From the MN 2003–04 Off-Highway Vehicles rules PDF:


"Where You May Ride
You may operate an off-highway vehicle:
• on your own land that is not a marsh, bog, pond, or unfrozen stream, lake or river"


The 2009 edition doesn't say that. I don't know what has changed. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/reg...v/ohv_regs.pdf


Still seems like a lengthy document. GA just has 3 rules: Have brakes, be quiet, and don't trespass. http://www.atvsafety.gov/legislation/GeorgiaLaw.pdf That's the way it should be.

 

OK, so here's the theory from a government / scientific standpoint: Wetland are required for water filtration (nitrogen, phosphorous, silt etc.), before it hits the rivers and larger water bodies. Wetlands act as a huge septic system in a way. Phosphorous and nitrogen cause algae and general plant blooms on the bottoms and the shores of water bodies of any size. When those fast growing plants then die and decay, they use up all the oxygen and kill all the fish and anything else that breaths O2 in one form or another. That's the reason some swamps stink so bad, it's anaerobic decomposition which produces the nasty gas (methane, etc) due to the lack of oxygen. -Silt clogs the gills of young and old fish. Dead fish then use up more oxygen when they decay. It's a vicious cycle when the O2 gets depleted. They greatly slow the flow of water in flooding situations, wildlife habitat for breeding, etc. The list is long. The wetlands in the Dakotas and Minnesota (Prairie Pothole region) is where a huge % of migrating waterfowl breed and raise their young in the lower 48. Wetlands have been under the plow for 200 or more years and we've lost as a nation something like 75% of what we once had. If you hunt duck like me, you love wetlands.

Here's the Duck's Unlimited description of the Prairie Pothole Region....worth a quick read.

Government response: So based on the above, what they did is create the NWI (National Wetlands Inventory) and put a 100% halt on every single wetland, via a number of laws. This includes both salt and fresh water wetlands. Not to harm individual persons or corporate land owners, but to make the whole system manageable for themselves. They simply don't have the time or resources to manage it all and make individual judgment calls on what's a wetland and why. It's an all or nothing for them. The Feds have pushed a lot of the enforcement onto the states with NWI. Nobody wants to pay for anything (more taxes) so it's simplified as much as possible. If you have an NWI wetland, you're basicaly screwed, unless you fight it. You had better have a solid reason, or you're wasting money. Mine was a clear case and it cost large to have the lands removed. States also sometimes have their own more strict NWI type inventories.

Like you are saying, some "wetlands" are hardly pristine, gorgeous natural surroundings. Some are just downright nasty and deserve no further protection, because they're no longer worth anything. The idea is to prevent them from becoming destroyed by damaging the lower vegetation and the way the water flows in and out. Maybe they were functional at one point?? Who knows, but there's nobody available to do a case by case study of the millions of wetlands.

One of the reason New Orleans flooded so badly was that a huge percentage of the wetland there were dregged and plowed under. That's a whole study itself....The ocean came way further in with more ferocity that had been predicted.

 

If wetlands are required for water filtration, then what happens where I live? In the mountains??? There are no wetlands around here. Just my little swamp-like thing I'm transforming into a pond. I don't think wetlands filter water, rather, I think they pollute the water with decay. Standing water is nasty water. Running water is pure. If bog water was so great, then Coors would use MN bog water in its commercials instead of Rocky Mountain River water. I guess bog water would give it nice color though.

I don't duck hunt, but would like to. There is just no where around here to do it. Duck is good eatin though... Especially smoked! However, I can't see how a few atvs stirring up the water is going to hurt the ducks. On a large scale maybe... If kids continuously kept the marsh torn up in such a way that neither plant nor frog could survive, but lordy, that would take some serious effort for even the most boisterous of kids.

Lastly, wetlands don't disapper because of atvs. Wetlands disappear because of drainage ditches dug specifically to drain them. Bowling Green, OH (Just south of Toledo) sits right in the heart of the old Black Swamp. If not for the ditches, it would still be a swamp. New Orleans,,, firstly was below sealevel and sinking. Secondly, the marshes in the path of the storm surge would have slowed the surge. But the marshes weren't there, so the surge continued on inland unobstructed. How many storm surges does MN get?

Ok, so, because the feds don't want the responsiblilty to protect a "sewer" from a few kids riding in it, they pawn off the responsibility on the states, who then go and inact crazy 100% encompassing laws because they're lazy and underpaid to be picky about it and the laws result in a guy getting a ticket for having mud on his quad and possibly being viewed in the same light as someone who drives drunk. Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm all for protecting the environment. I just hit a tree root with my lawnmower a few minutes ago and I'm still all torn up about it. Was a nice Black Cherry tree. They grow like weeds around here and the fruit is useless, but this one was nice and in a good spot. The other day the ups driver hit some of my low hanging branches from my Southern Red Oak tree and I ran after him ready to fight about it, lol. A bigger tree-hugger that rides atvs you won't find. I like my trees, plants and all that, but I still think MN is over the top on this one.

Ps, whatever I can learn about marshes, bogs, wetlands, etc will not go to waste. I can use the knowledge in construction of my pond. I want it to be self-filtering as much as possible.

 

I'm building one on my property too! I'll shoot you any interesting info I can come across. There's some great info that makes them very low maintenance if done right. Maybe I'll start a new post on the Environment side....put some some good pics of me destroying the side yard with a 40,000lb excavator

 

20 ton excavator??? Your pond is going to be considerably larger than mine I suppose. Either that or you'll be done in a day.

I built my excavator from CadPlans. Its towable and digs out about 3 cu ft at a time. Digging isn't really the problem.... Its hauling off the dirt, er, mud (considering all the record rainfall we're getting).

I'l look for the new thread.

 

Well, here goes nothing.

I actually work in the Twin Cities area (Northern Suburbs) and work almost daily with the MN Wetland Conservation Act.

I also grew up on a farm and did my share of riding 4wheelers in and around what i know realize are wetlands.

As for the wetland conservation act in mn, i would agree 100% that it is an imperfect law! the unfortunate aspect of it is, that it is the law.

However, it does serve an important purpose in protecting alot of natural infrastructure.

Wetlands are NOT ONLY FOR INFILTRATION. they serve many purposes in the environment and even in society that people dont' recognize.

They are very important part of the overall biological diversity of the natural system.
They do tend to play a important role in infiltration, but there are just as many wetlands that are "fed" by ground water flowing out of the ground, or being near the surface.
If located in the right spots, wetlands play an important roll in nutrient removal from surface water systems.
I.E. cleaning that "rocky mountain pure" water before it gets into the river....

(Have you ever cleaned out your water filter? its dirty right? but yet the water that comes out of it is clean and you drink it? hmmmmmm..)

You don't duck hunt because there is no where to do it? could that be because there are not enough areas with habitat suitable for the ducks? I.E. Type 3,4, or 5 wetlands
or just because there isn't the land to hunt?

you are correct, wetlands don't generally disapear because of atv's and kids screwing around in them, but they can be damaged and they are ecologically sensitive.

Its not that the feds' don't always want to protect them, its in part because they don't have the man power.
AND they only have jurisdiction over wetlands that have a direct surface water connection to the waters of the USA. (I.E. a wetland adjacent to a river)

As for them saying that you have an NWI wetland on your property.

This doesn't actually mean you have wetland.

This inventory was done using photographs and looking at plant growth and identifying changes in what appear to be wet areas.

I have worked in many sites where there is an NWI wetland and once you get to the site to do a field check, there is not wetland there!

I would recomend you look into this if you are really concerned.

Also, it depends on how much riding you do in your "wetland" there is no regulation against riding in wetlands and wearing down trails unless it is a type 3, 4, 5, or 8 wetland (unless there are endangered or threatened species)
However, if you are "tearing up" the area they can cite you for willful distruction of a wetland. in essence this is the same thing as draining or filling a wetland in the eyes of a "regulator"

If you have an area where you plan to dig a pond, this is allowable under the MN wetland conservation act as long as it is a type 1 or 2 wetland. (I.E. there is almost never water at the surface)

You can dig the pond but it can't be more than 6.5' deep (because beyond that you are converting it to an open water habitat)
The bottom can't be flat
and the side slopes are not to be over 5 to 1.

I'm sure I have set myself up for several retalitory comments in the process, but keep in mind again, I don't entirely agree with the regulations. As a matter of fact, i would go so far as to say that I dislike some of the specific rules.

Fact of the matter is, the rules exist and it is peoples jobs to enforce them.

Just like a cop (ok, not just like one, but...)
If I get pulled over for speeding, i get pissy, but i WAS speeding wasn't I?which is fine until some one gets hurt because of it.

If I fill a wetland and get caught, I get pissy, but I did fill it didn't I?
which is fine until water quality continues to degrade, and or some one gets flooded out because there wasn't an area for the water go during the flood other than their house.

Fire back at me as you please!

 

Me again, Wetlands if in the right place also serve as flood water retention areas.

 

For me, if it's illegal, I don't do it. Even with my back screaming at me the whole time, I've helped build a few bridges here and there to make stream crossings safe and lawful. People still cross them with ATVs. It's this kind of behaviour that causes trails to get closed. The last bridge we replaced was due to a Jeep Cherokee driven at 2 am in the morning over a bridge designed strictly for the weight of a quad or snowmobile. Driver ended up in the stream claiming she thought it was a legal Jeep trail. Right...
My problem with "wetlands" comes with defining what is a weland. On my property, here in Mass., I have a small area I'm technically not allowed to do anything with. There are a couple small stagnant areas that form when a small stream gets clogged with leaves. I clean the leaves out to keep mosquitos from breeding. If this is a wetland it's doing nothing more than breeding pests. Our club has trails that are old stagecoach roads no longer in service for regular traffic. If standing water is on the road we are allowed to drive through it but can't go off the road to avoid the water if there is any water next to the road. I hope I don't make any mistakes. I can't afford a few hundred here and a few hundred there.

 

In order to be a wetland an area has to meet three criteria.

1. the area must be dominated by wetland plants (Hydrophytes)
2. The area must have Hydric soils (wetland soils)
3. Hydrology (water)

It must have all three or indicators of their presence in order to be a wetland.

Plants are failry straignt forward. You look only at the dominate species in a "test plot" (Any where from 1 square meeter to 15 feet depending on if you are looking at grasses and such or trees) If over 50% of the dominate species are Hydrophyes then it meets the criteria for wetland plants

Hydric soils, basically you dig a hole 24-36 inches deep and look at the soil profile. there are listings of what a soil profile will look like in order to qualify as hydric.

Hydrology is the most difficult.
In order to meet the hydrology criteria you need to have

water WITHIN 12 inches of the surface for 14 consecutive days in 5 out of 10 normal precipitation years.
This gets tricky because if you check an area in august and it has been dry you may not find water, but there could have been water there in the spring.
For hydrology we rely on "indicators"
water stained leaves,
there is a test on wetland plants that is an indicator of water presence,
if you can see the area is inundated with water in an aerial photo.

There is actually a lot of scientific study which has gone into this approach in setting a boundary and or identifying wetlands.

If any ONE of the three categoies is missing then the area is not a wetland.

a common misunderstanding is that people think a wetland needs to have water at or above the surface for a better portion of the year, or if there are not cattails then it isn't a wetland.

this isn't the case.

As for fines just for driving in a wetland or something to that effect. this isn't the case here in MN. (at least not that I am aware)

The only way you can be "fined" is if you destroy wetland and then you are required to either restor what you impacted or replace it from a wetland bank. (This can be expensive any where from 1$ to 3$ per square foot) and you need to replace at a MINIMUM of 2 square feet per foot impacted.

Uless the rules are more detailed for your area, just becuase you have an area that is a jurisdictional wetland does NOT mean you can't do anything out there. It just means you need to follow certian procedures to do it, and you may be limited in what youcan and can not do.

 

One other point is that a person should not be "fined" just for riding through or adjacent to a wetland.

If you note in the original article it is listed as something like reckless distruction of wetland or something to that effect.

Funny how people take such issue with being told they can't do things on "their property" if it is wetland,

Hmmmm I guess i should be able to make meth if it is on my property an and i purchased all the stuff to make it with my money

(ok, so meth isn't a great example, but the point is the same)