An email FLRR got from the Prince William Conservation Alliance had this to say:
"Researchers and regulatory agencies have been plagued by the question of how long it takes for a constructed wetland to achieve the same level of maturity as the displaced natural wetland. Despite the obvious difficulties in assessing how well a constructed wetland resembles a natural wetland in a myriad of functions and values, a more subtle and disturbing question is whether the constructed wetland will maintain its planned function well into the future."
We contacted our friend and mentor Cliff Fairweather who works for the Audubon Naturalist Society. Cliff had this to say about whether or not the "fake" wetland is now a real wetland:
"If you asked different scientists you'd probably get different answers. Actually, the question gets more philosophical as to whether you consider something initiated by humans but then incorporated into a natural system as natural.
The jury is still very much out on the viability and functionality of constructed wetlands. They certainly provide some wetland function, such as nutrient capture, but whether or not they can become self-sustaining ecosystems is another matter. They just haven't been around long enough to know.
My problem with constructed wetlands is when they are used to mitigate the loss of natural wetlands elsewhere (as is the case with this wetland). Once a natural wetland is destroyed, its functions are lost to the surrounding area/local watershed. Pretending that we've replaced that loss by constructing a new wetland somewhere else is, in my mind, a bit of a fraud. I'm afraid that this so-called wetlands mitigation will be used to justify more destruction of natural wetlands, even though it is only supposed to be used as a last resort.
Nonetheless, the situation described here is an example of how nature can reassert itself when given a chance. Perhaps there is a teachable moment here, although I need to think a little more about just what the lesson is."
