Marine Mammals: a Military Defense

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 10

When you think about military operations and tactics, a wide array of technological systems and machinery probably come to mind, but were marine mammals on your list? Many military forces across the globe, including the US Navy, have been training marine mammals for some time. Since the 1960s, the US Navy has been training sea lions and bottlenose dolphins to not only search for underwater mines and trespassers but to also search for lost equipment. The Russian navy and later the Ukrainian navy also trained bottlenose dolphins for similar work.

But what makes marine mammals so skilled at these tasks? Marine mammals exhibit many abilities that make them superior to even some of the most sophisticated military equipment available today. For starters, cetaceans (a group of animals including whales and dolphins) have incredible echolocation. With echolocation, cetaceans can send out sound waves that bounce off objects in the water, letting the animals know what is ahead. Their echolocation is far better than any available technology, especially since bottlenose dolphins can work in noisier areas than today’s technology can handle. They can even use this ability to distinguish different types of metals, which is very useful in terms of the military’s needs. Dolphins also possess one of the best memories of any animal, making them very easy to train.

Sea lions also possess some very useful abilities. The California sea lion is often trained by the US Navy to detect objects in the water. They have great eyesight and can quickly tell when something is not supposed to be there, like lost equipment or mines. They are also amphibious, which means they can function both on land and on water. This makes them very easy to train and they can be brought up on boats when needed, making them more valuable to the Navy than most other marine mammals.

Although bottlenose dolphins and California sea lions make great military animals, there are some marine mammals that do not make the cut. In 2017, Russia tried to train beluga whales to perform the same things as the bottlenose dolphins and sea lions do. However, belugas cannot handle being in the Russian waters’ lower temperatures for long periods of time.

Since the introduction of marine mammals into military operations, there has been quite a bit of success. They were used back in the Cold War by the Soviet Union to detect anything suspicious or to find lost objects like torpedoes. They have also been known to be used by the US Navy in both Gulf Wars and during Operation Enduring Freedom, in which President George Bush announced airstrikes on Al Qaeda and the Taliban shortly after the terrorist strike on September 11, 2001. Since these operations, military forces around the globe continue to train these incredibly smart animals to help military programs run smoothly and more efficiently. And next time there is any conversation about military personnel and their astonishing jobs, you can add marine mammals to the list!


“Dolphins In Defence: How Marine Mammals Are Used By The Military.” Forces Network, 29 Apr. 2019,

Lee, Jane J. “Military Whales, and Dolphins: What Do They Do and Who Uses Them?” National Geographic, National Geographic Society, 3 May 2019,

On-Call Wetland Biologists in the southeastern United States

Ecology and Environment, Inc. is seeking on-call Wetland Biologists in the southeastern United States (North and Central Florida, South Georgia, South Alabama, Southern Mississippi, Eastern Louisiana). These positions are primarily to support our renewable and commercial energy sectors during the year-round southeastern field season. Our successful candidate will have experience with wetland delineations and knowledge of the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Regional Supplements.

• Wetland delineations
• Plant and habitat surveys
• Floristic surveys
• Special status species surveys
• Data processing and review

• Bachelor’s Degree in Biology, Environmental Science, Wildlife or closely related discipline
• 3 – 5 years of relevant experience including leading wetland delineations; Professional Wetland Scientist certification preferred
• Demonstrated knowledge of the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and Regional Supplements
• Experience with plant and habitat surveys and /or vegetation characterizations; strong botanical skills preferred
• Experience with bat and special status species surveys is an asset
• Experience with tablet-based field data collection and Trimble hand-held GPS units
• Preference for individuals with CPR/First Aid Training
• Strong interpersonal, verbal, and written communication skills
• Ability to travel to project site(s), walk for several miles, work in extreme temperatures, rough terrain and work independently in remote areas
• Proficient in Microsoft Word and Excel
• Excellent interpersonal skills with the ability to work independently and as part of a team
• Ability to travel to support business needs
• A valid driver’s license

We are a global network of innovators and problem solvers, dedicated professionals and industry leaders in scientific, engineering, and planning disciplines working together with our clients to develop technically sound, science-based solutions to the leading environmental challenges of our time. E & E offers opportunities for growth in a team-oriented environment. Candidates must be eligible to work in the U.S.; Visa sponsorship will not be provided.

Please view our website at to apply online.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. is an EO and AA employer – M/F/Vets/Disabled/and other protected categories.

Using a Laser Level for Ecological Studies

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 9

The use of a survey grade level is critical for obtaining accurate measurements of various biological features, biological benchmarks, etc.  This information is used for many purposes including stream restoration, coastal restoration, wetland restoration, and other design purposes.

There are two types of levels used for construction and design. The older of the two is known as the Dumpy level. This level is like a spotting scope with crosshairs. It is highly accurate (despite its name) and also has an added advantage of being able to measure distance. However, it does require much more work to operate and is limited to a range of about 30 feet.  It also requires two people to operate.

Laser levels are the other commonly used measuring tool and are a great improvement over the Dumby levels. The major benefit is that the distance away from the level is pretty much as far as you can see.  This reduces the number of station moves and speeds the process along.  You also only need to have one person to operate the level.

There is a third option which is to use a surveyor total station. This, however, is a very complicated process and usually beyond the level of detail needed for most biological assessments.  A corollary to this is the use of GPS.  GPS is great for x and y coordinates, but it is often meters off on the elevation (z).

Laser Levels

You do not need to spend a lot of money to purchase a quality laser level. You can often find these for sale in big box home improvements stores and hardware stores.  They are around a couple of hundred dollars.  You can also rent one from a survey supply shop for about $20-$30 per day.  They will also be happy to sell you one if you need to use it more than just a few times.  Survey grade levels are usually in the $500 to $1000 range.  This is worth the investment if this type of work is a regular thing for you.  Also, do not cheap out on the box.  The level will get bounced around so you will need a quality instrument case.  This is sometimes a problem with the home center levels.

The laser receiver is usually included with the laser level.  This is a little box that attaches to the survey rod with thumb screws.  It takes batteries and makes a tone when the laser beam from the level hits it.

You also need legs. The level should be placed upon a quality tripod. This is not the same type as you use for a camera. Survey grade tripods are usually made of wood or aluminum and have steel spikes to set it into the ground.  The legs are adjustable so that you can level your level. The level should be about chest high when mounted so the tripod needs to be 4-5 feet high when set up.

Next on your shopping list is a survey rod. You want to get the smallest rod that will serve the purposes of the site work you are doing. A 12-foot rod is much better than a 25-foot rod if you only need to go up a few feet. The bigger the rod the more sway you have and the measurements will be less accurate. However, if you have a steep slope on your site a bigger rod may be necessary.

You will also need a measuring tape or carpenter’s rule.  It is better to get one that is calibrated to 1/10’s of a foot rather than inches.  The survey rod is almost always in 1/10’s of a foot, however, make sure you are not using some sort of metric rod.  That really clean rod in the back of the tool closet that nobody uses might be there for a reason.

Set Up

The first thing that you want to do is take a walk around the area that you need to survey. You want to find the best place to set up the level so that you do not need to move it more than necessary. Keep an eye on slope, trees and other obstructions.  The level needs a clear line of sight. You can clear some of the vegetation away, but it is usually easier to find a spot that would require the least amount of work to get your shots. The tripod should be set up above the highest point you are going to survey. You need to include the height of the level receiver on the rod when you are making this estimate. This translates to about 5 feet above your highest point. The level needs to be able to “see” the receiver.  If the level is set is too low it will shoot below the receiver mounted on the rod.  You can move the receiver down, but that would require that you recalculate for those shots.

Keep the level in the box until you are ready to place it on the tripod.  Do not attach it to the tripod and then walk around with it.  It should be boxed when moving it around the site.

Set the legs up on as level a surface as you can. Adjust the legs so that the level mounting plate is fairly level. You can use a hand level to do this or the bubble level on the laser level itself.

The laser level attaches to the tripod by way of a large screw below the mounting plate. Do not tighten this too much until you have leveled the level. There are three or four leveling screws on the level. There is also a glass bubble level on the mounting plate. Adjust the leveling screws so that the level is dead on the level in all directions. This will require that you spin the level around and make adjustments. If you have attempted to level the tripod before you mounted the level, this will go fairly quickly.  It is critical that the level is mounted level. Otherwise, your data is junk.

Instrument Height

There is usually a marking on the level where you should measure downwards to the ground. We are also going to determine the height of the instrument using the back site, but you should always measure the distance from the instrument to the ground. We don’t really use this data, but it seems that it is always done. It is sort of a cross check.


You should place a project benchmark somewhere near the level set up. This serves as your project control and can be surveyed for real later if you need to derive actual elevation points from your level runs. This control should be set using a pin, rod, pipe or other relatively permanent makers. Wooden stakes do not work as they can be easily removed or damaged.

The backsight elevation is any number that makes sense. The convention is to set it at 100.  You may come back later in drag control onto the site to determine the actual elevation, but that is not necessary for this type of work.

The laser level indicator should be attached to the rod, usually at the tip. Note the location of the indicator. For example, it is on the rod at 4.5 feet.  Most telescopic rods have a height indicator on the back of the rod.  As you raise the rod the height indicator numbers will change.  Be careful to raise the rod in the proper order.  This varies with some rod types so be sure to check with the manufacturer on the use of the rod.

A Direct Elevation Rod or a “ Lenker Rod ” is the most common type and has numbers in reverse order on a graduated strip that revolves around the rod on rollers. Figures run down the rod and can be brought to the desired reading—for example, the elevation of a point or benchmark. Rod readings are preset for the backsight, and then, due to the reverse order of numbers, foresight readings give elevations directly without calculating backsights and foresights.

Turn the laser on and position the rod on the benchmark and raise the rod until you hear a steady tone. You will usually hear a slow chip when you are just below the laser beam and a fast chirp when you go past it.  Note the rod reading. That is your backsight reading. Add the elevation from the benchmark rod reading and you have your height of instrument (HI).

For example, your benchmark is elevation 100.  Your rod reading on that benchmark is 4.06.  Therefore, your Height of Instrument (HI) is 104.06’.  Your benchmark elevation should be lower than the instrument ground location.  If not, you need to adjust the detector and do some more math. It can be done, but it takes more time.

Now you are ready to go to work on the foresight.

Position the rod directly on the ground at each feature shot. The rod should be straight up and down. There are plumb levels you can attach to the rod to help you.  Some laser detectors will also beep at you if you are too far out of plumb.

Raise the rod until you hear that steady tone. Note the rod reading. Make sure that you raised the rod in the right order and that the numbers are being read correctly.  Usually, this is a matter of checking reality.  If your rod reading suddenly jumps by 5 feet from the last point you may have raised the rod sections in the wrong order.

Record each feature and provide some notes.  A level book works great for this.  This is an example of a level book set up.

Set  Up  1






















At each feature subtract the foresight (FS) from the Height of Instrument (HI) to derive the elevation.

In this example, we have a 1.28’ difference from mid tide (MT) to Mean High Water (MHW).  We can, therefore, assume that our total tidal exchange would be 2.56’ from Mean Low Water (MLW) to MHW.

We would need to check many other points. Usually, for a biological benchmark survey, we would to stationing along a cross-section.  Each feature would be relative to the feature type and its location on the cross-section.  In our example above, the distance from the MT to MHW is 25’.  This is measured by setting a fixed starting point at 0+00 and measuring along that line.

If you need to move the level you will need to calculate a new HI.  Make sure to reference the setup with the data.  Start a new table for a new set up.

Finally, if you need to determine the real elevations of your features survey the benchmark. This will require a surveyor to locate nearby elevation control and drag that onto the site using traverse lines. You can also use high-end GPS for this.  In our example above the real elevation for the benchmark is 456’ NAVD 88.  Our new HI is 460.06.  We need to make sure we cite the vertical data source. In this case, it is North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Therefore our MT is 453.43’ NAVD 88 and the MHW is 454.71’ NAVD 88. You can do this for all of the data associated with the benchmark.

One final note of caution

If you are doing level runs for design purposes, you may or may not need a licensed land surveyor to sign off on them.  However, if you are doing any floodplain calculation work you will most likely need the help of a licensed surveyor. Some jurisdictions allow licensed professional engineers to do this as well. This is a matter of state and federal law so be careful and ask questions.

Natural Shorelines

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 8

After studying the effects of Hurricane Irene on the Outer Banks of NC, scientists faced some surprising data.  The surprising part was that so little information was available on the resilience of coastlines. Environmental Scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Rachel Gittman, was quoted saying, “The more I researched, the more I realized that we just don’t know very much. So much policy and management are being made without the underlying science.” (1) Scientists understood the physics, but it was never put in a form the policymakers could easily understand. 

As Gittman was studying the shorelines, she noted that concrete walls were out weathered by the marshes. Irene damaged 76% of bulkheads surveyed, while no damage to other shoreline protection options was detected. However, in terms of habitat loss statistics, 30 to 50 percent of wetlands have already been lost, 19 percent of mangroves were lost from 1980–2005, and 75 percent of the world’s coral reefs are now rated as threatened. (3) 

Almost all money, historically, to protect the coastline has been spent on “gray infrastructure.” These include bulkheads, levees, seawalls, and rock revetments.  However, as research on “green” coastal protection is measured in the long term, this is beginning to change. It has become clear that living shorelines are a great defense against storms and surges.   

“Living shorelines” is a term used to define shoreline protection allowing for natural coastal processes to remain through the strategic placement of plants, stone, sand fill, and other structural and organic materials. (4) Yet the value of these ecosystems considered as “green infrastructure” is still not fully accepted or understood by policymakers, and these valuable ecosystems continue to be lost and degraded. Wetlands across the U.S. and the world continue to disappear at a rapid rate due to global warming, increased populations, and infrastructure. 

Storm responses suggest that marshes with and without sills are more durable than hard structures and may protect shorelines from erosion better than bulkheads in a Category 1 storm. Wetlands, i.e. marshes, coral reefs, and mangroves, prevented $625 million of damage during Irene from flooding although 60-90 percent of protective wetlands had been previously lost.  Coastal and marine ecosystems, particularly coral reefs and mangroves can reduce exposure to wind and waves, and they provide natural protection. Coral reefs are the most effective system for flood control. They form natural sea walls where nature intended and, thus, reduce wave energy up to 97%. Reviving reefs and mangrove ecosystems are also more cost-effective than artificial breakwater construction and maintenance.   

After Hurricane Irene, the vegetation in marshes was reduced, but the vegetation only took a year to replenish and become even thicker, and denser than prior to Irene.  However, scientists are now finding that a sill (a berm that is in front of the seaside edge) will bear the brunt of wave energy and will also trap sediment, so the grasses thrive. The marsh floor is sometimes built up as a result.  The sills are green protection and made of hard materials like rock, shells and stone or concrete.  

Along the San Francisco shoreline, restoration is taking on the most novel structure called horizontal levees.  Instead of a vertical wall, horizontal levees are mudflats, marshes, and grasslands that are broad and rise from the edge of the water sometimes hundreds of meters back onto land.  These types of levees are 40% of the cost of a traditional levee.   

NOAA has recently taken living shorelines to the center stage of its coastal resilience plan. 

Some of the recent legislation is: 

  • San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure passed  in 2016 which allocates $25 million a year for 20 years,  
  • The Living Shorelines Act which designates $20 million in grants to living shoreline work,  
  • North Carolina’s Coastal Resources Commission has approved an easier way to get a living shoreline permit, now comparable to the permit required for a bulkhead, and  
  • Maryland has a strong law requiring property owners to prove the need for a bulkhead as opposed to a living shoreline.  

“Benefit-cost analysis” policy now favors investment in natural infrastructure and coastal restoration may be getting some well-deserved attention. This emphasis should result in federally funded projects in Florida, Puerto Rico and the Gulf Coast. The importance of coastal resilience and natural shorelines will guide development worldwide. “When this happens, it will mark a moment when society realizes nature is not a luxury. It is the future.” (1) 


(1) Rowan Jacobsen, “Beyond Seawalls,” Scientific American, Vol. 320 Number 4, April 2019. 

(2) Gittman, Rachel K., “Marshes with and without Sills Protect Estuarine Shorelines from Erosion Better Than Bulkheads during a Category 1 Hurricane,” Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 102, Part A, Pages 94-102; December 2014. 

(3) Beck, M.W., Lange, G.M. “Managing Coasts with Natural Solutions: Guidelines for Measuring and Valuing the Coastal Protection Services of Mangroves and Coral Reefs,” World Bank, January 2016. 

(4) Living Shorelines Academy: 

The Threat of Toxic Algae and Aquatic Dead Zones

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 7

The last few decades have seen an increase in efforts to better understand the toxic algae and oxygen-hungry aquatic dead zones that have been appearing around the world. These threats are currently two of the largest dangers facing the world’s oceans and freshwater reserves. Little benefit has emerged from increased research, however. In fact, recent evidence suggests that such algae and dead zone hotspots are growing in size, and pose greater threats to fisheries and consumable drinking water.

Studies published in Science, a respected scientific journal, suggest that both phenomena are effects of the increased amounts of fertilizer, manure, and wastewater running into lakes, rivers, and oceans. Such studies have received backing from the U.S. National Science Foundation and other similar institutions.

August 2014 saw the drinking water plant in Toledo, Ohio, one of the largest cities located on the Great Lakes, closed due to a toxic bloom. This was the first time that a large American city has faced such an incident. However, since 2004 toxic algae infestations have shut down water supplies to more than 3 million people over 3 continents. Outbreaks to Australia’s Murray River, China’s Lake Taihu, and Kenya’s Lake Victoria are only a few instances of the problem escalating on a global scale.

When algae blooms die, the areas that they once consumed become dead zones. These low-oxygen areas decompose, causing the fish and other wildlife native to the habitat to either flee or die as a result of the new water conditions. Similar to toxic algae outbreaks, the amount of dead zones are increasing. A 2008 study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science discovered over 400 dead zones that together cover 245,000 square kilometers worldwide.

If these obstacles are not addressed, then the events that occurred in 2007 to China will act as a warning to what the world can expect in the future. Significant algae bloom affected Lake Taihu—a 2,250-square-kilometer lake that supplies water to over 10 million people for consumption, as well as for industrial and agricultural purposes—and left 2 million people without water. It took a month to clean the lake and restore full drinking water service. The inhabitants of the nearby city of Wuxi were forced to only drink from bottled water for the duration of the cleansing period.

Hans Paerl, a professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill who worked to curb the algae in Lake Taihu, claimed, “We are using Lake Taihu as a looking glass for how bad things could get here [in the U.S.].” He said that “back in the ’90s, the lake had gone through a state change where the blooms initially started appearing but were not too serious.” However, he continued, “Within a matter of 5 to 10 years, the lake shifted to a situation where blooms started to pop up in the spring and persist through the summer. The change is very extreme. Now, blooms start in early May and run all the way into November—more than half the year.”

Paerl concluded that in order to remedy the problem in China, the amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen running into the Lake Taihu must be reduced by 50 percent. Considering the incident at Lake Taihu is viewed as a warning of what may happen to the United States in the future, it is reasonable to expect that similar proposals may be made in the not so distant future as prevention measures.

These phenomena do more than only cause environmental trouble, however—they also prove to be large economic obstacles. The increase in toxic algae blooms and aquatic dead zones cause a loss in seafood sales, higher drinking water costs, losses to livestock, and lower tourism revenues. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimates that the U.S. loses 82 million dollars annually due to toxic algae and dead zones on coastal waters—a much lower number than those of Australia and the European coastal countries.

The combination of environmental and economic qualities makes the handling of toxic algae and aquatic dead zones a possible major talking point in upcoming political conversations.

Wigginton, Nicholas S., January 2015, Droughts and Dead Zones on the Rise, Science, Vol 347, Issue 6220, pp 385-386

Toxic Algae Blooms May Be Longer, More Intense Due To Climate Change, Huffington Post

Waters of the US 2019 Comments

Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 06

I would like to share our public comment on the 2019 WOTUS rule below. Be sure to send in your comments to EPA before April 15, 2019. Please feel free to use our comments to help you expand on any of the issues we have presented. You can comment on our post below, but it is more important that you send your thoughts and questions to the EPA. Try to avoid seminar comments and only send in thoughtful and insightful topics. The Agencies tend to ignore the bulk mail type comments. The link to submit your comments is here:

Best, Marc

Writing on behalf of the Swamp School, LLC I respectfully request that the government respond to my questions and comments pertaining to the proposed Waters of the US definition as published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2019.

The Constitution of the United States grants the US government certain powers to regulate interstate and foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 8 known as the “Commerce Clause.” This power extends to any activity that would effect an economic change between states, tribes and nations.

The United States government through its many agencies has published numerous reports documenting the economic importance of water resource management. These include studies on flooding, water quality, wildlife resources, agricultural management and many more. These underscore the economic important of aquatic resources associated with wetlands and waterways throughout the nation.

With the passage of the Clean Water Act, Congress formally acknowledged that it had a sovereign duty to protect the aquatic resources of the nation and adopted a policy that all wetlands and waterways were jurisdictional waters regardless of the size, source or direction of flow. This was demonstrated by the fact that in the initial round of nationwide permits released by the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the nationwide 26 permit authorized fill into small headwater systems.

While this permit was extremely unpopular with environmental protection groups, it does acknowledge that the Corps had jurisdiction over these small ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial systems and was regulating what Congress had intended to protect.

In 2001, a decision by the US Supreme Court in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, resulted in a change of policy on what the Corps would regulate as waters of the US. This is the only case that has come before the Supreme Court that has resulted in a reduction of jurisdictional wetlands. However, this case has been misinterpreted with regards to isolated wetlands for years. The Court did not rule that isolated wetlands are non-jurisdictional rather, that the Migratory Bird Rule in of itself did not provide the commerce nexus to make the wetlands on the site, jurisdictional. The issue of whether the wetlands on site were jurisdictional was not resolved. That was not the case put before the Court. Simply put, the Migratory Bird Rule did not provide the jurisdictional nexus. However, the issue of what may provide the jurisdictional nexus was never discussed.

I respectfully request that the government respond to this comment with a confirmation and explanation of how the SWANCC decision has been interpreted in the proposed rule. Specifically, I am asking the Agencies to comment on the fact that the SWANCC decision has resulted in a misinterpretation by the Agencies, that all isolated wetlands are non-jurisdictional. This seems to be the basis for excluding many wetlands in the proposed rule and I am concerned that there may be a misrepresentation of fact and law in the rule.

The second issue of concern relates to how the proposed rule affects the farm community. It has been represented by the EPA that this new rule is somehow a win for the farmers. This is a gross misinterpretation of how wetlands affect farming.

The Food Security Act Manual defines wetlands as having the presence of hydric soils, wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology consistent with the Corps wetland manuals. It does not make the distinction that a wetland must be a jurisdictional waters of the US in order to receive protection under the Food Security Act (FSA). The FSA provides subsidies to farmers who avoid wetland impacts and penalizes farmers who do impact wetlands by revoking subsidies as adjudicated by the National Appeals Division of the USDA.

In short, the proposed rule appears to remove the CWA violations from impact to some wetlands by farmers, but it does not address the FSA penalties. At issue, is that under the new rule, the USDA, EPA, and Corps all have a different definition of what a wetland is.

How does the US EPA and Corps plan on addressing the issue of farmers losing farm subsidies as a result of impacting a non-jurisdictional wetland? At the very least they should be informed of the risk.

During the December 11, 2018 presentation, Secretary Wheeler (USEPA) went to great lengths to describe how easy it should be for anyone to look out onto the landscape and know what is jurisdictional and what is not. This is overly simplified and very unrealistic. Wetland science has evolved over the years and we have a much greater understanding of the nature of wetlands and their borders than we did when the CWA was first passed.

Land management is a complex process requiring many different disciplines to safely and responsibly develop a project to ensure highest and best use, balanced with the least possible environmental impact. Imagining that someone could just look out across the landscape and divine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands heralds us back to a time when rivers were catching fire and was a major reason for the passage of the Clean Water Act in the first place. Quite frankly, it undermines the credibility of the EPA as it represents a failure to uphold the laws with which they are tasked to enforce and a complete disregard for the state of the science of wetlands.

Furthermore, if anyone can identify a wetland, then it is required that the EPA and Corps present an economic analysis of the job loss associated with the civil and environmental engineering professions. A review of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data for wetland-related jobs estimates that over 500,000 individuals work with and around wetland science. A 500,000-person layoff would certainly have a significant economic impact that needs to be addressed. To date, this has not been discussed by the Corps or EPA and I respectfully request that this be addressed with an economic analysis as required by the Administrative Procedures Act.

In addition, there is an entire wetland and stream restoration industry that would be directly affected by the loss of wetlands and the streams being regulated. This is a billion-dollar industry with individual projects often in the millions. If there is no longer a need to replace certain wetlands and streams that have been lost, then there would be a significant reduction in wetland and stream mitigation services. The lack of regulation for what has been historically regulated would result in significant tax revenue loss related to this industry alone. Can the Agencies provide a detailed analysis of the tax revenue lost and a description on how they plan to mitigate this significant economic impact to the US Treasury?

To counter an expected Agency response to the aforementioned tax loss it is expected that the Agencies would cite some sort of economic gain as a result of not having to spend money on mitigation by a permittee. However, even if a wetland or stream were to be deemed non-jurisdictional the permittee would need to spend significant money and time to verify that the area in questions is in fact non-jurisdictional. The fines for filling a wetland or stream are significant, and a landowner would be undertaking an extremely risky process to do it on their own despite Secretary Wheeler’s comments.

Most land developers are more concerned with uncertainty and time delays for their projects. It is unlikely that they would proceed with some sort of “do-it-yourself” business model for land assessment. Because it is very unclear what constitutes a jurisdictional nexus, this tends to be their biggest concern. Most developers would rather write a check for mitigation and proceed with their project, rather than some sort of protracted jurisdictional review. Time is truly money and generally the cost of mitigation, while expensive tends to fall in line with the cost of doing business and has proven not to be an impediment. What has proven to be an impediment is long delays for jurisdictional reviews often running into years. Please explain the process of how the Agencies will be accelerating the jurisdictional review process, especially “jurisdictional determination only” requests as outlined in the Corps’ RGL 16-1. Please also detail the costs associated with the new hires EPA and the Corps will need to bring on to manage these jurisdictional determination requests. If this is an unfunded mandate to the Agency’s rank and file, then please detail the time delays associated with the current and projected workload.

On a technical note, there is a significant issue with the EPA and Corps understanding of the water cycle. This seems odd as the last administration published a detailed report documenting the connectivity of wetlands to downstream waters. It would appear that both the Corps and the EPA are abandoning the scientific findings of their report. Is this to satisfy a political agenda or are there new scientific discoveries that are the basis for the proposed rule? I would appreciate a direct answer to this question.

The proposed rule excludes both ephemeral systems and groundwater. As it would appear the Agencies need a review of the water cycle I will explain. When it rains water falls from the sky creating storm water (ephemeral flow). This flow makes its way across the landscape infiltrating into the ground and creating groundwater. Some wetlands and many intermittent and perennial stream systems are intersected by groundwater as the systems major source of water. It would appear that this groundwater nexus (often associated with the hyporheic zone) would not result in a water of the US. This is at complete odds with the aforementioned EPA Science Advisory Board’s report.

Similarly, since these same systems receive rain on a regular basis, this is also a major source of non-jurisdictional hydrology. I am unclear as to what other sources of water would support any wetland or stream system. Could the EPA and Corps clarify where the water would have to come from in order for a wetland or stream to become a waters of the US? High humidity, perhaps?

The proposed rule states that is is based upon the “Scalia” opinion in the Rapanos case brought before the Supreme Court. At issue, is that there was no majority opinion in that case and it was vacated. How do the Corps and EPA plan to reconcile the fact that the entire premise of the proposed regulation is based upon a vacated and undecided case? The result of the case was that the wetlands in question were deemed jurisdictional by the lower courts and Rapanos had to pay a fine and mitigate and Carabell did not get his permit. Basing any regulation on a failed court ruling seems irresponsible and I would appreciate an explanation on the Agencies justification for this.

The issue of ditches is also a concern. If a wetland or waterway results in some sort of interstate commerce it is up to the government to regulate it (Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution). This has been the test brought before the courts for years. The only purpose of a ditch is to drain the landscape for some economic purpose. A roadside ditch keeps water off the road so that interstate trucking can proceed. A farm ditch allows a farmer to drain the land so they can grow crops that they can sell to other states or nations. Flood control ditches are used to prevent or reduce economic hardship in flood prone areas that may result in job and property loss. In short, the only purpose of a ditch is to support commerce. Therefore, should not all ditches be regulated as waters of the US?

Lastly, there is the issue of how the states will manage a non-waters of the US. These are not assumable 404(g) waters. If the state wishes to regulate a vernal pool for example, it would have to pass legislation to do so. As there is no federal jurisdiction, the state is left to “condemn” these types of wetlands under an eminent domain process and the landowner would be entitled to some compensation for the loss of use pursuant to the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act. It is unlikely that the states have the funds to do this. So, it is a bit disingenuous to assume that the states can just pick these up. What mechanism would the states use to manage these non-404(g), non-jurisdictional wetlands?

In summary, I believe that this proposed regulation is fatally flawed and will result in much more confusion, legal challenges, job loss, and economic hardship. It was always Congress’s intent that all wetlands and waterways were waters of the US. The problem arose in the last administration’s attempts to redefine what a water of the US is. The idea that something is not a waters of the US means that you can do whatever you want to it is misguided, especially if you are a farmer. Perhaps, rather than focusing on the definition, the Corps could reexamine its Nationwide permit program to allow for more latitude in some of the permits.

On a final note, I know I have been highly critical of this proposed rule. I want to issue a shout out to both the EPA and Army Corps rank and file. I know very few of you have had anything to do with the rule and my comments are not directed at you. I have the greatest admiration for the hard work you do and I know that you are working under very difficult times. It is a shame that this topic has become a purely political one and I look forward to a time when we can all get back to work managing our natural resources in a responsible manner.


Marc Seelinger, Director

The Swamp School


Water Usage and Reservoirs

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 5

Water is the single most important chemical required for life on Earth. Animals and plants are both dependent on it and can only survive a matter of days without it. There are many theories as to how water appeared on our planet. It could have come from space as part of the original nebula of gases expanding out after the big bang, possibly from comets and asteroids colliding with our planet, or maybe it was always here and was released from the ground as our planet cooled enough to retain the water. Perhaps, it was a combination of many factors. Whatever the original source, the Earth’s water supply is now essentially constant, with no new water being made or destroyed, just recirculated as part of the hydrologic cycle.

As the population of the world continues growing exponentially, the demand for water for humans, agriculture, and industry is also growing exponentially. Building dams has often been the answer when people need more water. However, the impact of dams on the water supply is unsustainable.

The history of population growth in Las Vegas is a perfect example. Many decades ago the city was growing tremendously and the population was expected to reach 400,000 by the year 2000, so a pipeline was built to Lake Mead above the Hoover Dam in Nevada. This, in turn, created a false sense of abundance of water and the population grew almost four times higher than what was predicted.

Dams give communities a false sense of security because they cover up the natural phenomena of droughts that often occur in the heat of the summer. People don’t feel the impact of the droughts, so their water usage remains constant, rather than considering rationing. In a similar way, the city of New Orleans was built behind a levee. While the levee can sustain small floods, it could not hold off a large storm like Katrina. The city was built on a floodplain and the levees created a false sense of protection from floods.

The US began constructing dams after World War II and construction in the US reached its peak during the 1960s.  Currently, though, the rate for decommissioning dams now exceeds the rate of new dam construction.

A previous article in the Swamp Stomp mentioned some of the drawbacks of building dams on rivers, such as the effects on water quality, and increased contamination, but a “dam-building boom” is happening in developing countries today. Western funding agencies are pushing the construction of dams in underdeveloped countries although the social and environmental impacts may outweigh the benefits.

Building dams in the Middle East has caused disastrous shortages downriver in many countries. Dams on the Euphrates River in Turkey have cause water shortages in Iraq and Syria. Dams on the Colorado River impact downstream cities in Mexico, leaving a dry riverbed in some cases.  Many years, the Colorado never even reaches the ocean. The cause and effect of such impacts are obvious. People in wealthy countries don’t envision the repercussions of their actions on others that are outside their realm of thought.

Climate change is also affecting the Earth’s water supply.  Rising sea levels could mean that saltwater could intrude into groundwater and our drinking supplies, especially in low-lying coastal areas, making the water undrinkable. Flooding due to extreme rainfall would cause sewers to overflow, also contaminating our fresh drinking water resources. These are just a few of the effects of climate change on our water supply.

The irony is that with 70% of the Earth covered in water, there really is no shortage of water. The problem is that 97% of it is salt water, and of the 3% that is freshwater, 2% is locked up in glaciers and in the polar ice caps.

The alternative seems simple enough: conserve water. Water saved by installing water-efficient fixtures and appliances in the home and in industry can reduce water use by 20%.  Just finding and repairing leaks in homes and in municipal distribution systems, could increase the water supply by 900 billion gallons a year, equivalent to the annual consumption for 11 million homes.

One example of how conservation can help can be seen in the cities of Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Albuquerque. They would not be able to sustain their increasing populations without current reservoirs, however, due to conservation measures; the usage of water in the Southwest has remained flat since the 1980s, regardless of the rising populations.

Besides conservation, another method for easing water shortages is to capture and retain more rainwater. Captured rainwater is a great source of clean water that can be used for many things like watering lawns and gardens, washing, and toilet flushing, not to mention drinking water.

Seventy percent of freshwater used globally is used for irrigation. This usage that can have a tremendous impact on our water supply especially since it has been shown that half of the water used in irrigation doesn’t even get to the crops. Newer sprinkler and drip-irrigation technology uses much less water and reduces the “non-beneficial” consumption by 54% and 76% respectively.

Dams and reservoirs are not a bad solution, but the social, environmental, and economic costs and benefits should be evaluated for their long-term effects. As the population continues to rise, global warming will continue to impact our water cycle, and dams will continue to be built. There really is no one solution to this problem but unless people take a more active role in conservation and invest themselves in protecting the world’s water supply, some day, the faucets may just run dry.

1. Gies, Erica, “Do Dams Increase Water Use?,” Scientific American, Feb. 18, 2019,

2. Nicklow, John W., Water Encyclopedia.

Dams and Rivers – Maybe not a Good Fit

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 4

Rivers and streams are an integral part of the hydrologic cycle of water that occurs throughout the world, transporting rainwater from river basins upstream, to locations downstream and ultimately to the oceans. Along the way, they support fish and wildlife habitats, provide us with drinking water and irrigation, and help provide recreation and other useful functions. When a dam is built on one of them, for whatever reason, the equation changes. There are many obvious and but also sometimes subtle changes to ecosystems. For example, the increased transmission of malaria has been directly linked to dam construction in reservoirs in Southeast Asia and Africa.

Through 2015, dams have disrupted the flow of water to more than half of Earth’s major rivers with approximately 57,000 large dams being built. Millions of people worldwide have been displaced by the construction of dams, in the name of flood mitigation, hydroelectric power, water storage, and recreation.

The loss of forests, wetlands, and wildlife through inundation is one obvious effect of dams. Another effect is that by eliminating the natural flooding of an area we are affecting its ecological balance and this can cause major shifts in species diversity or even the possible loss of a species as in the case of the Tellico Dam project in Tennessee and the endangered Snail Darter.

A contamination problem that is pervasive in reservoirs is the accumulation of high levels of mercury in fish. Mercury is harmless in its organic form, occurring naturally in soils, but decomposing organic matter can transform this mercury into a toxic form called methylmercury. Methylmercury passes up the food chain and becomes dangerously concentrated. Levels of methylmercury in large fish at the top of the food chain can be high, and human consumption of these fish can cause central nervous system poisoning.

Dams affect the deposition of sediment downstream and within the reservoir. The sediment that would normally flow downriver now gets piled behind the dam. The disruption of the natural flow and deposition of sediment downstream leads to increased erosion of the riverbanks and streambeds for hundreds of kilometers downstream from the dam.  Silt from floodwaters deters erosion of delta wetlands and is instrumental in the dispersal of organic nutrients from the outflow of rivers. Without the floodwaters making their way to these natural landforms, the salinity can increase downstream. This has a severe impact on delicate eco-structures of estuarine and coastal wetland ecosystems.

Large temperature changes within a dam reservoir can affect many species of aquatic plankton, invertebrates, mollusks and fish that are extremely sensitive to even mild thermal changes. The water temperature regime of these large reservoirs is altered from its natural state behind the dams. Water channels downstream are also affected as water is released from the dam. Sensitive organisms must either adapt, relocate or die.

An additional concern with the impact of dams on the environment is degraded water quality.  Organics that would normally get washed downstream get built up behind the structure and consume large amounts of oxygen when they decompose. This can result in algal blooms. Rivers that are dammed don’t have the natural transport of sediment that is critical to having a healthy organic riverine channel.

Fish migration depends on a steady flow of a river to guide them to their spawning grounds. Dams can increase the time it takes for migration. While fish ladders and elevators have been installed in some dam structures, getting to them can be devastatingly tedious.

Dams transform the upstream, free-flowing river ecosystem to an artificial, stagnant pond in the reservoir. The changes in temperature, chemical composition, dissolved oxygen levels, and physical properties are not viable to the plants and animals that originally evolved with the river system. Reservoirs host non-native, and invasive species as a result.

Today, many dams that were once at the epicenter of a community’s livelihood that is now old, unsafe or no longer serving their intended purposes and is being removed to restore ecological balance. Trying to weigh the need for developing additional water resources while conserving the environment will continue to impact future generations.


1. “Environmental Impact of Dams”, International Rivers 

2. “Problems and Benefits of Building a Dam,” Education Center Online. 2019

3. “The Downside of Dams: Is the Environmental Price of Hydroelectric Power Too High?”   Scientific American. rivers/

4. “How Dams Impact Rivers,” American Whitewater,

For Utility Companies, 2019 Could Prove Interesting.

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 3

The demand for electricity has been continuously rising for the past 100 years.  Today, however, the demand is flat, and utilities are having to rethink their growth plans.  The US utility sector was originally built around the idea of perpetual growth in the industry. Now the utility companies are realizing that this may not be the case.

A decrease in energy usage should be good news because it means people are either finding cheaper, more efficient ways to use electricity or they are using less.  Either way, that’s a win-win for the environment. At the same time though, utility companies are slowly watching their revenues dry up.  The original models for the utility industry will have to change with the times. Utilities need to devise new ways to earn revenue, mostly through services, not products, as they have in the past.

The costs involved in the production of renewable energy are getting cheaper every year, and natural gas production is higher than it has ever been. U.S. natural gas exports at the beginning of 2018 were twice the 2017 average. Huge amounts of natural gas are being produced by extraction from shale and other sedimentary rock formations. With the abundance of relatively cheap, clean-burning natural gas, burning coal to produce electricity is no longer a competitive alternative, a big change from the past.

What this means for the future of the utility companies is still not clear. There are two kinds of utility companies, government-owned and Investor-Owned Utility Companies or (IOUs).  The IOUs are not permitted to make money on the actual selling of electricity. They make their money by earning a rate-of-return on power plants and the infrastructure that goes along with it. IOUs are struggling now because their infrastructure investments have dried up, along with their profits and the interests of stakeholders. Future profits are no longer guaranteed.

Utilities are trying to adapt by merging and diversifying into larger conglomerates.   Duke Energy bought Piedmont Natural Gas and has diversified its business by spinning off a company to transport natural gas.  Southern Company is taking a similar strategy, buying wind and solar plants across the country.

The U.S. uses 20% of the total electricity of the world, second only to China, while its per capita consumption is almost triple the consumption of China.  In 2017, U.S. consumption of energy came from many sources.  Over the decade 2004-2014, the largest increases in an electrical generation came from natural gas, wind, and solar. Power generation from coal and petroleum has decreased while other electricity sources have either remained constant or decreased.

These days, consumers are expecting more from their utility companies. They expect easy-to-use online interfaces, data about individual usage, and the option to buy energy from alternative energy sources. Self-production of electrical energy from solar panels is a popular option for many.  Consumers are also becoming much smarter about their energy consumption.  Homes are being equipped with upgrades such as Nest thermostats, solar panels, and LED light bulbs that help keep personal electricity costs under control.

With renewable energy sources becoming more financially competitive and energy-saving technology at our fingertips, utility companies must continue to adapt or face a bleak future.

1. Roberts, David, “After rising for 100 years, electricity demand is flat. Utilities are freaking out,” Vox, February 27, 2018. David Roberts, 

2. Hoium, Travis, “Why Consolidation is the Name of the Game In the Utility Space”. The Motley Fool. June 4, 2016.

3. “Natural Gas Explained,” US Energy Information Administration. December 11, 2018.

5. “Energy Dominance,” Department of Energy, Year in Review,

Are Monarch Butterflies Becoming Extinct?

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 19, Issue 2

Since 1997, the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation has organized a count of the migrating western m butterfly.  This was initiated when a large decline in the population of the monarch was noticed in that year. Since then, the count has been taken annually at Thanksgiving, along their migratory path to Mexico and California.

“In 1996, migrating monarchs covered 45 acres of forest in central Mexico, each acre holding an estimated 25 million butterflies. In December 2013, the butterflies covered a mere 1.5 acres. In California, the monarch population has dropped by an estimated 80 percent over the past 15 years.”3. Scientists fear the species will become extinct within the next 20 years, according to a study published in 2017 in the journal, Biological Conservation. Chip Taylor, founder and director of Monarch Watch, states, “Monarchs are symbolic of what’s happening on a larger scale, you eliminate monarchs, and you eliminate everything else that shares that habitat.”3.

The decline in Migrating Monarch Butterflies has become more and more alarming. Although the Western Monarchs have migrated through the western US for centuries, a graph of the last 30 years shows an almost exponential rate of decline. The decline has numerous causes: climate change, deforestation/habitat loss, and the agricultural use of pesticides and herbicides.3. These “problems” can all be traced back to the rapid decline of the milkweed plant in their habitat.

Monarch butterflies are fully dependent on milkweed throughout the growing season of the perennial, so a decline in milkweed populations would greatly influence western monarch butterfly populations. If you’re like most, you might not realize that the monarch butterfly cannot survive without the ample presence of milkweed. This perennial plant is the only plant on which the monarch will lay its eggs. Once the larvae hatch, the caterpillar eats the plant. The two organisms exist in a symbiotic relationship because as the milkweed feeds the caterpillar, the butterfly helps pollinate the milkweed.

For many years, since milkweed is not a cash crop, farmers have removed milkweed fields to grow more corn and soy beans. Whole prairies of milkweed have been mowed to the detriment of the milkweed plant. “A large swath of land that is traveled by monarchs runs through the American corn belt, where most of the crops grown are now genetically engineered and heavily doused with herbicides for weed control.”  

Each year, there are four generations of monarch butterflies that can exist. The migrating monarchs begin by laying eggs on their journey north after hibernation. These eggs are the beginning of the next generation for the coming year. The eggs from the first generation of butterflies become the second generation, and so on. The first three generations’ life cycles are consistent. Each generation of a butterfly’s life cycle takes about 2 months to complete.

The fourth generation’s life cycle however, is longer (from 6-8months) and much different. These are the migrating monarch butterflies – eggs laid by the third generation in the September/October time frame.  When these butterflies hatch, they know their southern path to the warmer climate. The monarch is the only non-bird species that migrates over 2,500 miles to a warmer climate.

The monarch butterflies will spend their winter hibernation in Mexico if they live east of the Rocky Mountains.  If they live west of the Rocky Mountains they hibernate in Southern California.  Interestingly, monarch butterflies use the very same trees each year when they migrate. “Most people don’t understand that the monarch, like so many other insects, have a symbiotic relationship with the plant world,” Flanagan said. “They’re connected to the plant world and so when we’re not seeing them, we have to question what’s going on in the plant world.”2.

Those that want to help the monarch butterfly can do so by creating monarch habitats, planting native gardens, and by helping scientists track the species. For additional ways you can help, please see the USFWS “Save the Monarch Butterfly” website.   

1.“Monarch butterfly population in California plummeted 86 percent in 1 year.”  ABC News 7, Chicago, IL, January 12, 2019,

2.Stafford, Audra, “Agency Sees Decline in Migrating Monarch Butterflies,” NBC News, San Diego, CA, January 11, 2019,

3.Dungan, Ron, “Lowly milkweed may be key to monarch recovery,” The Arizona Republic, April 27, 2014.