|
Wetlands
Jan 30, 2024 12:07:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by greyhair on Jan 30, 2024 12:07:16 GMT -5
Anybody have comments on the new wetlands regs?
I wonder about Goose Pond? I don't think its directly connected to a navigable waterway is it?
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jan 30, 2024 12:53:43 GMT -5
What are the new regs? The old ones aren't on my top 10 list of favorites.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jan 30, 2024 14:47:31 GMT -5
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA cannot regulate anything as a protected wetland unless it permanently connected to a navigable waterway. Now the Indiana legislature is considering a bill to remove any protection from areas that don't meet this criteria. I wondered about Goose Pond and other areas
|
|
|
Wetlands
Jan 30, 2024 15:51:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by lawrencecountyhunter on Jan 30, 2024 15:51:13 GMT -5
Simple overview is that the supreme court ruled against an Obama era EPA rule that never fully took effect, so basically no change to status quo.
I am not knowledgeable about the fore mentioned Indiana bill.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 30, 2024 18:12:21 GMT -5
It won't impact goosepond. Those wetlands are protected by how they were purchased. It would be impacting land that is looking to be developed.
I am not well versed in this but...Non connected wetlands in certain places are easy to find. In Madison County where I grew up a farm field with dark soils was probably a non connected wetland with drain tiles. Soil and plant type is all that is needed to define a spot a wetland.
Goosepond would likely be example of connected as there are ditches and water structures throughout that place.
Did the law use "waters of the state" or actually navigatable waterways? The 1st is essentially any ditch/creek or river where the other is a very defined list of waterways that was designated in the 1800s.
Ponds that do not have surface flow connections in or out have been the 'isolated wetland" discussed for years.
|
|
|
Wetlands
Jan 30, 2024 18:32:37 GMT -5
via mobile
duff likes this
Post by welder on Jan 30, 2024 18:32:37 GMT -5
32 years ago, I worked a mine construction job at Hawthorne mine. That is now Bear Run mine, located directly West of the Goosepond FWA. At that time, they were actually farming both sides of SR 59 which has been flooded for years now. That was a horrible wet mess, it would be extremely difficult to use it for anything other than a wetland.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jan 30, 2024 22:23:41 GMT -5
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA cannot regulate anything as a protected wetland unless it permanently connected to a navigable waterway. Now the Indiana legislature is considering a bill to remove any protection from areas that don't meet this criteria. I wondered about Goose Pond and other areas They NEED to do that. Somehow the State went around and marked any "wet" area even though it was on private property as a "wetland", and even some not wet areas as a wetland. It has caused a number of customers big headaches when they wanted to build a pond. Right now I have a project that is waiting on a ruling from the Army Core of Engineers. The property owner wants to make a stream to connect 2 ponds on his property and the county made him do a wetland delineation, which showed that there was a wetland where he wanted the stream to go. Now how Black Walnut trees, White Oaks and other trees can grow to over 24" DBH in a wetland is beyond my comprehension. So now the project is on hold and we were told that it could be years before we get an answer from the Army Core of Engineers. This area doesn't go anywhere, doesn't attach to a ditch, etc.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 31, 2024 6:48:47 GMT -5
The Supreme Court ruled last year that the EPA cannot regulate anything as a protected wetland unless it permanently connected to a navigable waterway. Now the Indiana legislature is considering a bill to remove any protection from areas that don't meet this criteria. I wondered about Goose Pond and other areas They NEED to do that. Somehow the State went around and marked any "wet" area even though it was on private property as a "wetland", and even some not wet areas as a wetland. It has caused a number of customers big headaches when they wanted to build a pond. Right now I have a project that is waiting on a ruling from the Army Core of Engineers. The property owner wants to make a stream to connect 2 ponds on his property and the county made him do a wetland delineation, which showed that there was a wetland where he wanted the stream to go. Now how Black Walnut trees, White Oaks and other trees can grow to over 24" DBH in a wetland is beyond my comprehension. So now the project is on hold and we were told that it could be years before we get an answer from the Army Core of Engineers. This area doesn't go anywhere, doesn't attach to a ditch, etc. Was this for a private residence or commercial type property, and was there any grant money from government sources to assist in the project? If this is private residence w/o government funding, that is insanity. Farmers would need to fight this like crazy as the tiles, planting, and discing would impact those as well, wouldn't they? And plenty of government funds are given to farmers, so that probably wouldn't trigger it either. At least not without a fight. I do agree that the WOTS rules and wetlands are a very large, nebulous set of regulations that need simplified.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Jan 31, 2024 9:00:43 GMT -5
Private residence and privately funded. Family has owned the property for going on 60 years. County needs to issue a "land improvement" permit, won't do so until IDEM gives the county a letter saying it's OK, IDEM won't do that until they get a letter from the ACOE saying it's OK. Project is a 6.25 acre pond, stream to be built that will run from the existing 1/2 acre pond across this "wetland" area that is approx 50' wide. The owners father put in that pond and a small building next to the pond in 1997 with no "wetland" being disturbed. If that same building and pond was proposed to be built today it couldn't because of the "wetland" there.
And no soil can be disturbed within 50 feet of the wetland area.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Jan 31, 2024 11:34:19 GMT -5
32 years ago, I worked a mine construction job at Hawthorne mine. That is now Bear Run mine, located directly West of the Goosepond FWA. At that time, they were actually farming both sides of SR 59 which has been flooded for years now. That was a horrible wet mess, it would be extremely difficult to use it for anything other than a wetland. Yea, I remember when all that ground was farmed. They had the entire area (8000 acres I believe?) tiled and ditched to make it farmable. State bought the place and turned it all back into wetlands. Quite an impressive reconstruction of habitat project and the place holds an enormous amount of waterfowl at times. I had a cabin just north of Dugger and fished the area a lot. Also did some work building the Bear Run mine.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Jan 31, 2024 12:46:13 GMT -5
Watching the Senate hearing on HB1383 right now.
|
|
|
Wetlands
Jan 31, 2024 13:34:45 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by greghopper on Jan 31, 2024 13:34:45 GMT -5
Watching the Senate hearing on HB1383 right now. The Blue line Indygo discussion was interesting Monday😊….Be hard to Top that I say.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Jan 31, 2024 13:52:21 GMT -5
Watching the Senate hearing on HB1383 right now. The Blue line Indygo discussion was interesting Monday😊….Be hard to Top that I say. For sure!! HB1383 passes 7-2. Now goes to second reading (probably see amendments proposed). HJ
|
|