wetlands mitigation??

[T-TOP]

For a person to be forced to mitigate wetlands, what would he have to be doing?

Lets say my driveway, house, barn, and a riding arena equal 2 acres. This 2 acres i would be putting as dozer on and removing stumps etc... destroying wetlands.

Now lets say the other 8 acres. I clear underbrush and small trees with rubber tire tractors, cut some trees down with chainsaw and grind stumps. I have been told this is not destroying wetlands. no tracked equipment, no blades, no digging.

what do you guys know about this?

[Raymond]

No different than selling/trading "Carbon Crediks" just another name for the same scam. One day someone yelled the sky is falling, figured out a way to make money off it, found a person in gooberment to write a law, gave said person a campaign contribution, person who got $$ convinced his croneys they could get some contributions also, they voted to enact the law because their cronies had plenty of land to sell smoke off of and walla.... Mitigation $$$$$$!
Was that close to reality??

[T-TOP]

Sounds pretty close....

[capt coonassty]

I know it sucks having to pay ridiculous prices for things that your not going to ever be able to use, look at it like this. When paying for the credits your paying for land that is going to be preserved or even restored to provide ecological processes. The wetlands that are placed into the bank have restrictions. This is essentially what other agencies or NGOs do for wetlands.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

For a person to be forced to mitigate wetlands, what would he have to be doing?

Lets say my driveway, house, barn, and a riding arena equal 2 acres. This 2 acres i would be putting as dozer on and removing stumps etc... destroying wetlands.

Now lets say the other 8 acres. I clear underbrush and small trees with rubber tire tractors, cut some trees down with chainsaw and grind stumps. I have been told this is not destroying wetlands. no tracked equipment, no blades, no digging.

what do you guys know about this?

It isn't like cap and trade because loss of wetlands can actually be measured, and cap and trade would have dealt with carbon offsets and there is still too much variability in the measures of carbon depending on who measured it and thats a whole different slice of bread there If you put a building on top of a wetland, the wetland is still technically there, but the whole function of that wetland has ceased. Some of the 'brush' and vegetation you may be clearing are probably wetland plants that only occur in a wetland and can't grow anywhere else. I will digress, I think we all know the value of a wetland and it can't be justified in just a few paragraphs. Its much much greater than just a few plants lets just say that. There are very few places with as much plant diversity as a wetland. Plant diversity usually means animal diversity as well.

I can see where you are coming from though, and would probably have had the same reaction if I wanted to build and was unaware of the process. Its far from perfect (because the gov't is in charge of it) but it is at least something to keep some natural areas around.

On the cap and trade thing, there are actually companies that are buying these carbon 'crediks' to show that they are a 'green' company by showing that their carbon emissions are at a net zero by planting trees to offset their carbon emissions. More power to them if thats what they want to do.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

I know it sucks having to pay ridiculous prices for things that your not going to ever be able to use, look at it like this. When paying for the credits your paying for land that is going to be preserved or even restored to provide ecological processes. The wetlands that are placed into the bank have restrictions. This is essentially what other agencies or NGOs do for wetlands.

well said

[T-TOP]

i agree with the concept of preserving and restoring wetlands, and people like me paying their dues. For destroying wetlands in the process of building a home.

But i think this statement made earlier in the thread is where i fall..
The biggest rip-off is that based upon the federal definition of wetlands, just about all tracts south of Alex, could be considered wetlands.

when the property has no marsh grass, no water, really nothing that resembles wetlands and you still have to pay, just sounds like more government getting into our pockets.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

It isn't like cap and trade because loss of wetlands can actually be measured, and cap and trade would have dealt with carbon offsets and there is still too much variability in the measures of carbon depending on who measured it and thats a whole different slice of bread there If you put a building on top of a wetland, the wetland is still technically there, but the whole function of that wetland has ceased. Some of the 'brush' and vegetation you may be clearing are probably wetland plants that only occur in a wetland and can't grow anywhere else. I will digress, I think we all know the value of a wetland and it can't be justified in just a few paragraphs. Its much much greater than just a few plants lets just say that. There are very few places with as much plant diversity as a wetland. Plant diversity usually means animal diversity as well.

I can see where you are coming from though, and would probably have had the same reaction if I wanted to build and was unaware of the process. Its far from perfect (because the gov't is in charge of it) but it is at least something to keep some natural areas around.

On the cap and trade thing, there are actually companies that are buying these carbon 'crediks' to show that they are a 'green' company by showing that their carbon emissions are at a net zero by planting trees to offset their carbon emissions. More power to them if thats what they want to do.

Wetland mitigation/Carbon Crediks = gooberment scam, no more, no less.
You can destroy an existing wetland area (LAbERGE) if you pay $$$ to someone who has an existing wetland enrolled in the program. How or who is going to develop the millions of acres on the coast owned by Miami Corp, Vermilion Corp, ect. it's never gonna happen but they can sell it in mitigation for someone to build a hotel on a marsh area if the pony up the chedda. How does this promote/protect the wetlands drained for non-beneficial use?
I believe you are missing my point on this. Gooberment intervention into my private property (imement domain) (wetlands mitigation) (carbon crediks) has the effect of driving up the cost of doing business, which is passed along to the populace who pays taxes. I am for sound use of our resources, conservation but not at the expense all the loony laws enacted by the EPA, ect.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

i agree with the concept of preserving and restoring wetlands, and people like me paying their dues. For destroying wetlands in the process of building a home.

But i think this statement made earlier in the thread is where i fall..
The biggest rip-off is that based upon the federal definition of wetlands, just about all tracts south of Alex, could be considered wetlands.

when the property has no marsh grass, no water, really nothing that resembles wetlands and you still have to pay, just sounds like more government getting into our pockets.

This statement is not going to sound very sensical, but a wetland does not have to be wet all the time! Bottomland hardwoods go several years sometimes without going under but they are still a wetland
You look at the soils, the vegetation, and the hydrology of that area to make a determination. The problem is that most of our hydrology has been altered so an area that used to be wet year round is now dry. The soils however are still considered 'hydric' meaning they would hold water.
Did you find out any info about prices? Very curious if you don't mind sharing that info

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This statement is not going to sound very sensical, but a wetland does not have to be wet all the time! Bottomland hardwoods go several years sometimes without going under but they are still a wetland
You look at the soils, the vegetation, and the hydrology of that area to make a determination. The problem is that most of our hydrology has been altered so an area that used to be wet year round is now dry. The soils however are still considered 'hydric' meaning they would hold water.
Did you find out any info about prices? Very curious if you don't mind sharing that info

when i start getting prices i will let you know.

I understand, about the other stuff.... the land has that dark moist soil that looks great for gardens... with decomposed foilage on it... and plenty of really nice live oaks on it... perfect place to build a home...LOL and its typically going to be wetlands even though it hasn't seen water in 20 years that i know of...

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Wetland mitigation/Carbon Crediks = gooberment scam, no more, no less.
You can destroy an existing wetland area (LAbERGE) if you pay $$$ to someone who has an existing wetland enrolled in the program. How or who is going to develop the millions of acres on the coast owned by Miami Corp, Vermilion Corp, ect. it's never gonna happen but they can sell it in mitigation for someone to build a hotel on a marsh area if the pony up the chedda. How does this promote/protect the wetlands drained for non-beneficial use?
I believe you are missing my point on this. Gooberment intervention into my private property (imement domain) (wetlands mitigation) (carbon crediks) has the effect of driving up the cost of doing business, which is passed along to the populace who pays taxes. I am for sound use of our resources, conservation but not at the expense all the loony laws enacted by the EPA, ect.

The reason you can not do whatever you want on your own property is because it may hav a negative effect on other people. If you try to drain a wetland on your property, you may be flooding your neighbor, or you are affecting the hydrology of a much larger area. It might not seem like a big deal to dam up a little creek in the backyard, but that water has to go somewhere and it just affected that whole watershed. If everyone just went and altered the hydrology on their property, the whole system would be affected dwonstream. Wetlands are extremely important in recharging the water supply particularly with acquifers. I don't agree with all the rules but without some regulatiory agencies like the EPA, someone could just go dump an old gallon of paint in your backyard creek and think its ok, or some big factory can come in and dump all their waste products right into the waterways. We are losing wetlands at an incredible rate. Up north, in the prairie pothole region (the duck factory) there is virgin wet prairie being drained right now in the name of corn production. I understand why they are doing it, but a few years down the road when all that land is producing corn and not ducks, I would bet there is going to be some changes of heart.

[cajun bill]

You can destroy an existing wetland area (LAbERGE) if you pay $$$ to someone who has an existing wetland enrolled in the program. How or who is going to develop the millions of acres on the coast owned by Miami Corp, Vermilion Corp, ect. it's never gonna happen but they can sell it in mitigation for someone to build a hotel on a marsh area if the pony up the chedda. How does this promote/protect the wetlands drained for non-beneficial use?

Are you saying that if Miami, Vermilion, etc. sell their land into some kind of mitigation bank, that they still own the land and can lease it out for duck hunting, etc., but they receive money because they promise never to develop it and that they will keep it as wetlands?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by cajun bill

You can destroy an existing wetland area (LAbERGE) if you pay $$$ to someone who has an existing wetland enrolled in the program. How or who is going to develop the millions of acres on the coast owned by Miami Corp, Vermilion Corp, ect. it's never gonna happen but they can sell it in mitigation for someone to build a hotel on a marsh area if the pony up the chedda. How does this promote/protect the wetlands drained for non-beneficial use?

Are you saying that if Miami, Vermilion, etc. sell their land into some kind of mitigation bank, that they still own the land and can lease it out for duck hunting, etc., but they receive money because they promise never to develop it and that they will keep it as wetlands?

You can lease out the land of a mitigation bank absolutely as long as the users/lessors do not damage or alter the land. There are certain guidelines that have to be met and as long as those are met, you are free to use it as you wish. There is a mitigation bank that is now part of Maurepas WMA and its open to the public to hunt. The mitigation credits are still owned by the former landowner but the state manages the property just like they would the entire WMA. It was part of the large Maurepas WMA acquisition this last year.
The guidelines for each habitat are different and I am not familiar with marsh banks, but for instance on longleaf pine banks you have to control invasive plants (chinese tallowtree is prominent in many of them), offsite trees (in SW La, slash pines will blow in from the neighboring slash pine plantations and have to be taken out. They are native to SE La), certain hardwoods, and then maintain the understory vegetation. Longleaf piney woods have a very diverse understory and that is one of the main components in this type of bank. There is a rating system for the grasses, wildflowers, etc and you have to keep up the 'score' and maintain the diversity. Prescribed fire is also a requirement in the longleaf system, and it depends on where you are at as to how often you are required to burn.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cajun bill

You can destroy an existing wetland area (LAbERGE) if you pay $$$ to someone who has an existing wetland enrolled in the program. How or who is going to develop the millions of acres on the coast owned by Miami Corp, Vermilion Corp, ect. it's never gonna happen but they can sell it in mitigation for someone to build a hotel on a marsh area if the pony up the chedda. How does this promote/protect the wetlands drained for non-beneficial use?

Are you saying that if Miami, Vermilion, etc. sell their land into some kind of mitigation bank, that they still own the land and can lease it out for duck hunting, etc., but they receive money because they promise never to develop it and that they will keep it as wetlands?

Damn Skippy! You can pump a marsh off, fill it in,build a kasina, and all you have to do is pay the mitigation. But if the Feds discover the long lost turd worm on your property they can shut a million dolla farming operation down with your own tax dollars.

[Duck Butter]

Louisiana has X amount of wetlands. If wetlands were completely off limits for any manipulation or development, economic growth would be shut down. 'They' realize our wetlands are extremely important but also economic growth and development is extremely important as well to our economy. There has to be a balance and mitigation is the best answer for it at this time