Vernal Pools in NH (Bedford, Hampton: how much, school, gated)
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.
Vernal pools are a very important conservation priority given the fact that we have lost so many of our wetlands in this country over the past 100+ years due to development of any type. In terms of personal property rights regarding this issue, that is a little challenging to say the least. A compromise might be the adjusting the exact number of ft away from wetlands areas that include vernal pools. Every situation is different in terms of its exact topographic, biological, and wetland features. Some properties have no wetlands at all and are higher elevated. Other properties have varying types of wetlands and water features.
Some vernal pools dry up in some summers and some stay wet all year. Near my home is a swampy area in a forest that gets an orange colored algae and no frogs or insects can be found in the water. It has dried up in the past but now has water.
Only 100 ft away is a runoff pond with green algae, lots of frogs, tadpoles miniature sunfish and visiting ducks.
Is it the acidity from the pine tree needles that keeps out the critters and allows the orange algae?
FYI- Vernal pool mapping is a new tool of the anti-development crowd. If they come asking to map your vernal pools and you let them, once those pools are on the federal wetlands map nothing can be built for miles around- not miles, but your property rights and those of your neighbors may be impinged.
Did you know that loggers in NH do not have to be licensed and no laws exist against clearcutting? Rogue loggers have destroyed tens of thousands of acres of forest in this state. They give the other loggers a bad name, and may end up forcing the need for lawmakers to enact more stringent regulations.
Vernal pools are a very important conservation priority given the fact that we have lost so many of our wetlands in this country over the past 100+ years due to development of any type. In terms of personal property rights regarding this issue, that is a little challenging to say the least.
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?
Did you know that loggers in NH do not have to be licensed and no laws exist against clearcutting? Rogue loggers have destroyed tens of thousands of acres of forest in this state. They give the other loggers a bad name, and may end up forcing the need for lawmakers to enact more stringent regulations.
Until recently, it was difficult to track the location and extent of forest clearing across the region. However, with the launch of the first Landsat satellite in 1973, information on the condition of large landscapes became readily available.
land use will be taxed accordingly...if a forest is cleared to make way for a field, the current use tax is affected....
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.
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?
It is very location specific- which is why I think having a single universal standard for wetlands is dumb. In some cases 1000 feet is the way to go...in others 25 may be suitable; that said- leaving it "flexible" also leaves it very open to abuse (there have been cases of folks doing something to skew the evaluations in there favor where this has been the policy).
I'm going to use an example of an estuary off the Chesapeake bay, now in this case ignore the wetlands further upstream that are being contaminated by agricultural & industrial runoff which then concentrates in the bay creating excessive algae blooms which block sun/use up oxygen to create "dead zones" in the bay where little can live. Lets focus solely on an eastern Maryland boggy estuary:
From a social/economic standpoint estuaries are the breeding ground for many critters; not just critters that are part of the ecology of the area- but critters that humans rely on for food as well as their employment (crabs, game fish, clams, etc).
From an environmental standpoint the estuary serves to provide a breeding ground for the critters that keep the bay clean, the water passing through the reeds/shallows gets oxygenated, and many of the plants have been shown to absorb environmental toxins (lead, etc) and some even convert complex chemicals to more benign substances.
Now- aside from the threat of outright destruction (filling in, dredging out) other things can threaten the estuary- runoff with chemicals (fertilizers especially), runoff with eroded particles, etc... If you put a "buffer" aroun the estuary- you can minimize the impact of many of these. For example if you have an estuary...then 100 feet of unimproved land...then improved land- any activities on the unimproved land can be filtered through/absorbed by the less sensitive unimproved land (ie- the plants there will absorb the fertilizers and use them in their growth, BEFORE it reaches the water and causes algae blooms).
That is one example. I think you will find that not all damp/wet lands are flagged as protected wetlands. The pennichuck watershed area and associated ponds (drinking water for the area- as well as habitat for many critters) is protected; in contrast plenty of folks have ponds on their property that are not protected...why? They are common and improvements around them tend not to "destroy" them just on the basis of their ecology. A lot of it is based on sensitivity.
If I cut down one tree around my vernal pool...I could expose it to more sun...which would lead to it drying faster- which would lead to no more salamanders & other larvae...which is not only bad for the rare critters- but is bad for me because this pool once teaming with beneficial life...would now be teaming with the much faster breeding/growing mosquitos instead.
I just got back from having some major dental work/am pretty sore/drugged up- but hopefully this makes some sense.
I agree that "wetlands" should not be used for anti-development or restriction of property rights. But it should be used when appropriate for the environmental & economic protection of an area (which for the most part, it is- though I'm sure, as with anything, there are counter-examples).
Did you know that loggers in NH do not have to be licensed and no laws exist against clearcutting? Rogue loggers have destroyed tens of thousands of acres of forest in this state. They give the other loggers a bad name, and may end up forcing the need for lawmakers to enact more stringent regulations.
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?'
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!
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.
