We all know we are not supposed to build in wetlands. My question is actually the opposite...
Are there guidelines or regulations governing or restricting NEW wetland development?
If water has been re-routed (in totally appropriate ways) and the new pathway begins creating new wetlands in an area that never existed before, is that a problem? Does it require special design parameters?
I understand we are not supposed to damage existing habitats. What happens when a new habitat begins developing?
Constructed wetlands are a thing and totally awesome for water treatment. There are ways to construct them using only local flora, but they also get done with introducing new species if they are not invasive to the area.
Flagstaff Arboretum put a "locals only" small one in, and you can't even tell it is there.
Kachina Village (also Flagstaff AZ area) put one in as the water treatment for the entire development because existing infrastructure would not allow them to connect to it.
I have heard rumors that you can even create and maintain them with corporate sponsorship as companies try to be carbon neutral, if you put one someplace that did not start green. Again, rumors only.
Edit: the Arboretum gift shop sells 'how-to' books. You could call and I bet they would give you titles.
As far as I know, as long as you're complying with detention / retention regulations for the site in general, creating new wetlands is not an issue.
I will ask around among my CE friends.
My last house was next to about 45 acres of low lying farm land with a creek on one side. It flooded a couple of times per year typically but the farmer would plant and hope for the best (which may have been collecting flood insurance checks).
At some point, a large medical facility was planned in an area ~20 miles down stream that required filling in many acres of wetlands. In order to get permission to build in that location, the medical facility builders had to replace the wetlands that they removed with new wetlands on the same tributary system. The ground next to my house was selected as part of that. They did some grading to incorporate a couple of wading pools and to direct some water back into the creek. Then they planted native plants and mowed around them for a handful of years to give them a head start vs the weeds. The Army Corps of Engineers was involved in the project, and the ground was considered "protected wetlands" at that point. I might have to drive by at some point in 10 years or so to see how it's progressing.
To clarify, we are not looking to construct wetlands. They are beginning to develop naturally in the outflow area of properly constructed detention/ retention ponds.
When a third party inspector says "new wetlands are beginning to develop", we are trying to figure out if that's ok or not. Is she saying "This is a problem that needs remediation", or "Look! This is great!", or is she just neutrally observing something and making a comment that isn't necessary at all?
Owners are interpreting it as a negative comment (like we are supposed to fix it). I am assuming it is either a neutral comment or a positive one.
Growing new potential habitats while meeting all the requirements is a good thing, right?
In reply to SV reX :
Yeah, I figured it was a byproduct of whatever else you were doing, not intentional.
I've reached out to a few civil engineer friends and I will report back if I hear anything.
[edit] You absolutely, positively do not want the Corps of Engineers to get involved. But I'm sure you know that.
In reply to Duke :
Corps of engineers has been involved in this project from the beginning.
...so has the EPA, the EPD, GADOT, and all the other special guys. They are all VERY happy with the project.
But the 3rd party consultant is making the owner concerned.
I would find an environmental consulting firm with a good planner/permitter. If that person isn't also qualified as a wetlands specialist in your state or at least isn't a biologist, I would be sure that they have one on staff.
A planner/permitter will know the regs, and, importantly, they will know how to make sure that your project is permittable and thus constructible.
Even if the permitting is straightforward, you may be able to use new wetland as a mitigation bank for other projects, which could benefit you and can be valuable.
If it's a large project, to the extent you'll need to work with permitting agencies a lot, a good planner/permitter will have strong relationships with federal/state/local agency contacts to get everything approved without agony.
Just my 0.02. (I regularly worked with planner/permitters and biologists and habitat restoration scientists on wetland and other critical-areas matters for ~10 years, FWIW.)
In reply to procainestart :
It's a huge project. All planning and permitting has been completed (including working with the Corps of Engineers). Project is nearing completion.
This is simply a question about the permitted and approved outflows. Several look like they could begin to create new wetland areas outside the limits of disturbance.
It's a complete non-issue with the permitting authorities and the AHJs. They are completely satisfied.
The question is simply if there is something wrong with new wetlands developing naturally outside the LoDs.
I don't know E36 M3 about regulation but what you're saying sounds like a positive PR campaign
"Mega-Corp builds a maga-facility but rather than just plow it all down, Mega-Corp plans for the future and "gives back" by creating wildlife habitat and wetlands."
I would think a company like GM or Toyota would brag the hell out of something like this. Lots of images of green fields and serene views.
In reply to John Welsh :
No doubt. And the several miles of mountain bike trails they will do through the natural areas will also fit their brand and help their PR.
Im just trying to manage the info from the 3rd party consultant.
The only issue I can think of is if it is ever recognized as a wetland it opens a whole new can of worms for future use.
They don't care how it got there but if you try to do anything on it later its going to cost you whatever local wetlands mitigation costs are.
This happened to my family. My dad sold the top soil off a parcel to build on it, it had been part of a farm for a hundred+ years but was now in a "downtown" area. The project didn't come together and natural grasses took over that we would mow a few times a year.
Some kind of plant showed on on the breeze or in pheasant or duck poop and all of a sudden we have 7500 sqft of land in the middle of 2 acres and we have to pay a wetlands bank to get to use it.
One of my friends built a large pond on his property and connected it to a creek. He wound up with some fish and other aquatic life. Fisheries came along and noticed the increased habitat and designated it a sensitive riparian area and denied him a building permit for a new shop. Of course he could not unwind things and fill it in either. It's pretty though.
Ah yes, the age old parental dilemma:
"I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it!"
Well no, you can't. Wetlands included.
In reply to jgrewe :
Future use should be a non issue. It's woodlands with creeks running through it. It will always be that. The owners will want to retain it as a buffer.
The owners don't care if it's wetlands. They just want to know if they are breaking some rule by allowing it to become wetlands.
I think the consultant is making an issue where one doesn't exist.
I spent the whole day today meeting with 24 different lawyers, several environmentalists and several engineers.
No one seems to know if this is a problem.
They aren't breaking any rules by allowing it to become wetlands. They got the permits and reviews for their erosion plans. Done deal.
The question is - once it is wetlands, are they prepared to maintain it as such? That's where the legality comes into play.
If they do something to damage the wetlands, they could be fined.
Or, if a neighboring property doesn't want wetlands and asks for them to be removed, can your client remove them?
I think the state's environmental agency needs to record these wetlands as artificial and accidental, and that the property owner is not required to maintain them.
In reply to pheller :
That's a good feedback. It sounds fairly accurate, but I am not sure I agree with your conclusion.
The land is outside the limits of disturbance for our work, but it's still privately owned by the owner.
Im thinking that it is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources to designate wetland areas and maintain a database of them. When a disturbance activity encroaches on designated wetlands, it is everyone's responsibility to get proper permits from the Corps.
Therefore, as an area that is privately owned and not designated as wetlands, I'm thinking the owner has no responsibility to open that can of worms (until a future date when the Corps designates it as wetlands). I'm feeling like it's a total non issue at this time.
One exception...
The land isn't technically privately owned. It's owned by the JDA of the State of GA, and leased back to the "owner". At some point in the future, it will transfer. For now, the JDA will remain the primary permitee, and the "owner" will be secondary permitee and responsible for the maintenance.
Messy... I guess that's why we have lawyers.
SV reX said:When a third party inspector says "new wetlands are beginning to develop", we are trying to figure out if that's ok or not. Is she saying "This is a problem that needs remediation", or "Look! This is great!", or is she just neutrally observing something and making a comment that isn't necessary at all?
Can you ask the third party inspector what she is saying? Or would that open a can of worms?
In reply to SV reX :
Possible a massively over simplified question but I'll ask it anyway: Maybe have one of the 24 or so lawyers ask the third party inspector to clarify and expand on their statement of "new wetlands are beginning to develop"?
Asking the question puts the ball back in whatever court the third party inspector is playing in, any answer will certainly get more information on the record. If creating wetlands is somehow viewed as a negative by the third party a follow up question can be asked as to why and that will again put the responsibility back on the third party.
It certainly sounds from your description that any and all required permits, environmental reviews and so on are in hand. Logic would seem to think that more wetlands and buffer zones created on a new development would be viewed as a good thing.
Slippery said:SV reX said:When a third party inspector says "new wetlands are beginning to develop", we are trying to figure out if that's ok or not. Is she saying "This is a problem that needs remediation", or "Look! This is great!", or is she just neutrally observing something and making a comment that isn't necessary at all?
Can you ask the third party inspector what she is saying? Or would that open a can of worms?
That's a great idea! No reason to avoid talking with a reasonable person.
Unfortunately, she's not reasonable. And she's constantly trying to make herself important and make mountains out of mole hills.
In reply to 11GTCS :
That's a good question, and a good approach. I'll mention it, but they probably won't do it.
It's a tricky balance. It's a very large project that involves large amounts of money. Projects like this draw legal opponents Just because there is money involved. And neighbors think that if they can catch anyone at a misstep, they can get a settlement worthy of retirement. So they keep looking for issues.
As a state owned project, it is subject to open records laws. The lawyers walk a very fine line... they need to document as much as will be necessary to defend things in court. At the same time, any record can and will be used against them. So, they try not to generate more useless data that could be used against them.
Extra info outlining the consultant's opinion is useless data. Her opinion doesn't matter. The relevant laws matter.
What's your worry here? That the client will request extensive construction changes to eliminate the potential wetlands?
She convinces them to do that. That's her (and their) deal.
If they blame it on your company, you did everything correct and the experts agree that the wetlands are not a problem, so you did not have any reason to mitigate.
Let her prove where the problem is. Where the potential fine is. Where liability is.
But don't let her try to throw any blame on you or your employer.
She's like a home inspector who thinks he is important and generates a 40 page report of "deficiencies " on a brand new house just to prove how important he is.
They call that guy "The Deal Killer".
Only difference is she's got a degree in geology.
You'll need to log in to post.
