25' buffer around ponds

Mike Hagen mhagen at olympus.net
Sun Aug 16 12:38:50 EST 1998

This is a good topic for bringing up regional differences in how we "do"
forestry.  The amount of land set aside for riparian function varies
tremendously between jurisdictions and over different climatic
conditions.  What are listers local rules and are they appropriate?  Are
small owners held to the same rules as corporate forest owners or the
Feds?  What about agricultural/ residential riparian regulation? 
Mike H.

Joseph Zorzin wrote:
> NC Lorax wrote:
> > Above you mentioned that before the job started there were considerable
> > natural debris within the 25 feet limit.  Does your state law make you
> > responsible for natural debris? If the State Forest Service had been
> > requested to look at the tract prior to harvesting, to document what was
> > naturally present, when they returned after harvesting, would they then
> > only held you accountable for man made debris?
> The harvest project is only responsible for what happens during the
> harvesting. But the landowner had cut stuff along his trail at the edge
> of the pond over the years and left the stuff nearby, so you'd have to
> look close to see what was new cutting vs. old cutting. The state guy
> asked to have the new cutting debris brought beyond the 25'- that's the
> rule and he's just doing his job. I'd have to complain about the rule
> makers not him. And he did correctly point out a top in the pond. But
> the question that arises is, should the taxpayers be spending all that
> money to pay for the state guy point out a top in the pond? Trees fall
> in the pond all the time, so what? This isn't really an environmental or
> forestry issue at all, it's an aesthetic issue which should be a matter
> handled best between the landowner and his forester and logger.
> >
> > I ask this because I am a NC State Forest Service employee that has been on
> > many tracts prior to harvesting (at the request of the logger or
> > consultant).  I document what is natural and when we look at the tract
> > after harvesting I will ignore what I had documented.  Our water quality
> > regulations are not as stringent as yours. We require debris put into the
> > stream channel during a forestry operation be removed.  The thinking here
> > is, the debris causes a blockage, the stream will work its self around the
> > blockage usually by eating out the surrounding stream bank.  This puts more
> > sediment into the stream.  Our laws are primarily geared to reducing the
> > sediment impact on the streams of the state caused by forestry operations.
> I have no problem with the rules regarding streams, except that they are
> too rigid, and may even be insufficient. After all, all streams do not
> have a 25' flood plain on each side. Perhaps the rule should say to keep
> all such debris out of the flood plain. Or are foresters too stupid to
> figure what the flood plain is? I suppose the rule makers consider us
> intelligent enough to use a 25' tape, or for the really stupid ones to
> walk 5-6 paces. Yup, I think I can figure out how to do that.
> >
> > NC Lorax
> BTW, are you the guy with that Lorax web site on old growth forest at
> http://bcn.net/~sequoia/forest/index.htm?
> And... what is your real name? We regulars here like to know real names.
> --
> Joseph Zorzin, Yankee Forestmeister
> *******************************************
> http://forestmeister.com
> "Still, after 18 months and counting, the only forestry web page in the
> otherwise sophisticated state of Massachusetts, the Athens of the
> western hemisphere."
> *******************************************
> "In wilderness is the preservation of the world."
> Henry David Thoreau

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list