Hydric Soils Primer

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 43

Hydric Soils Primer
By Marc Seelinger

I thought we would revisit some of the more fun aspects of wetland science. This week we are going to talk about soils.

One of the most fundamental and often confusing topics concerning soils are those darn hydric soil indicators. There are just so many of them. Each regional supplement can have different ones and sometimes there are tweaks that are region or sub-region specific.

The most basic concept surrounding hydric soil indicators is that they only apply to hydric soils. Now, this may seem a bit obvious but it is critical to the understanding of how the indicators work. Non-hydric soils do not exhibit any of the listed indicators. However, if an indicator is present, it is a positive test for hydric soils. Once that happens it is not usual to find multiple indicators in the same soil profile. If there are no indicators, the soil is not hydric, and no indicators should have been found. This becomes a bit tricky when dealing with remnant hydric soils. Shadows of indicators might be present. However, the soil is not actively hydric. The lack of hydrology indicators may help to confirm this.

The next topic is, “what is it we are looking for?” The hydric soil indicators are based on how three groups of elements respond to the presence of water. It is not just the presence of water, but the anaerobic environment the water creates. These element groups are:

Carbon
Iron and Manganese
Sulfur

The easiest one to spot is sulfur. The soil stinks like rotten eggs. If you have stinky soil you meet one of the hydric soil criteria. Be careful to not misdiagnose the smell. There are lots of stinky things out there. Make sure what you are smelling is hydrogen sulfide.

Iron and manganese are also fairly easy to spot. There is a distinct color change from orange-red to grey in the case of reduced iron. The anaerobic environment chemically changes the color of the soil. Manganese tends to turn black in this wet environment. However, the problem with these is that the color change back to the brighter colors in an aerobic environment may not happen quickly or at all in some cases. Consequently, you need to make sure that you have an active reducing environment by cross-checking your hydrology indicators.

Carbon is perhaps the trickiest. A simple explanation is that a significant amount of organic material (a.k.a. carbon) is present due to the lack of oxygen in the environment. The soil microbes are not able to break the organic material down because they need oxygen to do this. The more the soil is subjected to anaerobic conditions the thicker the layer of undigested carbon becomes. The more organic matter, the more likely the soil will be hydric. It probably stinks too.

To help organize all of the indicators the Corps uses USDA texture classes. Each indicator is grouped based upon its dominant texture. These include sand, loam, and no specific texture.

Sand is the easiest. The texture is sandy like beach sand. All of the indicators have this in common. The funny thing about this one is that the presence of organic matter is a big part of the “S” indicators.

Loam is denoted by the letter “F.” It stands for fine sand or finer. This includes silts and clays. Most of the indicators in the F category are related to iron and manganese color changes.

“All soils” is the last category and is listed as not specific to any one texture type. Many of the poorly-drained organic soil types fall into this category. However, stinky soil also is an “A” indicator. These “all soils” indicators all sort of fall into the category of “other” but with a strong emphasis on organic soils.

One last thought on this soil overview. The thickness of the feature is a new concept. Many of the indicators have thickness requirements. A given soil feature must be a specified thickness in order to count. It may also have to occur at a specified depth, otherwise, the feature does not count. Oh, and by the way, you sometimes can combine features if present, to meet these thickness thresholds.

Have a great week!

– Marc

How significant does a nexus have to be?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 42

How significant does a nexus have to be?
By Marc Seelinger

The issue of what is and is not a significant nexus is center to the new EPA Clean Water Act (CWA) rules. In order for a wetland or other water body to be jurisdictional under the Act, it must have this connection to a navigable waterway. The problem is what is a significant nexus?

This whole issue arose as a result of the Rapanos and Carabell Supreme Court case in 2006. Justice Kennedy coined the term “Significant Nexus” in his lone opinion. It paralleled the plurality’s two-part test involving the receiving waters that have a relatively permanent flow and whether those waters have a continuous surface connection to navigable-in-fact waters. However, he went a step beyond the physical connection and introduced a water quality connection.

One other factor is that the plurality Justices did not feel that dredge or fill material normally washes downstream. Both Justice Kennedy and Justice Stevens in his dissent made it clear that this assertion simply is untrue. Justice Kennedy stated that the discharge of dredged and fill material should be treated the same as the discharge of any other pollutant under the Clean Water Act. Justice Kennedy further stated that the intent of the CWA is to maintain wetlands that provide filtering and other attributes to benefit adjacent bodies of water.

So the problem remains. What is a significant nexus?

There are two types of waters we need to assess. The first one is easy. Simply ask the question, is there a physical connection to a downstream navigable waterway? If the answer is yes, it is jurisdictional.

Now there are many ways a wetland could be connected. But for this analysis, we are more or less limited to surface and shallow subsurface connections of a foot or less. This has been the general rule of thumb since about 2007.

With the new EPA rules, there is discussion on unidirectional and bidirectional flow patterns. This further demonstrates the connection to the navigable waterway. What is new is the introduction of non-wetland areas that have bi-directional water patterns and connections to downstream navigable waters. By default, these areas are connected and therefore jurisdictional. Floodplains are an example of this. By the way, this is new.

The remaining waters are either adjacent wetlands that do not have obvious physical connections. These may also be isolated wetlands. Adjacent wetlands by rule are jurisdictional. Isolated wetlands need to have a significant nexus.

So what is a significant nexus?

If there is no physical connection, you are asked to assess the chemical and biological connectivity to the downstream waters. This was the subject of the recent EPA “Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters”, report that described in great detail how all waters are connected to all other waters. I believe you would have to have a project on the moon in order to not satisfy the connectivity of one water to another based upon the EPA report.

However, that only addresses the concept of nexus. The issue is significant. Pardon the pun.

Really the issue is the significance of the connection. If the connection from one water body to another is altered, can you prove and quantify degradation to the water quality?

The biggest problem that was identified with the EPA report is the lack of discernment of the significance of one connection versus another. The entire report’s premise was to reduce the number of case by case studies on projects. The idea was that the water body is connected therefore it is jurisdictional. However, Justice Kennedy used the word significant. That remains undefined. Neither the new rules nor the recent EPA report quantifies what is significant.

So what is significant?

That is left for you to decide. Is there a significant loss of water quality that would result from your project?

There is also the issue of whether this loss of water quality going to affect commerce? It is not just that the water quality is degraded, but rather that there is an interstate or international economic loss as a result. Without this commerce connection, there can be no jurisdiction thanks to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

One last thought. What if you project improves the downstream economy? Would that still be jurisdictional as Justice Kennedy’s Significant Nexus only speaks to degradation of the downstream water? Just asking.

Wetlands could be key in revitalizing acid streams

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 41

Originally published as “Wetlands could be key in revitalizing acid streams, UT Arlington researchers say.” 2013
Media Contact: Traci Peterson, Office:817-272-9208, Cell:817-521-5494, tpeterso@uta.edu

A team of University of Texas at Arlington biologists working with the U.S. Geological Survey has found that watershed wetlands can serve as a natural source for the improvement of streams polluted by acid rain.

A team of UTA biologists analyzed water samples in the Adirondack Forest Preserve.

The group, led by associate professor of biology Sophia Passy, also contends that recent increases in the level of organic matter in surface waters in regions of North America and Europe – also known as “brownification” – holds benefits for aquatic ecosystems.

The research team’s work appeared in the September issue of the journal Global Change Biology.

The team analyzed water samples collected in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, a six million acre region in northeastern New York. The Adirondacks have been adversely affected by atmospheric acid deposition with subsequent acidification of streams, lakes, and soils. Acidification occurs when environments become contaminated with inorganic acids, such as sulfuric and nitric acid, from industrial pollution of the atmosphere.

Inorganic acids from the rain filter through poorly buffered watersheds, releasing toxic aluminum from the soil into the waterways. The overall result is loss of biological diversity, including algae, invertebrates, fish, and amphibians.

“Ecologists and government officials have been looking for ways to reduce acidification and aluminum contamination of surface waters for 40 years. While Clean Air Act regulations have fueled progress, the problem is still not solved,” Passy said. “We hope that future restoration efforts in acid streams will consider the use of wetlands as a natural source of stream health improvement.”

Working during key times of the year for acid deposition, the team collected 637 samples from 192 streams from the Black and Oswegatchie River basins in the Adirondacks. Their results compared biodiversity of diatoms, or algae, with levels of organic and inorganic acids. They found that streams connected to wetlands had higher organic content, which led to lower levels of toxic inorganic aluminum and decreased presence of harmful inorganic acids.

Passy joined the UT Arlington College of Science in 2001. Katrina L. Pound, a doctoral student working in the Passy lab, is the lead author on the study. The other co-author is Gregory B. Lawrence, of the USGS’s New York Water Science Center.

The study authors believe that as streams acidified by acidic deposition pass through wetlands, they become enriched with organic matter, which binds harmful aluminum and limits its negative effects on stream producers. Organic matter also stimulates microbes that process sulfate and nitrate and thus decreases the inorganic acid content.

These helpful organic materials are also present in brownification – a process that some believe is tied to climate change. The newly published paper said that this process might help the recovery of biological communities from industrial acidification.

Many have viewed brownification as a negative environmental development because it is perceived as decreasing water quality for human consumption.

“What we’re saying is that it’s not entirely a bad thing from the perspective of ecosystem health,” Pound said.

The UTA team behind the paper hopes that watershed development, including wetland construction or stream re-channeling to existing wetlands, may become a viable alternative to liming. Liming is now widely used to reduce acidity in streams affected by acid rain but many scientists question its long-term effectiveness.

The new paper is available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12265/abstract.

Funding for Passy’s work was provided in part by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. The Norman Hackerman Advanced Research Program, a project of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, as well as the US Geological Survey, the Adirondack Lakes Survey Corporation and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation also provided support.

The University of Texas at Arlington is a comprehensive research institution of more than 33,000 students and more than 2,200 faculty members in the heart of North Texas. Visit www.uta.edu to learn more.

Wondiwoi Tree Kangaroos: Not Extinct Anymore!

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 40

Reading about critically endangered species these days, we are often met with disappointing news. Increasing amounts of overhunting, pollution, and other forms of habitat destruction harm numerous species and cause damage to the environment every day. Fortunately, however, there is good news. One species that was considered to be extinct has been sited by scientists for the first time since 1928.

Dendrolagus mayri, better known as the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo, was considered extinct by many until amateur botanist Michael Smith of Farnham, England emerged from the jungles of New Guinea with pictures that told a different story. Ascending to 1,500 to 1,700 meters through dense bamboo thicket, Smith and his party of four Papuan porters, a local hunter, and Norman Terok, who studies at the University of Papua in Manokwari, saw the first Wondiwoi tree kangaroo in ninety years. Smith was able to capture a few pictures of the marsupial, some of the only pictures known to exist of the animal.

Long before Smith was born, Ernst Mayr, one of the most important evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, was the first person to spot the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo. However, that same day he also became the first person on record to shoot a Wondiwoi tree kangaroo, as was normal in 1928 in order to study the species. It was given the Latin designation Dendrolagus mayri in 1933 and has rarely been seen or even described since. Mark Eldridge, a marsupial biologist at the Australian Museum in Sydney, describes the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo as, “one of the most poorly known mammals in the world.” The only true evidence of its existence, before Smith took his camera to New Guinea, was the pelt of Mayr’s tree kangaroo that currently lies in London’s Natural History Museum.

There is little to no debate over whether or not what Smith saw was actually a Wondiwoi tree kangaroo. Tim Flannery, author of Tree Kangaroos: A Curious Natural History, notes that “The images are clear and reveal the distinctive coat color.” Smith had also described the scratch marks distinctive of tree kangaroos on many of the trees nearby as well as the characteristic smell of their dung. Flannery also points out that the habitat where Smith took his pictures would not suit the habitat of other related tree kangaroo species. To Flannery, this suggests that the Wondiwoi tree kangaroo is “amazingly common in a very small area,” of about 40 to 80 square miles.

For the Wondiwoi tree kangaroos, Smith’s pictures are more than just an interesting discovery: his find could result in a breakthrough in the conservation of all species of tree kangaroos. Roger Martin of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia says, “ It makes the point that if we provide habitat and otherwise leave them alone, then they will get on just fine.” Martin refers to the fact that Wondiwoi tree kangaroos live higher up in the bamboo thickets than hunters tend to hunt. The need for conservation of these animals is more important than ever, as a gold mine has been proposed to be built in the Wondiwoi Mountains which could potentially further threaten multiple species of tree kangaroos. Smith also remarks, “All this just shows that you can find interesting things if you simply go and look.” For all we know, the most extinct species may just be waiting to be discovered.

Source:

Pickrell, John. “Rare Tree Kangaroo Reappears After Vanishing for 90 Years.” National Geographic. National Geographic. September 25, 2018. Web. September 30, 2018.

Is BPA-Free Just as Dangerous as BPA?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 39

If you own a water bottle, you may have seen the phrase, “BPA- Free”, usually printed in tiny black letters or perhaps with some flashy letters on a sticker pressed onto a new bottle. This phrase is just one of many that consumers see and trust immediately. BPA-free joins the ranks of “not treated with artificial growth hormone” and other phrases that seem important, but are rarely understood. However, BPA-free could turn out to be a dangerous phrase.

First, what is “BPA” and why do we not want it in our water bottles? Bisphenol A is the full name of the actual chemical compound, and it was first used by Bayer and General Electric in the 1950s to link together other compounds. The result was a polycarbonate chain that creates a hard, highly versatile plastic. Soon, BPA was found everywhere, from water bottles to grocery receipts, and to dental sealants. However, what the scientists didn’t realize was that BPA is also an incredible endocrine-disrupting compound. It was found that BPA could act like a hormone and disrupt the vital functions that hormones in our body carry out every day. With further research, scientists discovered just how dangerous BPA could be on the reproductive system, growth and development, and metabolism of many animals, including humans. Even more frightening, in the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2003-2004, 93% of the 2,317 subjects involved had detectable levels of BPA in their urine. Based on the research that had been conducted, the FDA banned the use of BPA in many baby products such as sippy cups, and companies began placing the now familiar BPA-free label on their products.

This should have been the end of the story, case closed. BPA-free products left us with a warm “all is well” feeling, but it shouldn’t have. Instead of using BPA in their products, companies began using an alphabet soup of alternatives such as BPP, BPZ, BPAF, and others. While these seemed to be better, safer alternatives, geneticist Patricia Hunt of Washington State University may have accidentally discovered that they are quite the opposite. While studying the effects of BPA on mice, Hunt’s control group of mice, housed in a BPA-free cage, began experiencing the genetic results of mice damaged by BPA. Something in the plastics of the BPA-free cages was causing similar damage as the BPA cages. Although something may be BPA-free, it may not be endocrine disrupting free. Hunt’s research indicated that although no BPA was present, other compounds acted in the same dangerous manner as BPA.

So what should a well-informed consumer do? Until more research is conducted, it is probably a wise choice to also avoid BPA-free plastics, usually labeled with recycling codes of 3, 6, and 7. Some safe alternatives to plastics are glass and stainless steel, which are now commonly used in water bottles and other products. In addition, when you can, avoid placing plastics in the dishwasher or the microwave. These two actions have been shown to leach increased amounts of BPA and its alternative compounds.

It took twenty years for most companies to switch from BPA to BPA-free products. Hopefully, it will not take manufacturers that long to switch from BPA-free to being free of ANY harmful BPA compounds. Maybe, if enough people stop purchasing these products, they will no longer be manufactured. Then again, that would be an uphill battle considering the inexpensive, lightweight, and fairly unbreakable plastic products we have become so accustomed to using. Here’s hoping for a SAFE plastic.

Source:

Wei-Hass, Maya. “Why BPA Free May Not Mean a Plastic Product is Safe.” National Geographic. National Geographic. September 13, 2018. Web. September 18, 2018.

Climate Migration – The New Migration

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 38

Research has shown that most people migrate for economic reasons. The search for jobs and a better way of life are what brought millions of people to the shores of the United States and we continue to admit over a million legal immigrants every year. Cultural and environmental factors also induce migration. Cultural factors can be especially compelling, forcing people to emigrate from a country. Forced international migration has historically occurred for two main cultural reasons: slavery and political instability. Today though, the reason an ever-increasing number of people are migrating is that of environmental factors – climate migration.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) proposes the following definition for environmental migrants:

“Environmental migrants are persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad.”

Climate change will transform more than 143 million people into “climate migrants” escaping crop failure, water scarcity, and sea-level rise, a new World Bank report concludes. Most of the changes in populations will occur in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but it is also occurring in our own country.

Whatever the cause of climate change, be it human meddling or the natural course of events, climate change is happening, and at an accelerated rate. One factor seems to be increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Average global temperatures have increased, sea levels around the world have increased and the amount of ice contained in the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have decreased. The loss of Arctic sea ice is one of the clearest signs of climate change. The past four winters have been the lowest four maximum sea ice extents since 1979. At the same time, the region’s climate has seen temperatures increase at more than twice the rate of the rest of the world, with record-shattering seasons becoming more common.

In our own country, significant numbers of people are relocating. The increasingly hot temperatures and dwindling fresh water supplies of the southwest, the sinking coastline of the Gulf states, and the increasing number of devastating hurricanes that have plagued the south have motivated many to move to more northern locales like Seattle, Washington, and Madison, Wisconsin. People are more concerned than ever about the future of adequate water supplies, moderate weather, and comfortable temperatures to raise their families.

The decision to move to safer climates is obviously deeply personal, influenced by a person’s connection with the community they live in, their financial situation and their tolerance for risk. In the U.S., a recent study by Mathew Hauer, a demographer at the University of Georgia, estimates that 13 million people will be displaced by sea level rise alone by the year 2100. Extreme weather due to climate change displaced more than a million people from their homes last year and could reshape our nation.

Climate change is going to remap our world, changing not just how we live but where we live. As scientist Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute, puts it, “There is a shocking, unreported, fundamental change coming to the habitability of many parts of the planet, including the U.S.A.”

At a certain point, you have to ask: how long can New Orleans, a city already below sea level, keep pumping water out? In Miami and other cities vulnerable to sea level rise, there is much talk among architects and urban planners about sea walls and coastal barriers and floating houses. But in practice, it’s much more complex.

There are plenty of unknowns in how this will all play out, including unforeseen climate tipping points, technological innovations that help us adapt, and outbreaks of war and but at what point will we pass the tipping point and have to evacuate coastal cities and desert our “new” deserts.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/welcome-to-the-age-of-climate-migration-202221/ Welcome to the Age of Climate Migration – Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell, February 25, 2018

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/climate-migrants-report-world-bank-spd/, 143 Million People May Soon Become Climate Migrants

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ap_misc/rubenstein_cultland/pdfs/Ch3_Issue1.pdf

Redefining Extinction

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 37

Twenty-four thousand years ago, give or take, the species known as the cave bear, was eliminated from the Earth. Scientists have not been able to pinpoint the exact cause of the extinction of the cave bear, but they have chalked it up to possible over-hunting and competition with humans for resources. Cave bears, however, may not be as extinct as we once thought they were.

Brown bears can be found throughout the forests and tundra of North America and Eurasia. There are more than 200,000 brown bears worldwide, and researchers have found that 0.9-2.4% of living brown bears’ DNA can be traced back to cave bears. This may not appear to be such an overwhelming discovery, but it is actually only the second time a present-day species’ DNA has been found to be traceable back to a species that was alive during the ice age. Humans are the only other species with this characteristic with 1.5-4% of our DNA being traceable back to Neanderthals. Just like humans, brown bears contain this ancient DNA via interbreeding between the old and the new species.

Axel Barlow, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Potsdam and one of the study’s lead authors, studied the genomes of polar bears, brown bears, and cave bears and compared them to each other. They found the genomes of brown bears and cave bears to be much more similar than the genomes of brown bears and polar bears. This confirmed that interbreeding had to occur to account for these similarities. Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, notes, “The old-fashioned idea of a species [is that] it’s reproductively isolated from other species. This paper is a part of a series of papers that have been saying that worldview really is wrong.”

What is the significance? By discovering that Neanderthal DNA exists inside humans of today, scientists have been able to uncover aspects of humans from immunity to hair structure. So, this new knowledge could teach us something about unknown aspects of brown bears, who serve as important predators, as well as seed dispersers, in their ecosystems. However, Barlow adds, “It forces us to think on a philosophical level what we mean by species extinction.” In other words, when we say a species is extinct, we imagine it erased completely from the present, but we are finding out this is untrue. The cave bear may no longer physically roam the planet, but it lives on in the DNA of brown bears. Perhaps there will be other species found not to be as extinct as we had once thought?

Sources:

“Brown Bear.” WWF. WWF. N.d. Web. September 2, 2018.

Greshko, Michael. “Extinct Cave Bear DNA Found in Living Bears.” National Geographic. National Geographic. August 27, 2018. Web. September 2, 2018.

Elephants: the Key to a Cure for Cancer?

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 36

Cancer, a disease known only too well by so many of us. It’s a disease that comes in many shapes, sizes, and forms. What is cancer though, besides being a popular antagonist in young adult TV shows and books, and what makes this disease so deadly?

Humans and all other living organisms are made up of cells, trillions of them. Our cells divide and redivide, again and again, in order to create new tissue and replace older worn-out cells. It is an automatic process that we have little control over. DNA, located in the nucleus of every cell, controls when a cell divides and makes copies of itself in the process. Sometimes though, the DNA is copied incorrectly resulting in various defects. These defects, or mutations, can be good things; they can result in genetic variation that allows a species to evolve over time. Many times, these defects result in diseases, and one such disease is cancer. Cancer is the rapid uncontrolled growth of cells. This cell division can create tumors, and these tumors can be deadly to the organism. Cancer is not only a serious disease in humans but in of many other species of animals as well.

Knowing what we know about cancer, it might be reasonable to assume that the larger the animal is and the more cells there are, the more likely an animal is to get cancer, right? Wrong. Elephants, which are particularly large animals, actually break this trend, due to their unique DNA. Within human DNA, there is a certain gene that acts as a tumor suppressor, known as P53. Humans have one copy of this gene, while elephants have 20 copies. P53 works by ordering cells that are at risk for cancer to be destroyed. With 20 copies of this gene, elephants are at a significantly lower risk of cancer than humans. Scientists studying this gene in elephants found that P53 works with another gene, Leukemia Inhibitory Factor (LIF6), which is actually responsible for destroying the at-risk cancer cells. When a cancerous cell begins to develop, P53 activates LIF6.

What does this mean for humans? Although cancer is a widely studied and well-known disease, scientists still have a lot of questions to answer before they can come up with a cure. By studying how other animals defend themselves, scientists hope to be able to develop a way to mimic these defenses in humans. We may find in the future that elephants end up being the gateway to a cure for cancer.

Source:

Wei-Haas, Maya. “Cancer Rarely Strikes Elephants. New Clues Suggest Why.” National Geographic. National Geographic. August 14, 2018. Web. August 26, 2018.

Clean Water Rule Now In Effect

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 35

On August 16, 2018, the US District Court of South Carolina, Charleston Division issued an injunction to remove the 2-year delay of implementation of the Clean Water Rule. This arises out of a case brought before the Court by a number of environmental groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center against the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the American Farm Federation as well as a number of agricultural groups.

The result of this case was to make Clean Water Rule effective immediately and nationally. However, 26 other states have other Clean Water Rule stays that would remain in effect. The states that are affected by this decision include; California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

States included in this decision are now subject the 2015 Waters of the US (WOTUS) definition. For all intensive purposes, a 2015 WOTUS includes all waters with the exception of puddles. However, while puddles are mentioned in the regulation they are not defined so, perhaps some could be jurisdictional.

The decision handed down to the agencies by U.S. District Court Judge David C. Norton appears to be largely a political one. In a highly unusual statement by the Judge, it would seem that the Trump administration is being punished for Obama era injunctions. Judge Norton cites in his decision the case of the City of Chicago v. Sessions:

“[U]nder the Obama administration, such injunctions stymied many of the President’s policies, with five nationwide injunctions issued by Texas district courts in just over a year[.] At that time, then-Senator and now-Attorney General Sessions characterized the upholding of one such nationwide preliminary injunction as “a victory for the American people and for the rule of law.” Press Release, Sen. Jeff Sessions III, June 23, 2016. Now, many who advocated for broad injunctions in those Obama era cases are opposing them.”

He further adds a rather fascinating statement of his own:

“This court agrees that nationwide injunctions should be utilized “only in rare circumstances.” Id. This is one such set of rare circumstances. Just because the political shoe is on the other foot does not mean that nationwide injunctions are no longer appropriate. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

His decision is based upon a perceived violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. This Act governs how the US government issues among other things regulations. The 2-year delay in the implementation of the Clean Water Rule was issued as a regulation with a 10-day public comment period. Apparently, this was not enough for the Judge. The rule was simply to delay the implementation of the new WOTUS definition.

It should be noted that the Clean Water Rule only defines what is a WOTUS. Not one word of the Rule has anything to do with cleaning up water. A number of environmental groups have rallied around the Clean Water Rule as some sort of water and wetland protection rule. It is not. It simply defines what waters are subject to federal regulation. The assumption is that if it is regulated by the federal government it must be cleaner. It is a bit ironic to make this assumption as the federal government has been responsible for more wetland loss than any other single entity. Just a few decades ago it was the policy of the federal government to drain and fill wetlands. Why then do you suppose that giving the federal government unilateral control over wetlands and waters would guarantee their protection? History would seem to dispute this.

In the meantime, it is safe to expect a delay on the issuance of any permits or Jurisdictional Determinations in the affected states. The Corps will need to issue some guidance on how it will comply with the Court’s findings as there is no current 2015 WOTUS guidance in place. As soon as it breaks we will post it on our FaceBook page and publish a follow-up newsletter.

References: August 16, 2018, Order No. 2-18-cv-330-DCN

Definition of Waters of the United States-Addition of Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule

GMOs May Help Feed the World

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 34

When shoppers see the term “GMO” on an item at their local grocery store, they usually stay away. GMO, or Genetically Modified Organism, tends to bring a negative connotation and an image of an overly-inbred vegetable that has spent its entire lifespan in a lab. In reality, a GMO is just an organism whose DNA has been altered for some reason. These reasons can include increased crop yield or even increased nutritional value.

This is where Crispr comes into play. Crispr is a technique for gene-editing that scientists have applied in selective breeding to change the DNA of many organisms. The CRISPR method begins with an identified trait that scientists believe shows some aspect of an organism that is desirable. For instance, the desired trait could be larger fruit or less fat. They then identify the trait within the DNA sequence of the organism they want to change. Using a restriction enzyme, which acts as a pair of “scissors” for DNA sequences, the desired DNA sequence of the organism is cut and guided to the right location by a developed piece of RNA. Once the DNA is cut, a new trait can be introduced into the DNA or the existing trait can be modified. Then, the DNA repairs itself and the guide RNA and restriction enzyme are removed. Once this occurs, the organism can be bred with other compatible organisms and the new DNA sequence can be passed on to future generations.

The advances in agriculture and other sciences that have resulted from the CRISPR method are tremendous. Farmers have been able to use GMOs engineered to be more resistant to pesticides or produce pesticides themselves. In Hawaii, disease-resistant papayas have been developed. Additionally, scientists have been developing cacao more resistant to West African viruses, bananas more resistant to deadly fungus, rice more resistant to harsh climates, and wheat lower in gluten. GMOs are even allowing crops to be grown where so many have faced famine in order to feed a growing population.

On the other hand, some people wonder if GMO foods are safe and healthy to eat. Genetic engineering is a relatively new development. As a result, research on the long-term health effects of GMO foods is limited. GMO foods still have to meet the same safety requirements as foods grown from non-GMO seeds but critics suggest there’s more to be concerned about. Some people worry that GM foods may be linked to allergies, antibiotic resistance, or cancer. Others suggest these concerns are unfounded.

The CRISPR method though is so much more than making a tomato look more red or a mushroom-less spotted. It is helping combat diseases without the use of pesticides, boost beneficial nutrients, increase tolerance to heat, cold, and drought, and increase crop yield. GMOs can help us find sustainable ways to feed people and help make us healthier through scientific advancement.

Source:

Niiler, Eric. “Why Gene Editing is the Next Food Revolution.” National Geographic. National Geographic. August 10, 2018. Web. August 12, 2018.

https://www.healthline.com/health/gmos-pros-and-cons, October 5, 2016 — Written by Treacy Colbert