25' buffer around ponds

Joseph Zorzin redoak at forestmeister.com
Sun Aug 16 11:03:34 EST 1998


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