deep river wetlands hobart indiana damaged by aws amazon website services

Data Centers Have Been Known To Damage Wetlands

     The Deep River wetlands around Hobart Indiana’s Deep River flows through Lake County Indiana towards Lake Michigan. Deep River wetlands refer not just to a single swamp or marsh, but to a network of wetlands, riparian corridors, floodplains, forested bottomlands, marshes, woodlands, savannas, lakes, rivers, ravines, bottomland forests and prairie habitats that are scattered along Deep River. Its expanded tributaries include combined surface waters (rivers and lakes) and groundwater-fed wetlands.

     The wetlands along Deep River are part of a larger watershed, the Deep River – Portage Burns Waterway Watershed, which drains roughly 180 square miles (with ~104 sq miles in Lake County). This wetland waterway ( Hobart’s Lake George to Lake Michigan) is among the largest contiguous wetland areas in Northwest Indiana. This area is sometimes referred to as Hobart Marsh or Hobart Nature District, but because the (AWS – Amazon Web Services) Data Centers locations right next to Deep River, this article is focusing more on the Deep River aspect.
    The Deep River Wetlands is ecologically significant because this wetland is unusually rich in biodiversity and habitat varieties for a few reasons: The region lies in a transitional natural region (the “Northwestern Morainal Natural Region”), where several major ecosystem types intersect including eastern deciduous forest, tallgrass prairie, northern forest, natural wetlands, and various dune – wetland -prairie combinations. These mixing fosters high species and a high habitat diversity per acre.
     Across this Deep River Watershed, there have been nearly 400 documented observations of endangered, threatened, or rare (ETR – Ecologically Threatened Species) species — including plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and aquatic invertebrates (crayfish, mollusks, etc.). The area supports species that are rare or under pressure elsewhere in the state; for instance, state-endangered species like the Blanding’s turtle and many within the bird family have been documented in the core wetland / river corridor. So ecologically, this region is a “biodiversity hotspot” in northern Indiana is far richer and more varied than any typical suburban or agricultural land in the Midwest.
    The area is so rich in bird habitats that it is included in the e-bird.org website with Lake George and Fred Rose Park – https://ebird.org/hotspot/L3165844/bird-list

According to EH Sciences, Wireless RadioFrequency (RF) Radiation and other non-ionizing Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF) are rapidly increasing forms of environmental pollution. EMF effects on INSECTS effects flight, foraging, feeding, memory and mortality. EMF effects BIRDS navigation systems, and harm to reproduction. EMF exposure to Trees and Plants effect growth, and cause damage. EMF exposure to Fish, found significant behavorial changes, learning impacts and altered brain osicative status.EMF exposure to Mice, Rats, & Rabbits, cause DNA Damage, Cancer, and low birth weight. EMF exposure to Amphibians, altered behavior, growth, and higher mortality rate.
One hundred and eighty five papers (including reviews) on the effects of EMF on insects, and 145 studies on insect magnetic sensing, have been published since 1980 (Figure 2). There is probably a lack of awareness for biological effects of EMF in general, since it is not a part of most university curricula and requires knowledge in multiple fields. In addition, the field of bioelectromagnetics is underfinanced and considered controversial.

MORE RESEARCH REFERENCES

EMF Vibration Effects on Insects and Bees (Scientific Research Documents: )
1. Biological effects of electromagnetic fields on insects: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Thill et al. Reviews on Environmental Health (2023).
2. Electromagnetic fields disrupt the pollination service by honeybees by MolinaMontenegro et al. Science Advances (2023).
3. Electromagnetic radiation as an emerging driver factor for the decline of insects by Balmori. Science of the Total Environment (2021).
4. Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields impair the Cognitive and Motor Abilities of Honey Bees by Shepherd et al. Scientific Reports (2018).

Higher Exposures to Insects Scientific Research Documents:
1. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz by Thielens et al. Scientific Reports (2018).
2. Numerical dosimetry of specific absorption rate of insects exposed to far-field radiofrequency electromagnetic fields by Jeladze et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology (2025).
3. Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees by Thielens et al. Scientific Reports (2020).
4. Estimation of the Specific Absorption Rate for a Honey bee Exposed to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2.5 to 100 GHz by Jeladze et al. IEEE International Seminar/Workshop on Direct and Inverse Problems of Electromagnetic and Acoustic Wave Theory (2023).

Trees and Plants Scientific Research Documents:
1. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations by Haggerty. International Journal of Forestry Research
(2010).
2. Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations by
Waldmann-Selsam et al. Science of The Total Environment (2016).
3. Review on the impact of cell phone radiation effects on green plants by Panda et al. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2024).
4. Sensitivity of plants to high frequency electromagnetic radiation: Cellular mechanisms and morphological changes by Kaur et al. Reviews in Environmental
Science and Bio/Technology (2021).
5. Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants by Halgamuge. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (2017).

HERE’S MORE DOCUMENTATION . . .

Unfortunately, the proposed 2.4 GW Amazon hyperscale Data Center (500-acre campus at 61st Avenue & Arizona Street, 1–2 miles southwest of Lake George) could disrupt this ecosystem through construction (2026+) and operations, primarily via indirect stressors like noise, light, water changes, and habitat shifts. Below, you will find more several scientific articles that have documented specifically the damage that Data Centers Create to Wetlands.
_______________________________________________________________________
High concentrations of EMFs (Electromagnetic Fields) negatively affect insects and birds by disrupting navigation, foraging, and reproduction, interfering with their natural magnetic senses, leading to disorientation, reduced colony strength, altered behaviors (like flight & memory), and increased mortality, with potential impacts on entire ecosystems due to these vital pollinators and migratory species being confused by artificial frequencies, including 5G. EhSciences
__________________________________________________________________
Biological Effects of EMF On Insects: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis
Published by De Gruyter from the Journal of Reviews on Environmental Health Vol. 39 Issue 4
This systematic review summarizes the results of studies investigating the toxicity of electromagnetic fields in insects. The main objective of this review is to weigh the evidence regarding detrimental effects on insects from the increasing technological infrastructure on the pollination of the much needed food for the human population.
“Animals have stable rhythms in their brains, measurable by electroencephalogram (EEG) or electrodes, for example. For honeybees and locusts, a main frequency of 18 Hz or 20 Hz was observed, and 20–30 Hz in fruit flies.”
________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
A report by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development indicated that a proposed Amazon data center would permanently affect almost 6 acres of wetlands, citing habitat loss as a major impact. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Public Notice — Project SBN 210 / Water Quality Certification (2025-78-71-ENH-WQC)

QUOTE Constructing a Data Campus” . . . “will permanently impact a total of 7.31 acres of palustrine emergent wetland, 2.39 acres of palustrine forested wetland, and 5,395 linear feet of streams. Permanent impacts include: clean earthen fill into on-site streams and wetlands; scour protection via the installation of gabion baskets; installation, expansion, and replacement of culverts; and outfall installation Rogers Clark Ditch in the Kankakee Service Area from the Indiana Stream and Wetland Mitigation Program (IN SWMP).”

Additional information may be found online at HYPERLINK : https://www.in.gov/idem/files/notice_20250430_401_2025-78-71-enh-wqc.pdf NOTE: This Report was also Referenced by the Hoosier Environmental Council alerted to a proposed Amazon data center in Indiana that would impact nearly 10 acres of wetlands and over 5,000 feet of streams in St. Joseph County Indiana.
NOTE: If this Link is not available, please contact PanoramaNOW.
_______________________________________________________________________
A 2022 report commissioned by the National Parks Conservation Association estimated that soil erosion from data center construction in Virginia could deposit significant sediment into a nearby creek, potentially harming aquatic life. This report talks about submerged aquatic critical to estuary health; suspended and deposited sediments can have adverse effects on aquatic life in streams, lakes and estuaries; and Sediment-laden stormwater discharges can cause physical and biological harm to aquatic species, degrade water quality, and result in sedimentation that fills in and reduces capacity in receiving surface waters, especially stagnant waterbodies such as ponds, lakes, or reservoirs.
(Here’s the DOCUMENTATION of the above . . . )
An analysis for the Virginia legislature confirmed that converting rural land for data centers has negative environmental effects, including altered water flows and loss of biodiversity. The technical memo prepared by CEA Engineers, P.C. evaluating the environmental impacts of proposed data-centers in Prince William County, Virginia (Potomac Technology Park & PW Digital Gateway) — which includes the soil-erosion / sediment estimates.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT HYPERLINK: https://www.pecva.org/wp-content/uploads/050222-J22-04-CEAPC-Technical-Memo-with-Cover-Letter-PWC-VA-Data-Center-Environmental-Impacts.pdf
NOTE: If this Link is not available, PanoramaNOW News has it saved on our computers.
Study completed by Kevin Draganchuk, P.E., BCEE , CEA Engineers, P.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
A preprint study from December 2024 by researchers at the University of California, Riverside, and California Institute of Technology discussed the air quality impacts of AI-related emissions, noting that AI contributes to air quality degradation which can indirectly affect sensitive ecosystems such as wetlands.
     The December 2024 UC Riverside and Caltech report The Unpaid Toll: Quantifying the Public Health Impact of AI finds that the rapidly increasing electricity demand from AI systems is already causing measurable public-health harm by increasing power-plant emissions of pollutants such as NOₓ, SO₂, and PM₂.5. Using atmospheric chemistry models and health-impact functions, the researchers estimate that current AI-driven energy use contributes to hundreds of premature deaths annually in the United States and imposes billions of dollars in hidden economic costs. The study warns that, if AI power consumption continues to scale on its current path without rapid grid decarbonization, pollution-related health damages could multiply dramatically. The authors conclude that cleaner energy sources, more efficient model design, and policy mechanisms that account for the health burden of emissions are essential to mitigating the growing air-quality impacts of AI technologies.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT HYPERLINK https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06288v1
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Center for Watershed Protection‘s reports on the Direct and Indirect Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Ecosystems — this is a synthesis of more than 100 scientific CWP studies on how land‑development affects wetlands. Among its conclusions: development leads to habitat loss, alters hydrology and water‑flow regimes, changes sedimentation and nutrient cycles, and thereby degrades wetland ecological functions. Quoting from page 54: “Most bird species rely on wetland habitats during some portion of their life cycle. Consequently, birds may be directly and indirectly impacted by the degradation of wetland quality. Urbanization can degrade wetland habitats used for breeding, nesting or feeding, and change competitive interactions among and between species that modify populations.” This report also goes into the cost of wetland restoration and the various types of wetlands. It also states: “Wetlands often form the remaining structure of wildlife corridors and open space in urban watersheds. The corridor function can be degraded, as shown by direct and indirect wetland impacts that commonly occur in urban watersheds. Direct and Indirect Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality from upland development can have significant consequences on downstream aquatic species.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT HYPERLINK https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0915/ML091520194.pdf
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Urban Wetlands: A Review on Ecological and Cultural Functions (2021) — University of Helenski, Finland. This review summarizes how urban development (conversion of land to built‑up or impervious surfaces) undermines wetland ecosystem services: water filtration, biodiversity, hydrological regulation, flood mitigation, and more. It identifies land‑use change, hydrological disruption, pollution, contamination, and habitat fragmentation as major threats. Section 3 states, “urbanization and the development of urban areas, wetlands as habitats have suffered damages to the habitat and has become a major challenge in urban environments. Although the fragmentation of wetlands is a major threat to their existence, they remain important and are highly functional for wildlife species. Therefore, identifying the importance of wetlands, preserving them, and possibly increasing the connectivity between them would considerably support the protection of biodiversity in urban areas.”
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT HYPERLINK   https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/22/3301
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Impacts of Urbanization on Watershed Water Balances Across Climate and Land‑Use Gradients (2020) — this study shows that urbanization (which includes replacing permeable surfaces with impervious ones) significantly alters watershed hydrology: reducing evapotranspiration and changing water yield (runoff vs infiltration). Such changes affect wetlands, groundwater recharge, stream flow regimes, and the health of aquatic systems downstream
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT HYPERLINK   https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019wr026574
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Impact of Urbanization and Land Use on Wetland Water Quality: A Case Study in Mengxi Town (Southern China) May 2024 — this case‑study found that expansion of built-up area and urban land use near wetlands led to increased pollutant loads (nitrogen, phosphorus), degraded water quality in wetlands, and a decline in wetland ecological integrity.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT HYPERLINK   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212095524000518
______________________________________________________________________________________________

MORE LOCAL REFERENCES . . .

2025 EPA Urban Waters Federal Partnership Work Plan: Restoring Duck Creek Tributary, Hobart Marsh Properties Managed by the Indiana DNR, Division of Nature Preserves, and Hobart Marsh Conservation Area known as NIPSCO Row. QUOTE: “Hold bimonthly partner meetings with the Water Pollution Prevention Roundtable – Respond to emerging threats, developing action plans and working collaboratively with partners as situations unfold” ALSO QUOTE: “major rivers and creeks in NWI, such as the Grand Calumet River, Deep River, Trail Creek and the West and East Branches of Little Calumet River each feature unique characteristics, assets, and challenges.”

2017 – NIRPC – 377 Pages. Deep River Portage Burns Waterway Final: Deep River-Portage Burns Waterway watershed (Figure 1). It is the largest of six watersheds located within the Little Calumet-Galien sub-basin, draining approximately 180 square miles of north central Lake and Porter Counties to Lake Michigan. Some the major streams located within the watershed include Deep River, Main Beaver Dam Ditch, Turkey Creek, and the Little Calumet River’s West Branch. This watershed management plan is the result of numerous communities and organizations coming together to establish a framework to restore the nearly 125 miles of impaired stream within its boundaries.

2024 – Save the Dunes Conservation Action Plan – 50 pages Hobart Marsh And Deep River Conservation Area was designated a Priority 1 Conservation Area by Save the Dunes Executive Summary of 2023

2016 – IDEM – 373 Pages – Deep River Watershed Plan, Click here – The Deep River/Portage Burns watershed, identified as the hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed 0404000105, covers a drainage area of approximately 180 square miles in northwestern Indiana, of which 104 square miles are located in Lake County, and 20 square miles are located in Porter County. There are approximately 125 miles of impaired streams within the watershed boundary.

2024 EPA – “Great Lakes Restoration Restoration Initiative” – “10 additional areas of Concern have been identified where completion of management actions could conceivably be achieved in the next five year: Grand Calumet River” (Grand Calumet River) 20 pages Click here

2020 DNR – Pages 47 and 78 – 81, Northwest Moraine Forest Legacy Areas : CFAA funds are provided to states through the State and Private Forestry (S&PF) organization of the USDA Forest Service. Currently, Indiana receives these funds annually to assist private forest landowners, promote healthy forest practices, assist communities with their urban forests and protect communities from wildfire. A large portion of the CFAA funding received by the Indiana Division of Forestry is passed to local organizations by way of grants that provide matching funds and additional implementation resources.

2018 the City of Hobart and the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Committee (NIRPC) engaged The Lakota Group The PLAN City of Hobart and the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Committee (NIRPC) have initiated a planning process to create a set of zoning standards to guide the use and design of sites within local conservation areas. The goal of this project is not to prohibit development, but to define the opportunities where development can take place in a manner that respects and enhances
conservation areas – both by reducing adverse impacts of adjacent land uses and by improving local access to wildlife where appropriate. The City of Hobart has engaged The Lakota Group along with Duncan Associates to complete this Conservation Zoning and Sub Area Plan.

2002 Chicago State University, (2002) 180 pages, Deep River – Turkey Creek Watershed Management Plan : In the late 1980’s, the City of Hobart, in partnership with a local private economic development organization, began a program to improve the community’s quality of life and retain and expand business within the City that resulted in a multi-phased lakefront development and downtown revitalization plan. Degrading water quality, recreational uses, and aesthetic issues began to pose a threat to the community’s investments in lakefront and downtown revitalization efforts as a growing sedimentation problem in Lake George was becoming obvious. Accumulating sediments were precluding the use of the lake as a recreational resource for boating, degrading habitat for biological communities, and reducing recreational fishing opportunities in the lake. In addition, overgrowing plant life began to cause an aesthetic nuisance to lake residents and recreational enthusiasts

2016 Hobart Marsh Plan (2016) Created by the IDEM, and Lake Michigan Coastal Program – The Deep River/Portage Burns watershed, identified as the hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed 0404000105, covers a drainage area of approximately 180 square miles in northwestern Indiana, of which 104 square miles are located in Lake County, and 20 square miles are located in Porter County. There are approximately 125 miles of impaired streams within the watershed boundary.
In 2011, the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC) identified the Deep River-Portage Burns Waterway Watershed as a priority in the Northwest Indiana Watershed Management Framework. The decision to include the watershed as a priority was based on persisting water quality issues, but more importantly, because stakeholders continued to express interest in reinvigorating these past efforts. With substantial changes in land use being evident, there was enough support to update the previous watershed plans into a single comprehensive plan.

Chicago State University (2009) Stewardship in the Calumet Region – Again in partnership with SHLT, IDNR Nature Preserves, and possibly LCP and the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Save the Dunes is part of a proposal for contract work and management at Hobart Marsh, a large complex in Hobart Prairie Grove (the majority of which is owned by the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore). Hobart Prairie Grove is a very large complex of wetlands, and the goal is to convert old agricultural fields on the site into restored prairie. Should funding be secured, the project would begin in 2010. The site is in need of prescription fire and cattail control, among other restoration work. Another Great Lakes proposal which Save the Dunes is a part of is one that is an Indiana Department of Environmental Management proposal. This proposal involves restoration at all the dune and swale projects managed by SHLT, STD, IDNR Nature Preserves, TNC, and LCP.

(2025) UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Gerald Ford School of Public Policy:
What Happens When Data Centers Come To Town : Current technologies force a tradeoff between energy and water efficiency, limiting sustainable solutions. Data Centers Do Not Bring in High Paying Jobs; Data Center Tax Breaks Only Benefit Corporations; Reduces Tax Revenue for School Districts; Higher Energy Rates for Consumers; Higher Resource Consumption; And Much More.

The Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center (INHDC) represents a comprehensive attempt to determine the state’s most significant natural areas through an extensive statewide inventory. However, the inventory is a continuous process. Over the past 10 years, 57 element occurrences were documented in the watershed including 54 ETR species and 3 high quality natural communities. (Please note, to find this info click here and you’ll find the link at the bottom)

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT AN ENDANGERED SPECIES COMPLAINT

MORE PHOTOS TAKEN BY HOBART RESIDENTS . . .
Shown Above: Spring Beauty Flowers, Ramps, False Solomon’s Seal, Cress, Solomon’s Seal, Fleabane, Dame’s Rocket, Jack in the Pulpit, Yellow Violet (Unique to Hobart), False Strawberry, Cardinal Flower, Pussytoes, Rue Anemone, Bloodroot, May Apple by Toad Trillium, Vow Parsnips, Oak Mushroom, Hummingbird and Clear Moth Wing, Canadian Goose, Wild Ginger Bloom, Running Strawberry, Sandhill Crane, Trillium, Yellow Trout Lilly, Chicken of the Woods Mushroom, Grass Leafed Goldenrod, whit Water Lily, Ironwood, Wild Columbine, Banded Garden Spider, Whitetail Deer, Blue phlox/ Sweet William, Female Mallard orange jewel weed, Canada mayflower, Blue Cohosh, Bear Corn, Yellow Anemone / Buttercup, Waterleaf, Coot, Squirrel Corn, Serviceberry, Wood Betony, Painted Turtle, Silver Spotted purples, Pearl Crescent Butterfly, Hackberry Emperor, Red Spotted Purple Butterfly, Orange Sulphur Butterfly, Comma Butterfly, hackberry Emperor Butterfly, Tiger Swallowtail, Monarch, Goldenrod, Green Heron, Hook tip Moth, Orange Jewel Weed, Must Swan, Chickweed Geometer Moth, Skipper Butterfly, Lace Bordered Moth, Large Praying Mantis, Angle Moth, Cabbage White Butterfly, Eyed Brown Moth, Buckeye Butterfly, Eastern Bee Balm Bumble Bee, Great Spangled Fritillary.

MORE ARTICLES WE THINK YOU’LL BE INTERESTED IN . . .

EMF Concerns at Data Centers killing wildlife 2

EMF Concerns at Data Centers (And Mechanical Waves)

Data Centers pose greater net risks by creating “EMF Vibrations” that degrade the quiet and natural habitat wildlife relies on for food, reproduction, communication, navigation and survival. Furthermore, what most people are ignoring is the fact that there are High and Low Mechanical Waves and there are High and Low EMF Waves, each effecting each other, creating a circular relationship that spirals into an increasingly harmful outcome, creating outcomes well after installation that are extremely difficult to diagnose and rectify.
CONTINUE READING . . .

Amazon Required Wetland Mitigation to Offset the HyperScale Damage in Hobart Indiana

When a data center pays for wetland restoration in a different location, it is typically called wetland mitigation or a voluntary water replenishment / stewardship project. Wetland Mitigation (or Off-site Mitigation) is usually required by environmental regulators (like the EPA or state environmental departments) when a data center paves over local…

Data Centers Have Been Known To Damage Wetlands

Hiking in Northwest Indiana

About The Author

Donate

Sponsored Advertisers

Search