Wetland Science

[freeztar]

The plaintiff groups argued successfully that the project's levee and two large pumps would cut off the Mississippi River from the last major piece of the floodplain to which it is still connected and in the process would have devastated tens of thousands of acres of floodplain wetlands while failing to provide the flood control benefits it promised.

...

"This single project would drain more acres of wetlands than all the wetlands drained by the country's developers in a single year, yet it would not reduce the frequency of flooding in the towns it was intended to benefit," said Tim Searchinger, the attorney who represented Environmental Defense and the National Wildlife Federation in the lawsuit. "I'm happy the court agreed to halt the project."

Environmentalists Win Halt to Missouri Flood Control Project

 

So it seems the ACoE has done something right at least (referring to your link above, Cedars)...

[Cedars]

Environmentalists Win Halt to Missouri Flood Control Project

 

So it seems the ACoE has done something right at least (referring to your link above, Cedars)...

 

Interesting article there. I had no idea they were up to such a project. Favorite quote...

 

"He found that the Corps was "manipulating models and changing definitions where necessary - to make this project seem compliant with the Clean Water Act and the Nation Environmental Policy Act when it is not."

 

We messed up alot of things when we didnt know better. Salmon runs in the PNW for example and locally it is believed dams caused the disruption of the migration of the tulibee fish which in turn caused the demise of a certain freshwater mussel which hitches a ride on the tulibee for the first year of life.

 

But to see continued efforts of this magnitude, which includes manipulation of facts to keep on damaging the ecosystem a few miles south of where they are trying to reverse these very efforts seems so... well, bi-polar...

 

Thanks for the balancing link there Freeze.

[freeztar]

This is a very exciting article for those interested in wetland science/preservation. Rather than do the normal mitigation for losses to wetlands (ie create wetlands somewhere else in place of those destroyed on site), these creative scientists want to transplant a sensitive vernal pool community to another recreated area. The biological challenges involved are daunting, but if the project is successful it will teach us much about sensitive ecological niches and how they can be preserved and recreated.

 

New Era Progress | Transplant procedure: Scientists, company moving wetland to save it

[freeztar]

This is from the ASWM's newsletter:

MN: Concerns grow about disappearing prairie potholes ecosystem

 

Minnesota Wire – CBS Broadcasting – November 12, 2007

The humble name given to ``prairie potholes'' the ponds, wetlands and small lakes dimpling Minnesota and the eastern Dakotas belies the mounting concerns here and nationally about their disappearance from the landscape. Potholes are considered key habitat for almost 200 species of migratory birds. But with federal inducements to plant more crops and the financial rewards of renting out the land, many farmers are ending land-preservation agreements. With a federal report warning of the need to protect them, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is doing flyovers to investigate whether potholes are being drained illegally. At stake is ``arguably the most endangered ecosystem in the world,'' said Rex Johnson, a wetlands expert and wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Fergus Falls. The U.S. Government Accountability Office warned last month that the Fish and Wildlife Service is falling behind in protecting the pothole region. The study estimated that it will take 150 years and billions of dollars for the agency to acquire enough land to sustain healthy bird populations. For full story, go to: wcco.com - Minnesota Wire For another story on prairie potholes, go to: We have 10,000 lakes, but do we have enough of these?

 

Anyone know anymore about this? Cedars?

[Cedars]

This is from the ASWM's newsletter:

Anyone know anymore about this? Cedars?

 

I had read an article on this earlier this month.

 

Its basically years of inaction on the part of the DNR. No monitoring. No funds to monitor/map and there are unintended consenquences. Example near my moms.

 

There was a small creek that flowed thru a state park. This creek had species of minnows in it that are not protected, but it fed a vibrant wetland. I roamed this parkland for years before the DNR purchaced it. It was my park long before the State got their hands on it.

 

Anyways, a development went in along a lake approx 3 miles west of this stream. Thru the no wetlands loss program and because this particular year was dry (not drought), the developers plan was approved and they blocked off the drainage and bought out some other 'replacement' to compensate.

 

The creek never flowed during summer again. It runs during melt off or extreme rains as drainage. Up until that time, this creek was never fully dry. It would be reduced to a trickle at times, but now its basically a drainage ditch.

 

The wetlands below it are still functional, receiving other flowages. Output from this wetland has been reduced some, no doubt. One thing for sure is three miles of creek is basically gone now.

 

Thats one example that has no doubt been repeated elsewhere in the state.

 

Other examples are barely legal drainage. An example of that occured one mile north of me via a farmer who wanted to plant a low land. He was correct when he applied for his permit to drain this area (approx 4 acres). It would dry out by July/Aug. But the DNR gave him his permit ignoring the fact that this wetland provided duck nesting habitat, frog rearing grounds, etc. That farmer has died and his land is lotted off. The drain has been removed and the lowland is slowly returning. But the county allowed a huge development in its place so this area is lost to wildlife. The only thing preventing the complete loss is the slowed housing market. I think this developer is going into bankruptcy now.

 

Other pieces of this fall directly on the state of MN and the Feds. We have a RIM (reinvest in Minnesota) program and others where farmers get paid to set aside pieces of land. Often these lands set aside surrounded these potholes, lowlands, swamps, etc. This usually involves a 10 year commitment but the farmer can opt out at basically anytime via notice to the program. With all the investment into corn ethanol, there was extreme speculation on profits from growing more corn. I saw alot of idle fields around me being planted this year simply to produce corn. These fields I am speaking of were most likely not even in one of these programs, just land not being used.

 

And all this combined with dry years, lack of winter snows to refill these potholes, changes in land use patterns resulting in more rains being absorbed into croplands when they do fall and not running off into the potholes, and wind/water erosion filling in the potholes.

 

I dont know that its illegal draining that is the real factor in the loss of potholes or if its a combination of many factors resulting in less potholes holding water.

 

I could rant on and on about the MN DNR and the things I hate about its focus over the last 20 years. As well as the FWS, Dept of Interior, Dept of Agriculture.... its all about the politics.

[freeztar]

Yes, it is very political. The main point I get from your account is that development is the biggest threat. At some point we're going to have to sit and think about which is more valuable, a wetland or a strip mall. I hope we make the right choice when that time comes because right now we are not.

 

Thanks for the reply Cedars!

[Cedars]

Yes, it is very political. The main point I get from your account is that development is the biggest threat. At some point we're going to have to sit and think about which is more valuable, a wetland or a strip mall. I hope we make the right choice when that time comes because right now we are not.

 

Thanks for the reply Cedars!

 

Yes, its development primarily. And even when development follows all the rules the cause and effect is not clearly understood (like the creek example). The wetland exchange program is a bunch of B.S. In my not so humble opinion.

 

I was lucky to grow up where I did (technically the boonies). The heartbreak is what I have seen lost as people pursue the american dream of home, cars, toys etc. Last week a neighbor kid who grew up and is now begining his family, business, purchasing, etc. stopped by to chat. It was a great day! I stopped by to see his house and he dragged me over to his window to show me the bird feeders he hung up and showed me his brand new bird book "and its all cuz of you" he said to me.

 

He was going to cut down a dead tree in his yard and when he went out there was like 5 different woodpeckers on it and he said "I flashed back to that tree in your yard, (I had him take one down before it fell onto the house) and how you wouldnt let me take down more than needed cuz you were leaving it for the animals". So he left his dead tree standing for the woodpeckers.

 

Anyways, it was cool to have this guy stop by and tell me that I impacted his life as I did. And now he will impact his wife (who grew up in San Diego) and her brothers (who are growing up in the twin cities) as he makes them help him hang tinted plastic on his windows "cuz birds are flying into them" and his kids will grow up with the chore of keeping those feeders full.

 

sorry... I kinda got a bit off topic here...

[freeztar]

Yes, its development primarily. And even when development follows all the rules the cause and effect is not clearly understood (like the creek example).

 

You're assuming the rules were followed in the creek example. Most times they are not unfortunately. What is strange about the creek example is you say "they blocked off the drainage". I'm assuming you mean the outflow of the lake? If so, is there an inflow? If not, then it's easy to see what's going on, but if there is inflow then something else is going on.

 

The wetland exchange program is a bunch of B.S. In my not so humble opinion.

 

By "wetland exchange program", do you mean wetland mitigation as administered by the Corps of Engineers? Or are you talking about something local there?

[palmtreepathos]

We bought property in N. Ga 400 ft from a wetlands area. A few years after we moved here I noticed that trucks were coming into the farthest area from our house and dumping loads of dirt on the wetlands side of the creek, this continued for months. The dirt was leveled at at least 4 ft higher than the springs that kept the area wet. A few acres (maybe more) of office buildings went in there and the dumping started again. One day I saw a couple of official looking trucks and business guys at the overpass looking over the site, so I invited myself to chat with them. I asked them, In light of the seasonal flooding that would cover that area to a depth of a few feet where would the water go now?? They looked like it had not occurred to them. What could we homeowners do to resist development or would we have to wait for the flood to come up over our banks? Not sure if it was anything I said but the dumping stopped a couple days later and development stopped as they finished what was already going on... Sure enough the first flood came over on our side of the creek and carved into the embankment far enough to wipe out the sewer lines running underground but along the creek bank opposite the office park but closer to us. The next big one put the apartment buildings on the other side of the creek about 6 ft under.

 

Some beavers have moved in to back up the springs that are left and keep us supplied with skeeters... :) I was hoping I could approach a few of the companies occupying the area to see if I could get sponsers for some bat houses on poles to help with that. Ideally a wetlands walking deck would be nice but too much to expect....

[freeztar]

Depending on what county you are in, you may be able to get assistance from the county. For example, Gwinnett County is in the process of several stream restoration projects involving flood plain management and long term erosion control. If you let the right people know what is going on, you can potentially resolve the issues and create a healthier riverine/palustrine system. I suggest speaking with your local issuing authority and if there is none for your area, then contact the Georgia EPD.

[Cedars]

You're assuming the rules were followed in the creek example. Most times they are not unfortunately. What is strange about the creek example is you say "they blocked off the drainage". I'm assuming you mean the outflow of the lake? If so, is there an inflow? If not, then it's easy to see what's going on, but if there is inflow then something else is going on.

It wasnt a direct outflow. What was occurring here was a ground seepage from the lake creating what appeared to be a minor seasonal lowland disconnected from the lake; it was more like a surface aquafir. Hope that makes sense. It was covered in the news a few years later (like 3) when lake homes began to flood. The lake home flooding is two parts. The blockage of this drain field and the fact they built the houses in the late 60s on lake property that only existed because the lake was at a low level (not record low) for many years (like 20).

 

By "wetland exchange program", do you mean wetland mitigation as administered by the Corps of Engineers? Or are you talking about something local there?

It eventually is admin'ed by the ACoE I believe (but am not sure). As I understand these workings is the ACoE has designated the states to be responsible for the workings of the program. So some of the developments that have gone in around me work like this:

 

The contractor is primarily responsible for the environmental impact. The State DNR approves their plan and may do an inspection to make sure the numbers add up, like the footage of wetland existing, the setback footages, etc. I believe the state aggrates the information into reports for the ACoE.

 

One example of how this is manipulated is the house directly north of me. My county had implemented a 1000 foot setback from streams (changed now to 500 feet I believe with options for 'variances'). It is 7 acres of wetland with a bubble of hill alongside this creek that is maybe 5 foot higher for a total of 3/4 of an acre of dry land (max) in this 7 acre plot (which at the time was connected to 63 acres) The bubble of land connects to the road which allowed them a driveway without filling wetland. I personally talked with the county people about how that particular piece of land should not be developed while this permit application was in the review process.

 

They checked into it and told me I was wrong. That is not a legal stream cuz it doesnt flow all year. And they were correct based on the DNR information regarding that particular stream. It is listed on the map as a seasonal flowage. My ex-husband who moved into this house in 1958 remembered one drought year the stream didnt flow. I have been here for 24 years now and I remember one year the stream didnt flow. That was 1988 and the year of the big drought (which actually lasted 2.5 years in my area and had started in 1987). So in 40 years the stream hasnt flowed twice. It was in 1988 that the permit to build this house was approved. The data is incorrect at the state level. The ACoE can only make administrative determinations based on the data it has.

 

The issues with the set aside are very broad. The above example sums it up quite well. A contractor can purchase a set aside somewhere else, build the homes and then "whoops" we screwed up a stream further down... Oh well the houses are there, the contractor did the best he could and too bad about the minnow stream thru the state park. One has to keep in mind that the managers of the park did not connect the two issues until later (more than a year but I cant remember how long). Well after people had purchaced their brand new homes.

 

Back to the original issue brought up with the MN dnr acting all surprised about wetland loss. I am skeptical that anyone broke any laws and they will find another example like the lake above. Good faith effort. DNR stamp of approval on the project. The oh well, it was based on the best data we had excuse ... like the bridge falling down in Minneapolis. Like I said, I quit driving on that bridge a year before it fell into the Mississippi river cuz my real life experience on that bridge was more accurate than the bs handed down by our dept of transportation decision making processes. ACoE can only base its data on what each state feeds it.

[freeztar]

They checked into it and told me I was wrong. That is not a legal stream cuz it doesnt flow all year. And they were correct based on the DNR information regarding that particular stream. It is listed on the map as a seasonal flowage.

 

Maps are only an approximation of what is really going on. What should be happening is an ecologist should make a site visit and delineate all hydrologic features present. My guess is that MN DNR has their own science staff that performs the "field visits". The problem there is you have government employees verifying impacts AND producing the permits. This creates a situation that is ripe for corruption. In GA, all private development is permitted by private consultants. As a result, the ACOE tends to scrutinize those projects more carefully. Of course, DOT projects are usually hurried through the permit process and very little checking is ever done. It's kind of backwards, but ultimately it seems to provide for better determinations than the system in place in MN. (not that we don't have our own issues though)

 

Under the Clean Water Act, intermittent streams are protected as Waters of the US. The stream you described is a perennial stream, becoming intermittent during heavy drought. As such, it is protected under the CWA. In the future, this is all you need to say to them. They can't really argue against federal law and if they do, then bring it to the feds attention (ACOE). Unless it's a "good 'ol boy" deal, the ACOE should perform a jurisdictional determination to verify DNR's findings.

 

It was in 1988 that the permit to build this house was approved. The data is incorrect at the state level. The ACoE can only make administrative determinations based on the data it has.

 

Actually, the Corps is obligated by law to ensure "no net loss" of wetlands and streams. It is their perogative to do jurisdictional determinations, but ultimately they are responsible. This is one of the reasons the Corps is in court a lot.

 

The issues with the set aside are very broad. The above example sums it up quite well. A contractor can purchase a set aside somewhere else, build the homes and then "whoops" we screwed up a stream further down... Oh well the houses are there, the contractor did the best he could and too bad about the minnow stream thru the state park. One has to keep in mind that the managers of the park did not connect the two issues until later (more than a year but I cant remember how long). Well after people had purchaced their brand new homes.

 

Again, under the federal National Pollutant and Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) program, the contractor is liable for any sediment leaving the work site. Fines are steep and are cumulative until the problem is addressed. The problem with the program is that most people do not know about it and the local authorities in charge of enforcing it either don't have time, don't know about it, or look the other way. That's why it's important for us as citizens to inform them when you see violations.

 

Back to the original issue brought up with the MN dnr acting all surprised about wetland loss. I am skeptical that anyone broke any laws and they will find another example like the lake above.

 

I'm quite sure that laws have been broken. I see it all the time but unfortunately it is not in my best interest to turn my client in. Instead I urge them to make the necessary changes to avoid being fined by the authorities. It's disheartening when the changes are not made, but quite rewarding when they are.

 

ACoE can only base its data on what each state feeds it.

 

Again, the ACOE is ultimately responsible for protecting the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters under the CWA (well, the EPA plays a role too). My major qualm with them is that they are remiss in their duties. I would like to see some legislation that requires the Corps to do site visits to, say, a minimum of 75% of the permits they process. Right now it's probably somewhere near 0.5%.

[Cedars]

Maps are only an approximation of what is really going on. What should be happening is an ecologist should make a site visit and delineate all hydrologic features present. My guess is that MN DNR has their own science staff that performs the "field visits". The problem there is you have government employees verifying impacts AND producing the permits. This creates a situation that is ripe for corruption. In GA, all private development is permitted by private consultants. As a result, the ACOE tends to scrutinize those projects more carefully. Of course, DOT projects are usually hurried through the permit process and very little checking is ever done. It's kind of backwards, but ultimately it seems to provide for better determinations than the system in place in MN. (not that we don't have our own issues though)

 

Under the Clean Water Act, intermittent streams are protected as Waters of the US. The stream you described is a perennial stream, becoming intermittent during heavy drought. As such, it is protected under the CWA. In the future, this is all you need to say to them. They can't really argue against federal law and if they do, then bring it to the feds attention (ACOE). Unless it's a "good 'ol boy" deal, the ACOE should perform a jurisdictional determination to verify DNR's findings.

Freeztar, I have alot of respect for you. There is no doubt your heart is in the right place, and what you say is true on paper. But my reality I see going on around me is quite different. I have made calls. I know what I have been told to my face by the powers that be. I know what my neighbors have done to try to prevent such things from occurring and these are not stupid people. They were all shocked by what they knew to be true on paper vs what is done in real life.

 

The house on the stream story I presented resulted in no wetland loss but variences were granted to allow its existence via the very laws MN put in place to prevent stream/wetland degradations. This neighbor of mine is a very nice guy and bought the house after it was built. The floor of their basement is below the bottom of the stream bed as is their septic system (which also got a varience to be put in that close to the marsh and stream surrounding the west, south and north side of his home). And his garage he built is even lower and closer to the stream (another varience granted).

 

I see it all the time but unfortunately it is not in my best interest to turn my client in. Instead I urge them to make the necessary changes to avoid being fined by the authorities. It's disheartening when the changes are not made, but quite rewarding when they are.

 

And this is exactly what is going on here. Only no one who is responsible is turning anyone in or down. My park stream example. What should have been done is the homes tore down and moneys refunded and the stream restored. But that costs money. Dont kid yourself, the manager of that park fought the good fight trying to get it back. Oh well.... Theres no turning back the clock even when opportunity exists. Like I said, flooding occurred on this lake and insurance paid off or other government agencies came up with home loans to tide these poor homeowners over. Like we see along beaches all over the coastlines of the USA everytime the wind comes up strong.

 

Why are we rebuilding New Orleans? The Mississippi river has been trying to re-route since like 1930 . The route its trying to take would knock off like 200 miles of shipping river route. Turnbull Island? Monkey Island area? ACoE has rebuilt that gate a bunch of times fighting the river. ACoE rules and bylaws look great on paper. Its all about the politics.

 

My major qualm with them is that they are remiss in their duties. I would like to see some legislation that requires the Corps to do site visits to, say, a minimum of 75% of the permits they process. Right now it's probably somewhere near 0.5%.

 

They are ALL remiss in their duties. MN DNR, Georgia development (water issues) Florida (omg we gotta have more condos on the beaches), FWS. I used to work for the state of MN (different political arena than this discussion) and I learned alot about beating the system. Once the permits are granted, we all eat the costs via tax dollars.

 

I mean come on. How come you read about the MN DNR being all bummed out about wetland losses via a GAO report and not the ACoE? Funding? Bigger messes to sort out; everglades, mississippi river, San Joaquin valley?

 

I dont hold the ACoE any more responsible than the MN DNR, FWS, etc. The voters here have spoken. They WANT their lake homes, They WANT their Beach front, They WANT New Orleans build again (everytime I think of N.O. I flash back to Monty Python Holy Grail and the swamp castle... But the 4th one stayed...and Stop that Singing!!).

 

But if you try to run for office on the green platform, you'll go nuts and end up losing your mind and going grizzley (like Al did the year after his loss to GW)... Aint no money in dragonfly pics :)

[freeztar]

Freeztar, I have alot of respect for you. There is no doubt your heart is in the right place, and what you say is true on paper. But my reality I see going on around me is quite different. I have made calls. I know what I have been told to my face by the powers that be. I know what my neighbors have done to try to prevent such things from occurring and these are not stupid people. They were all shocked by what they knew to be true on paper vs what is done in real life.

 

Indeed, paper does not equate to actions. I have no doubt that smart people have tried to stop these environmental tragedies, but often times the beauracratic system is so convoluted that even smart people have a hard time deciphering it. I'm not saying that prudent action always results in a win, because it doesn't, but by using the right avenues and presenting the complaint in a professionally written letter it is possible to reverse some of these decisions. Of course, there are instances such as the "turtle incident" we discussed at the beginning of this thread. In that case the developer was going to be bringing lots of money to the county and so the regulations were waived in lieu of economic development. You can't really do anything there and it sucks. The tug of war between the environment and development is always back and forth. Development is a necessary evil and I agree that much needs to change to strike a healthy balance.

The house on the stream story I presented resulted in no wetland loss but variences were granted to allow its existence via the very laws MN put in place to prevent stream/wetland degradations.

 

I deal with this quite a bit as well. We refer to them as stream buffer variances (SBV) and they are administered by the GA EPD. It is a lengthy process (~6mos.) and requires all sorts of planning and design including: erosion and sedimentation plans, alternatives analysis (basically making a good case for why the impact cannot be avoided), and a 30-day public notice/comment period where all documents are made available to the public for viewing and commenting.

It may seem backwards to have a law and then issue variances for it, but without the variances, hardly any development would be allowed to occur. Again it's that tug-of-war...

We recently submitted a SBV for a county road project. The plan is to straighten a stretch of road that is notorious for bad accidents because of the tight curve. Since the road runs beside a major river, there is no way to avoid encroaching upon the 50-ft. stream buffer while doing the roadwork. This is a good example of when SBVs are a great thing. This project will most likely save several lives.

Also worth noting is that the SBVs in GA have a maximum disturbance amount. Any buffer encroachments amounting to more than 1500 linear feet of stream will not be able to get a SBV (I've seen this happen, it's not just on paper). Also, The developers pay a good chunk of money for each linear feet of stream (the money goes towards stream restoration/preservation/enhancement elsewhere). In that way, it is in the developers best interest to have a design that is minimally intrusive.

 

This neighbor of mine is a very nice guy and bought the house after it was built. The floor of their basement is below the bottom of the stream bed as is their septic system (which also got a varience to be put in that close to the marsh and stream surrounding the west, south and north side of his home).

 

Now that's just plain dumb.

 

And his garage he built is even lower and closer to the stream (another varience granted).

 

SBVs are typically granted pretty easily to private homeowners because...well...they own the home. Most people do not even know about the permits and just go ahead with building whatever without much fuss from anyone so it's good your neighbor at least did things "legit".

 

And this is exactly what is going on here. Only no one who is responsible is turning anyone in or down.

 

Without working within the job, it's impossible to know the amount of people turned down. I assure you it happens, but we never hear of those because the projects never happen.

 

My park stream example. What should have been done is the homes tore down and moneys refunded and the stream restored.

 

:lol: That would NEVER happen!

What could happen is a stream restoration at this point. Most likely there is water under the creek bed (unless it's bedrock). By reshaping the channel, the water could be brought to the surface.

 

But that costs money.

 

Yep.

And more than politics, that's what this is all about.

 

Dont kid yourself, the manager of that park fought the good fight trying to get it back. Oh well.... Theres no turning back the clock even when opportunity exists.

 

It could potentially be restored depending on site-specific characteristics.

 

Like I said, flooding occurred on this lake and insurance paid off or other government agencies came up with home loans to tide these poor homeowners over. Like we see along beaches all over the coastlines of the USA everytime the wind comes up strong.

 

That's ridiculous. It sounds like noone is doing their homework up there. Were floodplain studies produced? What does the FIRM (flood insurance rate map) show for that area?

 

Why are we rebuilding New Orleans?

 

Because it is an awesome city!

 

The Mississippi river has been trying to re-route since like 1930 . The route its trying to take would knock off like 200 miles of shipping river route. Turnbull Island? Monkey Island area? ACoE has rebuilt that gate a bunch of times fighting the river. ACoE rules and bylaws look great on paper. Its all about the politics.

 

And I thought I was jaded. :hihi:

I don't see any end to the Corps efforts in NOLA...

 

They are ALL remiss in their duties.

 

Believe it or not, some of these entities actually do good things from time to time.

 

Once the permits are granted, we all eat the costs via tax dollars.

This is very true and a great incentive to get more people involved.

 

I mean come on. How come you read about the MN DNR being all bummed out about wetland losses via a GAO report and not the ACoE? Funding? Bigger messes to sort out; everglades, mississippi river, San Joaquin valley?

 

Well, for one, the ACOE is only concerned with permitting wetland disturbances and granting credits for wetland improvements/mitigation. From what it sounds like, most, or at least some, of these small wetland systems are on private land where they are drained for agriculture or whatever without a permit and without the Corps ever knowing. So the Corps accounting books could show "no net loss" of wetlands whereas the "on the ground" view could provide a whole different story.

 

I dont hold the ACoE any more responsible than the MN DNR, FWS, etc. The voters here have spoken. They WANT their lake homes, They WANT their Beach front, They WANT New Orleans build again (everytime I think of N.O. I flash back to Monty Python Holy Grail and the swamp castle... But the 4th one stayed...and Stop that Singing!!).

They are all responsible. If not, why even have them.

Good point about the voters...

 

Aint no money in dragonfly pics ;)

 

Unless you work for National Geographic...;)

[Cedars]

You ask what is going on up here?

 

http://www.mncenter.org/minnesota_center_for_envi/files/MCEAShorelandRulesPetition.pdf

 

The above is a summary of shoreline development issues.

 

http://www.mncenter.org/mcea_wetlands_initiative/files/MCEA_Wetlands_Report_2006.pdf

 

The above is a 55 page report with a two page starter summary.

[freeztar]

You ask what is going on up here?

 

http://www.mncenter.org/minnesota_center_for_envi/files/MCEAShorelandRulesPetition.pdf

 

The above is a summary of shoreline development issues.

 

http://www.mncenter.org/mcea_wetlands_initiative/files/MCEA_Wetlands_Report_2006.pdf

 

The above is a 55 page report with a two page starter summary.

 

Excellent links, thanks Cedars.

[DougF]

Yes very good links Cedars,

Thanks.