[maikeru]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Thanks for the info!

Here's an interesting quote from the first link you posted:

"Under the federal Clean Water Act, a state transportation agency must choose the "least damaging" route for a road if it goes through the wetlands. But the Clean Water Act also allows an agency to pick an alignment that impacts wetlands if it serves a necessary purpose that has been well-studied."

While this is true in theory, it is seldom actualized.
How it should read, according to how it is enforced, is something like this:

"Under the federal Clean Water Act, a state transportation agency should choose the "least damaging" route for a road if it goes through the wetlands. But the Clean Water Act also allows an agency to pick an alignment that impacts wetlands if it serves a necessary purpose that has been well-studied." (in other words if it saves a significant amount of money)

It's pretty sad really...

It's a bit worse in Utah in that business, politics, and religion are tied up in one neat, corrupt bundle, IMO. There is very little regard for the environment here, in general, even if Utahns do make much ado about the wonderful snow, outdoors, and hunting. (This is an aside, but according to the evening news, the Wasatch Front's air quality--from Salt Lake City to Orem, which is the area in which I live--was considered the worst in the nation. This is the third or fourth time we've gotten that designation since the fall.)

I wouldn't sweat the PCBs too much as they are almost omnipresent these days. Heck, DDT is still detectable in anyone alive today and it was banned decades ago.

Anyway, I still wouldn't eat the carp from the lake. They taste just about the same as the mud.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

In Minnesota, we are supposed to protect the wetlands but when it comes to the roads, it seems there is little done in the lines of altering projects to reduce impact. Costs too much.

Yes, that is the common reason, cost. The ironic part is that biodiversity loss and ecosystem functionality loss are never considered a "cost" themselves.

But it isnt roads that are the major impact I see, its the unrestrained development. There have been several housing developments around me and each contractor has applied for and received variences that reduce the effectivness of the laws to protect.

In the US this is a very common and acceptable practice. The contractor must pay mitigation fees that go into a mitigation bank. Mitigation banks are parcels of land that are set aside for wetland restoration. The payment the contractor makes goes directly to the mitigation bank and pays for establishment and upkeep of part of the mitigation bank, which is determined by a credit system. The idea is that the destruction of one system is emeliorated by the creation of a slightly larger system elsewhere. I don't totally agree with the way this works and how it is (not) enforced, but it is a much better system than we had 30 years ago which was literally nothing.

Furthermore, in Georgia, any encroachment within 25 feet of a streams edge (technically: high water mark) requires a stream buffer variance from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. The buffer variance only allows for up to 300 feet of impacts to the stream (impacts being filling, piping, etc.). The applicant for the the buffer variance must print a notice in the local paper and the public is given a thirty day period to look over the proposed plans and state any objections. In rural areas, there are generally no objections as the only people that notice or care are those that border the project. Who reads public notices in newspapers anyways??

What I find even more disturbing is how contractors will go beyond their permits and completely mess up aquatic systems that were supposed to be temporarily impacted to a much less degree (there are different mitigation credits depending on permanent/temporary impacts). The funny () part is that the Army Corp of Engineers, which administrates the permitting process nationwide, is almost apathetic about performing compliance inspections. I've only seen them check something once, and that was a shocker.

One example. There is a five acre minimum for new homes. When the farm across the street went into development, the farmhouse and 13 acres was sold as one unit. There is a stream that runs thru there. The contractor whined about how this land compensates for the five acres and put pressure on the county government for his varience and ended up getting 20 additional houses on the fields above the stream on 2 acre lots. It didnt matter that the there are significant numbers of Blandings turtles using these fields for nesting (a threatened specie). I have done what I can to educate the people living there now on this one type of turtle and how to keep the turtles safe.

This contractor must have had some serious weight to be able to pressure the gov't like that! (In other words his proposition would bring big money to the county)
I'm not too familiar with zoning, but I do know that it is a shady business.

The turtles are state listed threatened, but are not listed as federal status. Hence, it's up to Minnesota State on how they handled the situation. In Georgia, the species is most often relocated by a permitted handler, or FWS.

Now there is a new development going in north of me that is even more devestating to the wildlife. This development will border the shores of a lake and housing is being built on less than one acre lots. Again the 5 acre minimum should apply but thru pressures put on the local government by the contractor, the rules were changed again. The only bonus is the slowing of the housing market has delayed the building of these homes some. But its only a matter of time.

Sorry for you mate. I guess the consolation prize is that it will raise the value of your property significantly so when you are ready to burrow further away from the sprawl, you'll have better means.
It's sad really. Unchecked development fragments precious ecotones and wildlife passageways. It's obviously not too popular with the natives either.

[freeztar]

@Maikeru

Utah is one of my favorite states geologically, but I am put off by the weirdness of the native culture, in general.

Even if the state isn't looking after it's resources too well, at least the feds (Clinton) put in the Grand Staircase-Escalantes National Monument (even amid controversy :?). Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[maikeru]

The weirdness was and is a bit too much for me also. We're *in* the American West but not exactly *part* of it.

Part of the problem I see here is, as Cedars mentioned, rampant, almost seemingly unrestrained development, along Utah Lake's shores and up in the mountains and canyons, which has impacted the environment, mostly the streams, lake, and its wetlands. The more beautiful it is, the better, because it can host a few more condos, cabins, or housing developments with a great view (even if the houses slip down the sides of the hills and mountains after heavy rain, as seems increasingly common in the news). This is fueled largely by the high birthrate and population growth (which is religiously influenced).

Not everyone needs to own a large home, an SUV, a boat, hunting rifles, and have 7-12 kids, thanks. This seems pretty common in Utah Valley. There's got to be a limit...and if people won't limit themselves, the land, environment, and resources will.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Freeztar

This contractor must have had some serious weight to be able to pressure the gov't like that! (In other words his proposition would bring big money to the county)
I'm not too familiar with zoning, but I do know that it is a shady business.

The turtles are state listed threatened, but are not listed as federal status. Hence, it's up to Minnesota State on how they handled the situation. In Georgia, the species is most often relocated by a permitted handler, or FWS.

This was an amazing example of manipulation that I had never seen before. The county I grew up in is a stickler for the 5 acre minimum. With this current residence and county, I listened with amazement as the contractor used the plat maps of the area and insisted that because the surrounding acreage was higher (still farmland), the density of the housing allowed for him to place more than his maximums. The people in the crowd pointed out that you cannot allow a higher density for this one parcel because there is no way you can or should be allowed to prevent the neighboring acreage from being developed under the 5 acre minimums.

There was one county commissioner on the locals side and took the development issues seriously. But a majority still voted to allow this under a "whats one development gonna hurt" and we were told by the pro commissioner side "we dont care about a few turtles". No one in the crowd wanted to deny the development, but we all wanted them to adhere to the five acre standard that everyone else in that room lived by.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

But a majority still voted to allow this under a "whats one development gonna hurt" and we were told by the pro commissioner side "we dont care about a few turtles". No one in the crowd wanted to deny the development, but we all wanted them to adhere to the five acre standard that everyone else in that room lived by.

Heh! The pro-commissioner side might not care about "a few turtles" (did this include the commissioners?!?!), but I gaurantee you the Dept. of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife Service do! All it would have taken was a call to DNR to let them know about the presence of the turtles and they would have slapped a cease and desist order on the project so fast it would have made heads spin.

I wonder if the commissioners realized that it is a pretty grave offense to intentionally kill threatened and endangered species, including jail time and very hefty fines.

[freeztar]

In the news...
American Scientist Online - Banking on Mitigation

I have several issues with this article, but I'd like to hear some other takes on the subject before I dissect the article.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

but I gaurantee you the Dept. of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife Service do! All it would have taken was a call to DNR to let them know about the presence of the turtles and they would have slapped a cease and desist order on the project so fast it would have made heads spin.

I wonder if the commissioners realized that it is a pretty grave offense to intentionally kill threatened and endangered species, including jail time and very hefty fines.

One neighbor did call the DNR about this issue and 1. they are threatened, not endangered which doesnt protect them as much. 2. The DNR had been out over the land surrounding the stream and had issued its recommendation on the project (hence the 13 acre farm spot as one unit). If the farmhouse had not been existing, it would have changed things but the DNR could not force the developer to tear down this home and barn.

The people at the DNR were not aware of the existance of the turtles, but that is a hole in the system where they did not ask surrounding peoples of the existance of these creatures of concern. There is a very real possibility that the farmer who sold the property had no idea there was this special animal, he was like in his mid 70s (a turtle is a turtle). There is also not a motivation for someone to admit to holding such creatures on their property due to the restrictions they may be subjected to (and the associated loss of capitol gains).

What it boiled down to is the DNR had issued an environmental impact and imposed restrictions based on what they knew at the time and I assume, based on what I know of how the system operates after having worked for the state for a number of years, they wouldnt go back and recind their orders because of potential litigation (getting sued by the developer and associated bad press, policital blowback, etc).

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by freeztar

In the news...
American Scientist Online - Banking on Mitigation

I have several issues with this article, but I'd like to hear some other takes on the subject before I dissect the article.

Its hard for me to believe that the net loss is only 60,000 acres in the entire usa, annually.

"None provided habitat for either wood frogs or spotted salamanders, which the report called indicative of successful sites, and all were dominated by just a few species of frogs."

This is a huge problem as I see it. Not only do the above creatures suffer, there are plenty more attached. Its a known problem for many of the parks which were set aside along wetlands/shorelines and no additional highlands were attached to the same lands. It inhibits diversity greatly as most of the animals which use the wetland areas, have other needs beyond the watery spots. You wouldnt believe the carnage that occurs when the Mississippi rises and drives the wildlife out of the Fort Snelling WR area and into the surrounding cities.

Boundry overlaps are a problem too, as successful species dominate and negate the base wildlife population as the surrounding shelterlands are developed. Racoons are one type that spring to mind as an example of ability to excell at a cost to other creatures. Then there is the problem of the domestic animals (cats) hunting these lands with their additional predations.

There are orgs out there which do a pretty good job of restoration and understanding the broader picture. Ducks Unlimited has done some outstanding projects as has Pheasants Forever. Now their motivation is to create prime hunting conditions, but a side effect of their efforts is a balanced wetland/brooding area which provides habitat for a number of species we often forget about. One of my favorite birding areas works with DU and the variety of species which thrive in this WMA is asounding.

Welcome to Crex Meadows

Crex is noted on the Audubon Hot Birding sites in N. America.

The unanswered question I have after reading the article is how the bank is managed. For example, do the banked wetlands from Hennepin county (minneapolis sits on that one) or Ramsey county (st. paul) get re-applied elsewhere in the state of MN and counted as a banked wetland? It would seem to negate the net loss if the bank can move the wetland 100 miles away into an area that is undeveloped but surrounded by existing wetlands, when both these counties surround major riverways and should have more wetland set asides to keep runoff from entering the Mississippi and carried southwards towards the gulf.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Its hard for me to believe that the net loss is only 60,000 acres in the entire usa, annually.

That is probably a conservative figure which doesn't take into account natural losses, such as what happened in Loiusiana after Katrina.

"None provided habitat for either wood frogs or spotted salamanders, which the report called indicative of successful sites, and all were dominated by just a few species of frogs."

This is a huge problem as I see it. Not only do the above creatures suffer, there are plenty more attached. Its a known problem for many of the parks which were set aside along wetlands/shoreline goes and no additional highlands were attached to the same lands. It inhibits diversity greatly as most of the animals which use the wetland areas, have other needs beyond the watery spots. You wouldnt believe the carnage that occurs when the Mississippi rises and drives the wildlife out of the Fort Snelling WR area and into the surrounding cities.

This really is a huge problem. People think that if they create an isolated wetland surrounded by urban environment, then they have done good. What they really have done is created an urban catchment pond. The upland aspect of wetlands is rarely considered, which is just sorry science considering that most inabitants in and around wetlands are either amphibious or otherwise migratory.

There are orgs out there which do a pretty good job of restoration and understanding the broader picture. Ducks Unlimited has done some outstanding projects as has Pheasants Forever. Now their motivation is to create prime hunting conditions, but a side effect of their efforts is a balanced wetland/brooding area which provides habitat for a number of species we often forget about. One of my favorite birding areas works with DU and the variety of species which thrive in this WMA is asounding.

Welcome to Crex Meadows

Crex is noted on the Audubon Hot Birding sites in N. America.

Yes, ducks unlimited is a good organization. The nature conservancy is also a really good organization that usually thinks things through pretty well before taking action.

The unanswered question I have after reading the article is how the bank is managed. For example, do the banked wetlands from Hennepin county (minneapolis sits on that one) or Ramsey county (st. paul) get re-applied elsewhere in the state of MN and counted as a banked wetland? It would seem to negate the net loss if the bank can move the wetland 100 miles away into an area that is undeveloped but surrounded by existing wetlands, when both these counties surround major riverways and should have more wetland set asides to keep runoff from entering the Mississippi and carried southwards towards the gulf.

Good question! The corps has a term for it called "in-kind mitigation" which means that credits must be purchased from a mitigation bank in the same watershed in order to prevent what you talked about. Unfortunately credits are not always available for that watershed. In this case you have to choose a bank in an adjacent watershed and usually pay A LOT more for each credit. This is an incentive for purchasers to exhaust all of their local options before looking outside their project's watershed. If there are no credits in adjacent watersheds, then you may purchase from what is known as "in-lieu fee" banking. With in-lieu fee banking, you purchase credits from a statewide bank that is a catchall for areas with little or no mitigation credits. In order to purchase from an in-lieu fee bank, you must thoroughly demonstrate to the corps that you have exhausted all of your options and only then will they allow in-lieu banking. It's not a perfect system, but it does encourage credit purchasers to give back to the watershed their project is helping to destroy.