Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations building pond on wetland

just purchased 12 acres with wetlands attached, was told buy seller that i could sell the peat to build the pond. seller also said, state would give permission if a drag line was used and the peat was trucked away.does this sound feasible

Tread lightly, and intelligently. Check in with your DNR and talk with Federal officials. In this case, it would be prudent to ask permission rather than forgiveness. It's probably feasible to remove peat, but it may be legal issues of changing a wetlands that could throw water on the project.

thanks for the response.talked to state offical and they said I could build a pond on the back part of wetland, but not to touch the front.still in the investigating stage, soil guy said the dnr is the hardest to get involved, because they keep dragging their feet.

Toma:

I can't speak for regulations in Indiana but have been through this process many times both professionally and personally in Michigan. My own ponds are also wetland conversions in Michigan, which has very tight wetland laws relative to the rest of the U.S. For instance, we cannot install t-posts (fence)within the wetlands on our property without a state permit. The Feds have have little to no involvement here unless the project involves a navigable waterway. Federal law will apply, however, if a particular state has not promulgated their own wetland regulations, which have to be equal to or more stringent than the federal law anyway.

In general, wetland regulations are most sensitive to the placement of fill and also the depth of dredge. Except for special cases (i.e. bogs), regulators may not consider a wetland a wetland when the bottom depth exceeds the photic zone. Michigan trys to limit the dredging of "aquatic beds" to less than 2-feet. In some cases, mitigation is required to replace areas of impacted wetlands (creating new wetlands to compensate for lost areas). Will any of your pond be located in an upland area? If so, creating marginal wetlands around the upland pond edges has been a successful means of mitigation for some projects. We have also successfully permitted limited placement of dredge spoil for the creation of "reptile hibernation mounds" and/or "upland nesting islands".

Generally speaking, any wetland dredge will either need to be stabilized on an upland area or removed from the property. The peat removal may solve the problem of removing dredge spoil from the wetland area (see township considerations below).

Work closely with the state but understand they will give only so much free help. Some staff regulators will try to discourage you or even tell you that a permit won't be issued when asked about the feasibility of a particular project. Don't be intimidated or angered by this if it happens. They will become obligated to review the project on it's own merit when and if a permit application is submitted (be cordial no matter what they say).

Talk to your township early in the process and do not assume that an approved state permit will automatically be approved by the township. My township does not allow the removal of topsoil and will only allow the removal of 500 yards of other materials from a property without a mining permit. The catch is that they will not grant any additional mining permits since there are several sand/gravel mines already located in the township.

Other potential issues may include hauling large amounts of material down township/county roads. You didn't say what the proposed cut volume will be, most ordinances have an upper threshold value, below which doesn't require review. See if this is the case and plan accordingly. Neighbors also get pretty excited about truck traffic (makes for great township meetings).

The counties around here are starting to see the sale of sand/gravel/peat as potential revenue and wan't a piece of the pie. As part of the permit fee, they have started to charge a percentage on each yard of material sold (generally 1-3%). I've also seen a few projects held up because the township required bonding for potential damage to the roads (full replacement value).

The best advise I could give is what Bob has already told you. Do not put the regulators on the defensive or alienate them, work within their framework, ask for suggestions on how they would approach the project and they will usually be sympathetic to a legitimate wildlife project. Remember that developers try to BS them every day about how their project will benefit the local ecosystem. If you can get them to take on a little ownership of your project you will be home free. You may eventually need a wetland consultant to help with the application.

I'm not trying to scare you, things may not be as tough in your neck of the woods. The more you know going in will allow you to navigate through various issues as they materialize. Sounds like you are starting out on the right track. FYI, the fines in Michigan for wetland violations are up to $25,000 per day.

It used to be that if a guy wanted a pond he could just dig one.

Here is a horror story for you.

President Bush has stated that he does not want to see any loss of wetlands acreage. The Feds (Army Corps of Engineers - USACE) are the guys that are upholding this. I recently settled a dispute with USACE regarding a 'Wetland' area that I am converting into a pond. A wetland is judged to be so by the type of plants growing there. Seems funny but a pond only collects and increases water. I rcvd permission to construct my pond by State, County and Town Gov'ts. I did not think that the small intermittant stream running through my marshy area would be a concern to the feds but, one day one drove past and noticed the excavation. They put a year and a half 'Cease and Desist order' on my project. I was only able to get permission to continue by involving my local politicians and Congressman. My pond is a Farm Pond and the USACE was constricting my right to farm.

State did not consider my site a wetland as it was smaller than their criteria of 12 acres but the Feds go down to 1/10 of an acre !!. In my state if the dredged material is trucked off of my property it is considered as being a Mine and that requires a whole lot of other permits/restrictions.

The things to remember about excavations and permits are two-fold: 1) Out of view is best as every self appointed tree-hugger will complain to agencies. 2) Common sense has nothing to do with it. It is all about Gov't agencies exercising and staking out their power & jurisdiction.

My intermittant stream of about 6" deep and 2' wide couldnt navigate a toothpick but it was considered 'Navigable Waters' as it eventually flows to one. My stream is not even on the USACE map and must flow about 3 miles before it comes to a mapped stream. It then must flow an additional 6 miles before reaching a navigable water. I was flabbergasted when I was told this was the reason for the Feds jurisdiction. I am a Cargo Ship Sea Captain so I know a thing or two about Navigable waters. Under the Feds reasoning any body or stream that flows or overflows is considered Federal Jurisdiction as it will eventually flow to a Navigable water. When I asked this they said 'Yes, and dont forget about drainage ditches too...' The rules are meant to allow their jurisdiction in wetlands or waters that are close enough to affect navigable waters but they view the interpretation to include all connected waters and yes 'even drainage ditches'.