.Coli contamination at swimming beaches in Lake Erie. Beaches were closed from June through October because it wasn't safe to swim in. We eventually tracked the source to runoff from farm fields, and more notably, leaky septic tanks that make their way into the lake. Our solution: Build a wetland and route all drainage ditches into it. They funding is now on its way.
They buffer fertilizer/till runoff from farms, which greatly damage rivers, which damage lakes, which damage estuaries, which damage marine life and fisheries. If you want a good example google in the Sacramento River Delta and the issues they are having with the California Salmon fishery (it's basically going extinct....and they've stopped commercial and recreational fishing). Katrina is another good example.
They also are THE most critical habitat for wildlife and support the greatest diversity of plants, mammals, reptiles, and birds. To some I suppose they could care less about this but there is a HUGE economic factor linked to this as well.
Where I see the wetlands issue collide with property rights, is that people are short sighted when it comes to the environment. They assume it is their property, they do what they want, what's the harm. What they fail to realize is that with water, there is ALWAYS a downstream factor. That water from your backyard (if it's large a large enough volume and doesn't drain due to evaporation) eventually ends up in an aquifer, in a stream, in a lake, or in the ocean.
I consider myself mostly libertarian, subscribing to the idea that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Well with wetlands, if there is no regulation and people are allowed to do with them what they please (on their property), it eventually has MAJOR consequences downstream or in the aquifers for others. Most notably drinking water quality and the economic benefits derived from industries depending on that water (i.e. fisheries, tourism, camping, hiking, boating, swimming, etc. etc. etc.).
Remember those Mother's Day floods and the flooding that occurred last spring.....that results when you channelize rivers, drain wetlands, and develop the shoreline so that the water has no where to go when levels rise. Rivers ALWAYS overflow their banks at times. The Army Corps. seems to forget this. Had the wetlands been left in tack, or even restored to some extent, you would not have seen remotely the flooding issues that we had (or the $$$$ spent to recover).
But that would probably be considered messing with wetlands and bring the wrath of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who have already ruled that wetlands are lands where the water table is within 3 feet of the surface!
I am grateful for all this input, did not consider logging entering the equation before reading this thread for example. (doh!)
Yinduffy, I am pretty certain that more specific criteria apply than where the water table is but I am just learning about this.
There are a myriad of reasons that wetlands are important. I suppose first and foremost to people is that they serve as natural filters for toxins, sediments, runoff, etc. They are a buffer for flooding as well. Without wetlands, your drinking water wouldn't be clean, or require FAR more expensive treatment systems in order to make it potable.
Where I see the wetlands issue collide with property rights, is that people are short sighted when it comes to the environment. They assume it is their property, they do what they want, what's the harm. What they fail to realize is that with water, there is ALWAYS a downstream factor. That water from your backyard (if it's large a large enough volume and doesn't drain due to evaporation) eventually ends up in an aquifer, in a stream, in a lake, or in the ocean.
I live on an aquifer and my water just tested free of VOCs >whew<. It is always a concern. While I would like to assume property owners are educated enough and have enough of a conscience about their effects on those around them, it would be naive to do so. It seems that the natural filtration of wetlands is an efficient and cost effective solution considering the damage and resulting cost of not preserving them. The irony is that a natural environment now requires so much $ to protect.
The irony is that a natural environment now requires so much $ to protect.
My company actually cleans up groundwater and contaminated soils. I've been out in California for the last few weeks doing just that (oxidizing VOCs in groundwater) and I ship out this weekend for a big job in Rhode Island.
Trust me, the cost of preserving wetlands comes no where near the cost of cleaning up the after effects of removing them, or cleaning up after land owners and industry's indiscretions.
Most of our work is through government........guess who is paying for it? Our work that is not government comes from major companies, most of which you would be very familiar with. Guess how they pay for the clean up.....pass the buck to their consumers, i.e you.
I can't stand the current environmentalist pop agriculturists, and am far from a "tree hugger" , but people really are clueless to how much poor environmental practices cost them. True conservatives who are about fiscal responsibility really should get on the common sense and environmental movement rather than blow it off as some hollywood hippy movement.....it would save us ALL a LOT of money in the long run.
I think you hit the nail on the head fishnfool. Part of that common sense approach is people caring enough to educate themselves- hence my OP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
