- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:07 pm to Cowboyfan89
quote:
Not true, talk to NRCS. Effective today, EPA and Corps recognize the same Prior Converted rules as USDA
When did the law change? Because 8 years ago when we looked into it, that was the law
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:07 pm to ithad2bme
quote:
I’m well aware, but if he had already filled it you aren’t going to be able to delineate it.
I beg to differ. It's still possible to delineate, depending on what else has happened that might have affected drainage, vegetation, etc.
Filling and draining are the two most common manipulations with wetland hydrology. Any experienced delineator can handle a situation like that. It's not always easy, but it can be done.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:08 pm to GRIZZ
quote:
When did the law change? Because 8 years ago when we looked into it, that was the law
quote:
Effective today
New WOTUS was published in December and went into effect today.
It's actually changed twice since you last looked into, both times more to your advantage than what it was 8 years ago.
This post was edited on 3/20/23 at 9:09 pm
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:11 pm to Cowboyfan89
Awesome. Thanks!
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:14 pm to MoClassy
quote:
Tired of being scapegoat for drainage issues I didn’t cause.
If you been scapegoat, might I recommend using neuty as your mascot as you fight the powers that be.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:20 pm to GRIZZ
quote:Can you please provide a link to what you're referring to?
New WOTUS was published in December and went into effect today.
I've been waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Sackett vs. EPA, which is supposed to have a big say in all of this. The court heard the case in October. The ruling has not come out that I'm aware of.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 9:23 pm to LSUgusto
quote:
Can you please provide a link to what you're referring to?
I'll have to do some digging to find the exact link with the information I'm referencing, but Googling something to the effect of "new WOTUS EPA" should get you to their page on it.
quote:
I've been waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Sackett vs. EPA, which is supposed to have a big say in all of this.
That ruling is likely coming in June. And that's an understatement. If the court goes the way that seems likely, the last 2 decades of wetland regulation under the CWA is going to be undone.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 10:00 pm to ithad2bme
Flood plain was different 30 years ago. Survey done on property and building permits secured. Survey A for house and barn. C was flood zone. That is pasture. Did not need a determination.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 10:20 pm to ithad2bme
Do what you want with the land; just don’t fill it in and the. when COE issues you a citation, apply for an after the fact permit.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 10:31 pm to MoClassy
William Caldwell of the Baringer Law Firm. 225 383 9953
Posted on 3/20/23 at 10:59 pm to DefensorFortis
Apparently that’s what people do. Numerous natural waterways have mysteriously been filled in my area. I would prefer to be honest and not harm other people and their property. Just seems deceitful to do it that way.
Posted on 3/20/23 at 11:13 pm to MoClassy
What are you trying to do? Build a house pad and driveway? Not likely to have issue unless a-hole neighbor rats you out, or you are featuring 10+ acres. Army core has better things to do, they are probably worried about those new Nola pumps rusting.
Posted on 3/21/23 at 12:00 am to MoClassy
quote:
Flood plain was different 30 years ago. Survey done on property and building permits secured. Survey A for house and barn. C was flood zone. That is pasture. Did not need a determination.
I think you are saying 30 years ago the pasture didn't need a flood determination, but that is what you want to develop now. If that is the case, look up your property on the FIRM Maps to see whether the area you want to develop is currently in a floodplain. If it is, then you will likely need to coordinate with the parish floodplain administrator.
Posted on 3/21/23 at 5:11 am to MoClassy
quote:
Just seems deceitful to do it that way.
Not only that, but the Corps could still fine you on top of requiring mitigation. AND, if you convert a wetland before applying for a permit and mitigation, if there is no documentation of the actual condition, you could be at the Corps mercy for how much mitigation you have to buy. Wetlands providing minimal function and value mitigate at a lower ratio than wetlands of higher value.
Posted on 3/21/23 at 5:38 am to Cowboyfan89
What you need IMO is an environmental engineer, not an attorney (though the legal muscle may come into play later). The environmental engineers are the ones with the relationships with the Corps and they know the game with these things.
I’m in commercial development, and every damn parcel we come across these days has a random pond someone built and stocked for a decade that could be constituted as a wetlands. You gotta find the environmental engineer who knows how to play the game.
Whatever it is, you want to drain it right around now and then get the environmental engineer to come out in around July or August. You gotta time it right so that the sun has been beating on it, the mud has crusted, and a couple non-hydro plants have started crusting (or atleast that’s what our enviro guy tells us).
If you do that, you can get most of these minor “wetlands” to disappear with a delineation, and if your guy has a good enough relationship with the local Corps guy they won’t even come out to check or verify.
I’m in commercial development, and every damn parcel we come across these days has a random pond someone built and stocked for a decade that could be constituted as a wetlands. You gotta find the environmental engineer who knows how to play the game.
Whatever it is, you want to drain it right around now and then get the environmental engineer to come out in around July or August. You gotta time it right so that the sun has been beating on it, the mud has crusted, and a couple non-hydro plants have started crusting (or atleast that’s what our enviro guy tells us).
If you do that, you can get most of these minor “wetlands” to disappear with a delineation, and if your guy has a good enough relationship with the local Corps guy they won’t even come out to check or verify.
Posted on 3/21/23 at 5:46 am to NolaLovingClemsonFan
quote:
Whatever it is, you want to drain it right around now and then get the environmental engineer to come out in around July or August. You gotta time it right so that the sun has been beating on it, the mud has crusted, and a couple non-hydro plants have started crusting (or atleast that’s what our enviro guy tells us).
If you do that, you can get most of these minor “wetlands” to disappear with a delineation, and if your guy has a good enough relationship with the local Corps guy they won’t even come out to check or verify
Jesus Christ, ya'll need a new enviro guy. Extremely unethical, and a good way to get your arse in a vise with the wrong Corps analyst. Those guys have maps/imagery at their disposal that the general public does not, and many of them are environmentalists to the max.
I can think of 2 or 3 in LA right off the top of my head that would find that in a heartbeat. Hell, some of them slap cease-and-desists on people removing a damn tallow tree.
Posted on 3/21/23 at 6:00 am to Cowboyfan89
quote:
Jesus Christ, ya'll need a new enviro guy. Extremely unethical, and a good way to get your arse in a vise with the wrong Corps analyst. Those guys have maps/imagery at their disposal that the general public does not, and many of them are environmentalists to the max.
I can think of 2 or 3 in LA right off the top of my head that would find that in a heartbeat. Hell, some of them slap cease-and-desists on people removing a damn tallow tree.
Eh, classifying someone’s fishing pond or a low spot on their property that pools water from time to time and prohibits them from selling it to a developer for drastically more than it would be worth if it couldn’t be developed is unethical and much worse.
We all know what is an actual wetlands. If it’s connected to a perennial body of water or supports some sort of real hydro ecosystem, then we’d never touch it, but some of the things that can be considered wetlands are absurd and harm the land seller way more than anyone.
Posted on 3/21/23 at 6:13 am to BabysArmHoldingApple
quote:
Second this recommendation
Third
Posted on 3/21/23 at 6:16 am to NolaLovingClemsonFan
quote:
Eh, classifying someone’s fishing pond or a low spot on their property that pools water from time to time and prohibits them from selling it to a developer for drastically more than it would be worth if it couldn’t be developed is unethical and much worse.
The first shouldn't even be called a wetland, so I agree there.
There are plenty of ephemeral wetlands that are, indeed, wetlands. Whether or not they are jurisdictional is another question entirely. Isolated wetlands are not supposed to be jurisdictional.
That same argument has been made about prairie potholes, but guess what? If those people ever won that argument, we'd have no ducks.
quote:
We all know what is an actual wetlands.
Shockingly, most people think if it's not a marsh or swamp, it's not a wetland. That's simply not true.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News