Category: Newsletter

Pest Destroying Wetlands Grass Identified

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 21

The unknown pest wreaking havoc on thousands of acres of a critical wetlands grass in the Mississippi River Delta is no longer unknown.  The pest has been identified as an invasive insect from Asia. After weeks of numerous consultations with scientists from all over the world, Louisiana State University announced Thursday, April 13th that the pest is known as Nipponaclerda biwakoensis, which is a type of scale originating from Japan and China.

It is still unknown to Louisiana scientists just how the scale arrived in Louisiana. The scientists have yet to discover how to stop the spread of the pest. Since fall, the scale has destroyed copious amounts of roseau cane, a tall grass considered vitally important for fish and bird habitats and for the stability of the fast-eroding delta. If the spread of the pest is not controlled soon, scientists and Plaquemines Parish residents worry the loss of the cane could speed up coastal erosion.

The most damage to the cane is located in the far south end of Plaquemines, including the Pass a Loutre Wildlife Management Area, where about 80 percent of the preserve’s 110,000 acres are affected by the pest. So far, the scale has spread as far north as the Bohemia Spillway.

“We’re the first on the North American continent to see it first, unfortunately,” said Joey Breaux, an environmental specialist with the state Department of Agriculture and Forestry.

LSU says that entomologist Scott Schneider is the scientist who first identified the scale. Schneider works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Systematic Entomology Laboratory in Beltsville, Md.

The British Natural History Museum’s John Noyes has discovered what could turn out to be the scale’s weakness. He believes that a type of tiny parasite, also native to Japan and China, preys upon the scale. The parasite, known by the scientific name neastymachus japonicus, appears to accept no other host but the particular type of scale now invading south Plaquemines.

Breaux said that the parasite could be released in Plaquemines to kill the scale. Unfortunately, this option comes with many unknowns, such as availability and price.

“Japan probably doesn’t have a batch of the parasite ready to ship,” Breaux said. “And if they did, it’d be expensive.”

If the parasite does not turn out to be a viable option, there are others. These include controlled marsh fires and pesticides. These other options come with their own set of risks.

“We want something affordable, do-able and environmentally friendly,” Breaux said. “In the meantime, we’re losing more roseau. We’ve got to get at it and do something.”

While we can all agree that something must be done and fast, what do you think is the best option for dealing with the scale? Can you think of any other ways of dealing with the scale? Do you think Louisiana scientists are handling the situation properly? In the meantime, what is your biggest concern regarding the presence of the scale?

Source: Baurick, Tristan. “Scientists Identify Pest Laying Waste to Mississippi River Delta Wetlands Grass.” NOLA.com. NOLA.com, 13 Apr. 2017. Web. 17 Apr. 2017.

Proposed Bill to Increase Leisure Fishing

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 20

A bill has again been proposed in the House that, if approved, will change the nation’s top fisheries law.  The bill specifically focuses on the need to make it easier for recreational fishermen to get access.

The bill is being referred to as the “Modern Fish Act.”  It would allow fishery managers to consider different avenues than the annual catch limits and the current 10-year limit on rebuilding fish stocks. The bill was proposed on April 6, 2017 by Reps. Garret Graves (R-La.), Gene Green (D-Texas), Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and Rob Wittman (R-Va.).

This new bill allows for an alternative option to the bill proposed by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), which was not well received when it was introduced last year. Young’s bill, H.R. 1335, despite the controversy, did pass the House but did not make it to the Senate.  In the hope of getting the bill to reach the Senate, Young proposed a revised version of the bill earlier this year.

If either bill makes its way through the necessary channels, they would change the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  Recreational fishing groups are supporting the “Modern Fish Act.”  They see the bill as a common-sense update to a law that was originally intended to regulate the commercial sector.  Some of the groups supporting the “Modern Fish Act” are the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and a few other recreational and sportsmen’s groups.

“For decades, the recreational fishing community has been subjected to antiquated federal policies not designed to manage recreational fishing,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Sportfishing Policy. “The time is now to update these policies so families can fully enjoy our nation’s remarkable marine resources and continue a proud American tradition on the water.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attempted to address the recreational industry’s concerns in recent years through administrative actions. An example of this occurred last August when the agency released new guidance to urge fishery managers to review catch allocations.

“Today’s bill would require a periodic review of allocations, which recreational groups say are “locked in place” and favor the commercial sector. It would also “clarify” that NOAA is allowed to implement “alternative management approaches” that are more suitable to anglers, according to a summary of the bill” (Yehle).

It is possible that environmental groups will oppose the “Modern Fish Act” like they did for Young’s bill.  They opposed Young’s bill because they felt that it would weaken conservation measures.

Do you support or oppose the “Modern Fish Act?”  Why?  What changes, if any, do you think should be made to the “Modern Fish Act?”  What concerns, if any, do you have with the possible changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act?

Source: Yehle, Emily. “Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Boost Recreational Fishing.” Greenwire. E&E News, 06 Apr. 2017. Web. 06 Apr. 2017.

Changes and Renewals to Nationwide Permits

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 19

On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) publicized the changes and renewals to nationwide permits (NWPs) that are mandatory in order to work in streams, wetlands and other waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The new NWPs will be enforced starting on March 19, 2017, and will nullify the existing permits, which expired on March 18, 2017.

The 2017 nationwide permits have been published in January 6th’s Federal Register at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/06/2016-31355/issuance-and-reissuance-of-nationwide-permits, and can also be found on USACE Web site at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits/NationwidePermits.aspx.

“Our goal in developing and authorizing nationwide permits every five years is to update them, and provide clarity and certainty for the regulated public while protecting the aquatic environment. Our nationwide permits are an important tool in encouraging project proponents to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources,” said Maj. Gen. Ed Jackson, USACE Deputy Commanding General for Civil and Emergency Operations.

NWP 53 and NWP 54 are the new permits. NWP 53 provides the process to efficiently authorize permits for the removal of low-head dams to restore streams and enhance public safety. NWP 54 covers the construction and maintenance of living shorelines to control erosion in coastal areas.

Very few of the renewed permits from 2012 were changed.

It is possible for USACE division commanders, after public review and consultation, to add regional conditions to nationwide permits in order to protect local aquatic ecosystems such as fens or bottomland hardwoods, or to minimize adverse effects on fish or shellfish spawning, wildlife nesting or other ecologically critical areas.

Division and district commanders also coordinate and consult with federally-recognized American Indian and Alaska Native governments when necessary.

Highlights of the 2017 nationwide permits include:

  • USACE reissued 50 existing permits and added two new ones.
  • NWP 48 – The NWP 48 for Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities is revised to provide greater flexibility in its use. For example, NWP 48 now incorporates provisions that authorize activities that are consistent with other federal, state, tribal and local regulatory authorities. Incorporating these already authorized activities will reduce the number of activities that require review by individual USACE districts.
  • NWP 53 – This new NWP covers the removal of low-head dams. The removal of these dams will restore rivers and streams, and will improve public safety by removing dams that can pose hazards to swimmers and to users of small recreational craft.
  • NWP 54 – This new NWP covers the construction and maintenance of living shorelines, a technique to protect coastal property from erosion while providing some aquatic habitat and water quality benefits.

The new NWPs are numbered 53 and 54 respectfully, even though there are only 52 total permits this cycle, because NWP 26 has not been assigned since 2000, and NWP 47 was in effect for only one five-year cycle (2007 to 2012).

Additional information about the USACE Regulatory Program can be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-and-Permits/.

Source: “Army Corps of Engineers Revises and Renews Nationwide Permits.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 06 Jan. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

International Wetland Plant Project

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 18

For the past couple of years, we have noticed an increase in our international student body. Wetland identification and delineation is becoming more important as countries expand their economies and run into complicated water quality and quantity issues. Wetlands play an important part in the overall water management of a given country.

Recently the Swamp School released a new online class entitled, International Wetlands Assessment and Delineation. This class is tailored to meet the needs of the international community and has been put together based upon Ramsar, Wetlands International, USACE and other standards.

One of the principal features of a wetland is the plant community that exists in the wetland. In the United States, we have the benefit of a wetland plant list that is decades in the making. It was originally created by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and has since been updated by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

What many people do not know is how the original list was compiled by the USFWS. In the 1980’s the USFWS was completing the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). They needed to ground truth some of the areas that were under consideration for refuges and they needed a way to qualify if a site was a wetland. One of the developing criteria was that the site had to have 50% hydrophytes to be a wetland. What was a hydrophyte?

The USFWS sent out a survey to a limited group of USFWS employees and some from academia asking them to categorize common plants found in wetlands in their area based upon the now familiar wetland ratings of obligate (OBL), facultative- wet (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative-up (FACU) and upland (UPL). Originally, the ratings were based upon a numeric experience estimate. For example, a wetland plant with a rating of FACW would be expected to be found in wetlands 67%-99% of the time. There was no real data collected. Rather, it was more of an opinion survey of qualified professionals and has served us well for nearly 30 years.

To this end, we are conducting a similar survey of wetlands plants found around the world and we need your help. Both by spreading the word about this project and by participating in it. If you can provide plant data for your area, we have the database up and running. We will need scientific name, common name, location information and your rating opinion. We also ask for a reference source that helps verify the habitat of the given plant. Due to the size of the database, we are not asking for any pictures. At least not yet.

Request Project Access Here

If you would like to participate in the project, we have a very simple registration process. Just go to this page and fill out the contact information. We ask for location information of the main area that you will be working in. However, you can submit data from others areas once you are registered. We do not need any USA data as the USACOE does a fine job of keeping up with the US wetland plants. We have had many requests for this data from Canada, New Zealand, India, China, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and South Korea. We need data from all over the world, but these countries are in high demand.

The database is open and accessible to anyone who is registered. The data is processed in real time so you will see continuing updates. If you have a spreadsheet of this data for your area, we do have the ability to upload this into the database. Just let us know if you need to do this and we will be happy to help.

Please note:  This project is open to botanists everywhere.  We just do not need any data for US plants.  US botanists are most welcome to participate.

This is an ongoing project and we do not ever expect it to be finalized. The International Wetlands Assessment and Delineation students will be submitting data as part of their class into this project so you will see ongoing updates. We are also hoping to be able to publish national wetland plant guides once we have enough data to share.

Lastly, this project requires a fair amount of database server space and utilization. We want to make the information free to anyone who wants to use it. We have set up a GoFundMe account to help us cover some of the backend computer costs. Even if you are not able to help with the database, please consider helping us by contributing. Any amount if very much appreciated. If there are any philanthropists out there we would love to also add photographs to the database, but the amount of server space for this is enormous and outside what we can self-fund.
Please circulate this post to anyone you think can help and please let us know your thoughts by commenting below. Please feel free to repost this blog post, tweet it out, share on Facebook, copy in an email or use whatever social media avenue you like. We need to get the word out!

Help Fund the Project Here

Thanks for all your help and support! – Marc

Maryland Senate to Rule on Fracking Ban

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 17

A bill that is currently working its way through Maryland’s legislative system cleared a major hurdle Wednesday, March 22, 2017.  The bill would ban hydraulic fracturing in Maryland.  This victory for those who support the bill comes days after Gov. Larry Hogan (R) surprised supporters by endorsing the ban.

In a vote of 8-3, the state Senate’s environmental committee voted in favor of the House bill.  One of the panel’s four Republicans voted in favor of the bill as well as all seven Democrats. The next step for the bill, which has 23 sponsors, is advancement to the full Senate, where it would need at least 24 votes to pass.

If Maryland bans fracking, it would not be the first to do so as New York and Vermont have already banned the practice.

Supports of the bill where able to keep an amendment off the bill that would have required a statewide referendum in 2018 to determine how voters feel about the ban on fracking, a natural-gas extraction method formally known as hydraulic fracturing.

Those against the referendums argued that the extra time taken would provide an opportunity for the oil-and-gas industry to run ads against the ban and drum up support for repealing it.

Among those who agree with the outcome of the committee’s vote are environmental and anti-fracking groups.

“Mountain Maryland residents and citizens across our state have for years raised alarm over fracking’s potential to contaminate water and air, to cause earthquakes, and to harm public health and safety,” Citizen Shale said in a statement. “With this vote, we can breathe a little easier.”

Do you think the fracking ban bill will pass?  Do you agree or disagree with Maryland for attempting to ban fracking?  Why?

Source: Hicks, Josh. “Fracking Ban Advances to Maryland Senate Floor.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 22 Mar. 2017. Web. 24 Mar. 2017.

Oyster Reefs Can’t be Rebuilt Fast Enough

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 16

The Chesapeake Bay has a serious problem.  The oyster population and the reefs in the Bay are diminishing and cannot be replaced fast enough.  The big issue regarding the oyster population is with the shells.

The oyster population cannot be restored because there are not enough shells to rebuild the Chesapeake Bay’s depleted bivalve population.  The Virginia area has been hit the hardest.  In this area, there may not even be enough shells to sustain the wild fishery for a whole lot longer.

The situation got this way due to decades of overharvesting, habitat destruction, disease and poor water quality.  The population of oysters in the Bay has reduced to less than 1 percent of its historic levels.  The fact that there are not enough shells also affects the oyster reefs not just the oyster themselves.  Oyster reefs are made up of the shells of living and dead bivalves and they are wearing down and disappearing faster than they are being built up.

Scientists, managers and others are concerned that there are not enough shells to go around sustaining both the traditional wild fishery as well as grow the aquaculture industry.  This does not take into consideration the ambitious large-scale efforts by both states and the federal government to restore the Chesapeake’s oyster population for its ecological value.

“We don’t have the habitat,” said Bruce Vogt, manager of ecosystem science and habitat assessment for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office. “Even if we had adequate spawning stock to revive the population over time, the habitat just isn’t there.”

The problem with not having enough shells is twofold.  “Oysters make their own habitat, building reefs out of the shells they produce. But juvenile oysters need a hard surface — customarily, another oyster shell — on which to grow. The problem now is that there are many fewer shells than there used to be on which the shellfish can live and reproduce” (Wheeler).

There used to be 450,000 acres of oyster reef habitat that once blanketed the bottom of the Bay and its tributaries.  Of the 450,000 acres, 70 percent has been lost to siltation, according to an environmental assessment done in 2009 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The silt that is covering and destroying the reefs has yet to let up.

The shells are also being destroyed by predators.  Shells are also removed by harvesting and are not always returned.  In addition, the gear used to dredge up oysters scatters and breaks other shells.

The biggest challenge to restoring the oyster population and reefs is that there shells break down naturally overtime.  If there is a live oyster in the shell, they produce new shell from carbon and calcium and they filter out water.  After the bivalves die, corrosion sets in.  The process is hastened if the water is saltier or more acidic.

In order to get to the bottom of how to fix the problem, the state-federal Chesapeake Bay Program is commissioning a “shell budget” — an analysis of how many oyster shells are being lost and how many produced by new oysters.  The study is expected to take a year and the cost is estimated at $50,000–$60,000.

“We really need to put all this together,” said Peyton Robertson, director of NOAA’s Bay office and co-chair of the Bay Program’s Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team. “We don’t have a good handle on the puts and takes of shell coming in and going out.”

Source: Wheeler, Timothy B. “Chesapeake Losing Its Oyster Reefs Faster than They Can Be Rebuilt.” Bay Journal RSS. Bay Journal RSS, 29 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

Waters of the US – Where are we today?

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 15

We at the Swamp School have been keeping up with and attempting to teach the ever-changing rules related to what is a Waters of the US. Much like the waterways they regulate they twist and turn disappear and re-appear finally ending up in the sea of government regulation. Then they are left to evaporate on the whims of the courts soon condensing in yet another regulation. We will call it the Waters of the US cycle.

This all began in the late 1890’s when a concern about blocking waterways used to transport good and services was seen as a threat to the national economy. The use of structural steel to cross great rivers was now presenting problems of railroads blocking traditional water based shipping. Free trade across state lines needed to be maintained and Congress (not the President – he vetoed the Act) passed the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Ever since then the Federal government has been regulating waters of the US.

Much later in 1972 Congress passed the Clean Water act. The President at the time (Nixon) also vetoed the Act. This law like the Rivers and Harbors Act did not explain what a Waters of the US was. Rather, it directed the Army Corps of Engineers to come up with a definition. They did and in 1986 they published the definition as a rule in the Federal Register. It is the same rule that we use today.

In the spring of 2011 the Obama administration leaked (pun intended) a draft Waters of the US guidance document. The guidance was never published but it did give notice to what the new administration was up to. In 2013, another leak of a new draft Waters of the US rule was revealed and in turn, a draft regulation that was published in the Spring of 2014.

The draft Waters of the US regulation has the unique honor of being the most commented regulation in the history of the United States. At the close of the public comment period it had received a little more than 1.2 million public comments. Other regulations tend to sport a few hundred to perhaps a thousand comments. Generally, this means that the regulation gets flushed and the agency starts over.

However, the EPA took the lead on the final version of the regulation and made some major changes including the regulation’s name. The new Clean Water rule was born. This rule was so different that half of the States field lawsuits along with a few private organizations alleging a number of procedural violations along with the Constitutional challenges to the merits of the regulation. For a brief while in 2015 about two thirds of the US was regulated by the Clean Water rule and the plaintiff states were not.

In October 2015, a nationwide stay of the Clean Water rule was imposed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and that is where we float today. The Army Corps and EPA issued a directive that the 1986 definition of Waters of the US would be used until further notice.

The nationwide stay and the court cases bubbled and percolated in the courts until finally rising to the attention of the Supreme Court in 2016. President Obama had asked the Court not to hear the case but they turned him down. This was seen as a loss for the President as the regulation appeared all but domed and likely to go down the drain.

In an interesting turn of events, the new President Trump has also asked the Supreme Court to not hear the case. He was also turned down. However, this has been described as some sort of victory for the rule. Nothing new has happened between December 2016 when President Obama made the request and in early 2017 when President Trump made the request but the interpretation of the response seems very sinuous.

It appears that the high Court will render some sort of decision before the end of the year. Late fall is likely. So, we need to wade through another growing season with the old rule.

Just a few days ago, President Trump announced that there would be some new guidance, an executive order or the like regarding the implementation of the old rule. In a rather clever move, it was announced that the old 2008 US Army Corps guidance developed in response to the Rapanos case and based upon the lone Justice Kennedy option would be updated to reflect the plurality option of Justice Scalia in that same case. In short, what was become to be known as significant nexus would no longer apply. Justice Scalia only required a physical nexus to a navigable waterway. Justice Kennedy’s model would allow a chemical or biological connection in addition to or instead of a physical connection.

The establishment of the Scalia rule would simplify the jurisdictional process but as one might expect there will be lawsuits. In the meantime, we will keep a careful eye on the ebbs and flows of this turbulent process and await the next wave of regulations.

Trump Administration Announces Proposed Budget

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 14

On March 16, 2017, the Trump administration revealed their budget proposal.  The budget proposal provides the first look into the new administration’s top energy and environmental priorities, which include broad themes like reining in major environmental rules and spending on clean energy technologies and boosting energy production on public lands.

Below is a list of how the budget will affect the environment and water issues:

EPA: The Environmental Protection Agency would take the biggest percentage cut of all Cabinet departments and major agencies if Trump’s proposed plan is accepted as is. The EPA’s budget would be reduced by 31 percent and about 3,200 EPA employees would lose their jobs. Employees would not be the only thing affected by the budget cuts; some programs would also receive cuts.  The programs listed for cuts include climate change regulations, the Superfund program, enforcement efforts, the science office and environmental grants.

Climate change programs: Trump’s proposed budget would get rid of climate spending across the government. The funding for the Clean Power Plan implementation would be gone as well as the EPA’s international climate change and climate change research programs would be discontinued. The State Department’s Global Climate Change Initiative would no longer exist, and funding for the Green Climate Fund would stop.

Water infrastructure: The budget proposal outlines an increase in cash for state revolving funds.  The outline states that “robust” funding for drinking and wastewater infrastructure promotes the administration’s “ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement.”

EPA science office: The administration’s budget proposal would cut the EPA’s Office of Research and Development’s budget from about $483 million annually to about $250 million. This is an almost 50 percent cut in funding.  If these cuts were to take place, the science office would prioritize activities related to “core environmental statutory requirements,” as opposed to “extramural activities,” the outline says.

Clean energy research: Clean energy, smart grid and electric vehicle initiatives would be eliminated or sharply cutback. These actions would be taken because the president believes that research aimed at jump-starting new technology should be left to the private sector.

To learn more about the Trump administration’s proposed budget and to see a complete list of ever sector, visit https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf.

What are your thoughts regarding the proposed budget?  What areas do you agree with?  What areas do you disagree with?  How would you like you Congressional representatives to address Trump’s budget proposal?

Source: Bravender, Robin. “Big Winners and Big Losers in Trump’s Budget.” Greenwire. E&E News, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 16 Mar. 2017.

Florida to Ban Fracking?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 13

A bill that would stop oil and gas fracking from occurring in Florida was passed and moved along in the process by the Florida Senate.

The Senate Committee on Environmental Preservation and Conservation voted unanimously to prohibit “advanced well stimulation treatment,” like hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing and matrix acidizing.

State Sen. Dana Young (R) sponsored the bill, S.B. 442.  Last year she opposed the banning but, after her Senate district was redrawn, she changed her stance.

When questioned about her change of heart, Young said, “Florida is unique. Florida is special, and we do not have to be like every other state in the nation.”

Some who oppose the bill are Exxon Mobil Corporation, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the James Madison Institute, the Heartland Institute of Washington, D.C., the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the Florida Petroleum Council.

According to Florida Petroleum Council President David Mica, as a state, Florida uses 27 million gallons of gasoline every day.  This makes Florida the third-largest consumer in the nation.

“We have a shared interest in our industry to protect energy resources,” Mica said.

In response to Mica’s concerns, Young responded that the bill does not prohibit traditional oil and gas exploration.

“There may be some uncertainty, but the question is are you willing to roll the dice with the future of our state?” Young asked.

Do you think Florida should pass the bill?  Why or why not?

Source: “Bill to Ban Fracking Advances through Senate.” Greenwire. E&E News, 08 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 Mar. 2017.

Danada Wetland Restoration to Start

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 12

Starting the week of February 20, 2017, work has started on creating and restoring dozens of acres of wetlands and prairies in DuPage County in Illinois.

Originally, the area of the Danada Forest Preserve on the south side of Butterfield Road, a half mile west of Naperville Road were wetlands and prairie.  150 years ago it was converted from wetlands and prairie to farmland.  The process to convert the area back to its original state is set to begin.

Nick Fuller, Natural Resources Project Coordinator for the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, says 21 acres will be turned back into wetlands while 23 acres are turned into prairie.

According to Fuller, the importance of the wetlands is to lessen the chance for flooding and to clean storm water naturally by allowing the water to better seep into the ground.

Fuller says the wetlands “act like sponges for capturing storm water, filtering it, allowing it to go into the groundwater table and recharge that groundwater which we use for drinking water.”

“The plan is to disable the buried tiles and install features that will bring back more natural groundwater conditions, according to the news release” (Tafoya).

In order to convert the area back into the native wetlands and prairie, the invasive species of plants that have taken over the area will be removed and natural species will be planted to restore the native area.

DuPage County Board Member Jim Zay says the project will cost $980,000 and will be paid for with fees charged to landowners who encroach on wetlands.

He says, “No taxpayer money on this. This is all coming out of these fees that developers and landowners pay.”

The Forest Preserve and its trails will remain open during most of the work, the news release revealed. However, the District may need to temporarily close trails and natural areas for visitors’ safety.

Do you think more original wetlands and prairies that have been converted for other uses should be brought back to the way they originally were?  Why or why not?  Are there any instances when you believe that it is more beneficial to an area to remove wetlands and prairies and change it for other uses?  Are there any areas that were not originally wetlands or prairie that you think would benefit from converting that area into wetlands and prairie?  Why do you think some people may be hesitant to continue bringing back converted wetlands and prairie?

Source: Tafoya, Bernie. “Forest Preserve District Set To Begin Danada Wetland Restoration.” CBS Chicago. CBS, 14 Feb. 2017. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.