accidental wetlands from compaction? 1

[thermodynut]

On a site in eastern US mountains, there was a sawmill for many years (35?). The operation was placed on level land between a fairly steep slope and a stream. It spread about 1000 feet parallel with the stream. In addition, another 500 feet down stream was used for a sawdust spread area, filled 3 feet or so above the natural ground level. All was kept far from the stream, so that's not the problem. But much of the ground in the relatively flat area between the sawmill land and the hill is presently a hydric soil, with seasonal water table up to ground level.

Is it possible/probable that the compaction caused by trucks carrying logs and spreading sawdust caused the near wetland condition upslope? Is it fixable? Seems like a different situation to me, to undo this damage, than a typical 'drain the wetlands' scenario.

Any ideas? Experiences? Thanks!

 

[msucog]

if i understand the scenario correctly, it sounds more like the sawdust is holding water (i.e. rain) so it stays mushy. i suppose it's also possible that you're in the floodplain/wetlands of the creek based on the steep slopes adjacent to a flat area associated with the creek.

by the way, what "damage" are you referring to needing to fix? are you just needing a more-stable area for trucks to drive across?

i'd suggest you not get to anxious to drain/impact any wetland areas without proper permits and specific approval to do so. the fines associated with doing so are essentially "unlimited" depending on the scenario and with whom you are dealing. the "with whom" part is the critical portion of the equation since it very well could be the corp of engineers, epd, etc....let me reiterate the "UNLIMITED" part! proceed with caution and with someone knowledgeable of the state laws relative to your situation!

 

[DMcGrath]

Remember that "Wetlands" are not simply a function of wet soils. They are defined by soil type and vegetation type. Get a wetland specialist in there to have look.

 

[thermodynut]

Thanks for the answers .. and that "Unlimited" part is why I'm asking, and proceeding with caution. The floodplain, in this case, is identified and closer to the stream. The vegetation is to my eye not wetland plants, but the soil is definitely wet.

The area upslope from the sawmill used to be a farm, now abandoned, so I guess that "damage" is what I'd call turning crop land into a soggy mess. I was trying to distinguish between a naturally-made soggy mess and a man-made soggy mess, and whether that affected any potential wetlands designation. Part of it is still mowed for hay, currently tall fescue mixed with some wild looking wheat probably from past crops.

 

[msucog]

well, your last post might lend some additional info. if the upper foot or two is cultivated by farming, that very well could help explain the reason it looks crappy. that sort of soil loves water and can be difficult to dry even in mass grading situations. it also happens to rut and pump since the moisture is tough to get under control while it's still in place. and if the wetlands are already delineated and if you've observed the appropriate buffer, then you should be in good shape. (i'd make sure i had a copy of that delineation on file...just in case someone comes knocking)

 

[fattdad]

Man-made "wetlands" that have been abandoned for a period of more than 5 years become under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are defined as having water within 12 inches of the ground surface for a continuous period during the growing season. The continuous period is typically 12-1/2 percent of the growing season, which can vary by location. Wetlands are also defined by the presence of hydric soils (or hydric soil indicators) and by the majority of the plant life being "facultative" or wetter.

If these criteria are present, you have a man-made wetland. If there are no records of activity on the site during the last 5 years, proceed at your own risk. The penalities are great (nothing I'd risk for my client, that is. . .)

f-d

¡papá gordo ain’t no madre flaca!

 

[oldestguy]

I'd check with the Canadians in where they make roadway fills out of sawdust and then place earth over them. They do this in muskeg areas to place a light weight fill on the compressible soil. You may find that this area can be made into something useful by adding soil fill rather than draining it. In time you will find it produces methane also.

What ya got is a landfill and maybe those regs will apply now.