1.  What are the benefits of this project?

The 1,325-acre project offers three primary benefits:

Important research results. This pilot project will be a research and demonstration site for scientists and policymakers to learn how to restore large-scale wetlands for environmental and economic benefits across the country. The real benefits of this project will come when this restoration model is repeated up and down the Illinois River, the Mississippi River, and many tributaries across the basin. In this pilot project, researchers will uncover scientific and economic answers needed to start that replication effort in the Illinois River Valley and beyond. The restoration of hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands across the Midwest could make a dramatic impact on the water quality and wildlife habitat needs in our communities from Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico.

Enhanced wildlife habitat, particularly for waterfowl. The project will provide ideal conditions to support water levels and food sources for migrating and breeding ducks and other wetland-dependent birds. The restored lake and wetland ecosystems will host a highly diverse community of native aquatic vegetation, such as sago pondweed and duck potato. 

Cleaner water. Natural chemical and biological reactions in the wetlands process excess nutrient pollution out of the Illinois River, which, at this portion of the river, is contaminated by both agricultural run-off and municipal wastewater discharge. Wetlands trap phosphorus in the soil and release nitrogen to the air as harmless gas. 

2.  Who will really benefit from this project?

First and foremost, local residents of Putnam and Bureau counties will benefit from the improved waterfowl habitat which will draw more ducks and other wetland-dependent birds to the historic Illinois River flyway. These birds are an important recreational asset for hunters, boaters, naturalists, and other nature lovers. In addition, the project will create construction jobs for local residents. No local tax dollars will be used in this project.

Second, taxpayers throughout the Midwest who pay for municipal wastewater treatment facilities will benefit. In the coming years, these facilities will be required to reduce their nitrogen and phosphorus discharges. Wetlands could be a cost effective and environmentally-sensible method to do so.

Third, people and wildlife downstream—reaching to the Gulf of Mexico—will benefit from the lessons learned at this project. By using restored wetlands to reduce the nutrient pollution in our rivers, we can reduce the giant dead zone off the coast of Louisiana and Texas caused by a low-oxygen condition called “hypoxia.” This zone is caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus, much of it flowing out of the farms and cities of the Upper Midwest. These nutrients fuel an unnatural explosion of algae blooms that choke off the aquatic oxygen supply vital for marine life.

Fourth, the U.S. and Illinois Environmental Protection Agencies will benefit from the data generated by this pilot project, using the information to make decisions as to how to effectively regulate a potential nutrient farming market. Such a market could enable landowners in the floodplains of the upper Midwest to use their land more profitably by restoring wetlands.

3. What is the funding structure of this project?

The Wetlands Initiative estimates an investment of nearly $41.3 million over the course of the 10-year project. Initial costs are expected to be close to $20 million to design, construct, and restore the site. Of this, approximately $17.5 million will come from the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD). The Wetlands Initiative, an Illinois 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization, will raise another $2.5 million from individuals, foundations, and corporations – those interested in finding environmental solutions that promote wetland restoration. (For a complete list of previous donors, read our Annual Report.)

TWI estimates that research will total $21.3 million, to be spread across academic research institutions, primarily in Illinois. We hope that the federal government will fund about 70% of these costs, with additional funds to be provided by the research institutions and nongovernmental sources, as raised by The Wetlands Initiative.

The project landowners—Princeton Game and Fish Club and Senachwine Club—are contributing the use of the land at no charge to the project.

4. Why does MWRD want to fund this project?

The entire wastewater industry is looking for more cost effective and beneficial alternative solutions to improve water quality of its effluent. MWRD is an international leader in reclaiming wastewater.  They regularly invest in research to find new clean water technologies that are economical and environmentally sound. Tougher water quality standards are likely to be established for wastewater treatment facilities and other industries. (Only “permitted dischargers” will fall under the future rules; farmers will not be subject to the regulations.) Illinois taxpayers could face a $5 billion cost, as estimated by the Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies, for technology to meet such standards without  any additional benefits, such as improved habitat or recreation areas. MWRD believes that wetlands could be an important part of the solution. This motivates the industry, led by MWRD, to invest in research to understand the potential of wetlands more fully. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies has endorsed this project and will be watching the research results closely.

5. Will this project allow anyone to release more nutrient pollution in the river?

No. The wetlands in this project will process the same amount of nutrients that currently flow down the Illinois River. Interestingly, a disproportionate amount of the nitrogen load in the river comes from local and regional agricultural run-off, not municipal wastewater.

6.  How will local tax revenues be affected?

It is anticipated that restoration efforts will enhance the habitat for ducks and, therefore, may increase property values. Local tax revenues could rise accordingly. 

PROJECT IMPACTS

 7.  Isn’t Goose Pond already one of the richest duck habitats in the state?  How will this project impact the habitat?

Because this site will still be owned by duck clubs, restoring high quality duck habitat will be one of the primary goals of this project. Extensive research into the ideal duck habitat has shown that the ideal condition is the “hemi-marsh” stage where 50% of the area is open water and 50% has both under- and above-water vegetation. This gives ducks plenty of open water to rest, but also provides cover from predators and abundant food from the plants themselves and the insects that depend on the plants. Based on biologist Frank Bellrose’s 1939 plant inventory of Goose Pond, we know that Goose Pond was once a diverse hemi-marsh.

Today, however, Goose Pond is nearly entirely open water with little or no vegetation. This is due to decades of heavy sedimentation from Bureau Creek and wildly fluctuating water levels, which disrupt plant growth. Predictably, the duck population has suffered a corresponding drop (see graph below). In the 1950s, the decade average reached 7.7 million total duck-use days annually, but fell to less than 2 million by 2000. The mallard population has declined at a similar rate. 

The Goose Pond Pilot Project will strive to restore the historic hemi-marsh habitat by increasing vegetation in the lakes by 1) drying out the unconsolidated sediments to trigger aquatic seed development and 2) reintroducing aquatic vegetation such as duck potato and water lilies. In addition, the amount of open water available for resting ducks at Goose Pond will actually increase.

8.  Why are nitrogen and phosphorus considered pollution? Don’t we all need these nutrients for life?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers the following explanation: “Like the human body, water bodies require nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, to be healthy, but too many nutrients can be harmful. Many of our nation's waters, including streams, rivers, wetlands, estuaries, and coastal waters, are affected by nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in waters can produce harmful algal blooms. In turn, these blooms can produce ‘dead zones’ in water bodies where dissolved oxygen levels are so low that most aquatic life cannot survive. This condition in water bodies is referred to as hypoxia.” Hypoxia is a global problem with many coastal areas throughout the world experiencing a similar dead zone caused by the runoff from cities, farms, and industries worldwide.

9. Won’t the excess phosphorus contaminate local drinking water?

The forms of phosphorus in the Illinois River and, subsequently, in the project’s wetlands, are not toxic. The U.S. EPA does not have a drinking water standard for phosphorus. The national concern with reducing excess total phosphorus in our waterways is due to the nutrient’s role in disrupting ecosystems by fueling algae blooms, rather than harming human health. Moreover, the amount of phosphorus compounds that will accumulate in the project wetlands is far less than the average farmer puts on a farm field. Wetlands are natural sinks for phosphorus compounds, binding the nutrient to sediments. Further, based on review of local well logs, we do not see a hydrological connection between Goose Pond and local groundwater sources.

10. How will local residents know if contaminants are accumulating? What will be the recourse for citizens if problems do arise?

Federal and state agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. and Illinois EPAs, will continue to watch this project closely over its 10-year research period. The water quality and soil characteristics of the site will be heavily monitored for research purposes and periodic reports will be made available to the public.

11. Why are additional berms necessary for this project?

By using berms to control water levels within the wetland cells, TWI can control the time that the river water is retained in the wetlands, increasing the time that natural chemical and biological processes occur. These berms will also enable TWI to manage the plant community and the invasive common carp. The berms are designed, however, to be only as high as the 3- to 5-year flood level, and the berms are expected to overtop relatively frequently. The project will utilize the existing berm system (4.7 miles) around Goose Pond, adding only an additional 3.3 miles of new berms around the perimeter.

12. Will contaminated sediments be used to build up the berms? If so, won’t the sediment disturbance contaminate local drinking water?

Eight sediment and water samples from the project site were sent to an independent lab to be analyzed for contaminants of concern named by the IEPA (e.g., lead, zinc, cyanide, PCBs). Based on the lab results, the IEPA found no issues with the sediment quality. A copy of the lab results are posted at www.wetlands-initiative.org/GoosePond.html.

13.  Will the project increase flooding on the surrounding area?

During normal pool stage and major flood events, the project will have no flood impact on the surrounding area. During major flood events (including a flood similar to the high water in summer 2007), the water will overtop the project levees. During periodic moderate flood events, however, the river immediately upstream of the project could rise temporarily approximately 3 to 4 inches, according to a computer model.[1] The areas that would be impacted by these increases, however, don’t have structures that would be damaged as they are currently flooded frequently.

14. Will the project increase sedimentation of the surrounding area?

The pilot project will not increase the sediment load entering from Bureau Creek or the Illinois River, although it could alter distribution of the sediment due to the addition of a berm in Goose Pond. (The project, however, will take on some sediment, estimated to be approximately ¼ inch per year, because river water will be pumped in and flood flows will overtop the project levies.) The sedimentation problem really begins upstream in the watershed of Big Bureau Creek, as the 75-mile creek drains 499 square miles and dumps an estimated 250,000 tons of sediment each year into Goose Pond. TWI is currently working with the gun clubs, state representatives, and the local watershed council to create plans to reduce the amount of sediment from Bureau Creek that enters the lake outside of the project boundaries.

15.  Will project managers consider the needs and interests of duck hunters when they operate the project?  (e.g., will water level draw downs occur in the wetland cells during the hunting season?)

The land is owned by two duck clubs whose goal is to improve their hunting habitat. TWI will work closely with the levee district commissioners, who are members of the hunt clubs, to establish management procedures for the wetland cells, including when to draw down the water levels.

16. Will there be public access to the project area?

All riparian land in this project is private property and will not be accessible to the public. For those who have legal entry to boat into the project, the Waters of the United States will continue to be accessible to the public, as they are now. A boat pullover will be installed in the project levee to enable boaters to reach these waters.

17. I’ve heard that the project will impact a plant on the federal list of threatened species. What’s being done about this?

The plant, Decurrent False Aster (Boltonia decurrens), currently grows on a half acre of land that will be under water when the project gets underway. To mitigate for this impact, TWI plans to move Boltonia plants and seeds to an area that will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. Ironically, it’s unlikely that the Boltonia on the site now would remain even if the project were not built, because Boltonia’s current location is in the path of sedimentation and the plants will soon be buried. Regardless, TWI is federally mandated to mitigate for its impact and, therefore, is creating this plan to move the plant under the guidance of U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists.

OTHER ISSUES 

18. Why was the Goose Pond Drainage and Levee District formed? What are its powers and obligations?

The Goose Pond Drainage and Levee District was formed, under Illinois Drainage Law, in December 2006 to serve as the legal entity that can enter into agreements with the MWRD. The district is run by three commissioners who are members of the hunt clubs that own the property. TWI is not a party to the district.

19. Why couldn’t this project be done on state or federal land or at Hennepin & Hopper Lakes?

Regulatory and legal constraints make it extremely difficult and time-consuming for state and federal agencies to enter into agreements with nonprofit agencies such as The Wetlands Initiative and municipal entities such as MWRD. At Hennepin & Hopper Lakes, the lakes have been—and remain—hydrologically separated from the river, unlike at Goose Pond. Conservationists did not want to create a connection to the river, which would then introduce carp and sediment to the lakes. In addition, it would have been difficult and expensive to build wetland “cells,” as planned at Goose Pond, because no berms currently exist in that lake system. Ultimately, the project is moving forward at Goose Pond because the landowners wanted it and are cooperating with TWI.

20. Haven’t other wetland research projects provided enough information?

One project in Lake County, Illinois, has been conducting research at its 500-acre site since the late 1980s.[2] Much of the research from the small wetland cells at this site will shape the research at the larger Goose Pond project. But no project on the scale of Goose Pond exists in the Midwest. Large-scale wetland projects do exist in Florida; the subtropical Everglades, however, are a different ecosystem with differing chemical and biological responses. Other large wetland projects in Illinois (e.g., Emiquon) have different purposes and are not designed to serve as a research site into nutrient removal.

MORE INFORMATION

TWI prepared answers to public comments submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in summer 2007. Click here to read those questions and answers.