🌿 Swamp School’s Weekly Wetland Scientist Jobs Update! 🌿
Happy Friday, eco-enthusiasts! 🎉 Every week, we bring you the freshest opportunities in the field of wetland science. Dive into our curated list of the top 10 wetland scientist positions that have been posted in the last 15 days, sourced directly from employers across the United States.
Whether you’re a recent graduate looking to start your career, or a seasoned professional seeking new challenges, our list has something for everyone interested in conserving and studying our precious wetlands.
🔍 What’s included:
Job title, location, and employer
Brief description of the role
Link to the job posting for more information.
Stay informed and stay ahead in your career with Swamp School. Don’t forget to check back every Friday for new postings!
👉 Start exploring today and make a splash in your career!
Seasonal Biological Field Technician Employer: Olofson Environmental, Inc. Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA Description: Seasonal fieldwork role. More Information
Environmental Protection Specialist Employer: Federal Emergency Management Agency Location: Oakland, CA Description: Involves environmental protection duties. More Information
Seasonal Wetland Ecology Technician Employer: City of Boulder, Open Space and Mountain Parks Location: Boulder, CO Description: Seasonal ecological and conservation work. More Information
Wetland Technician Employer: City of Boulder Location: Boulder, CO Description: Focus on wetland-related tasks and assessments. More Information Here
OPS F&W Biological Scientist II Employer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Location: Gulf Breeze, FL Description: Focuses on biological science within wetlands. More Information
Visiting Scientific Specialist, Wetlands Geology Employer: Illinois State Geological Survey, Prairie Research Institute Location: Champaign, IL Description: Role involves scientific research in wetlands geology. More Information
Program Assistant (Farm Bill) Employer: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Location: Ellsworth, ME Description: Assists with conservation programs under the Farm Bill. More Information
Wetland Scientist / Project Manager Employer: Hancock Associates Location: Boston or Danvers, MA Description: Combines project management with wetland science. More Information
Biologist Employer: Montana Department of Transportation Location: Helena, MT Description: Involves biological assessments and environmental compliance. More Information
Wetland Services Program Leader Employer: TRC Companies Location: Liverpool, NY (remote possibility) Description: Leadership role in wetland services and program management. More Information
North Carolina is home to many unique species, including 36 species of carnivorous plants. These plants consume small, unsuspecting invertebrates that fall into their traps. Now, you might be wondering, why do these plants eat meat? Don’t they get their food from sunlight through photosynthesis? Well, yes, these plants do photosynthesize, and are able to produce sugars from that process. However, these species live in wet areas with nutrient-deficient soils, thus they have adaptations that allow them to get nutrients from insects, arachnids, and aquatic prey items. There are five groups of carnivorous plants in North Carolina: butterworts, sundews, bladderworts, pitcher plants, and, of course, the Venus flytrap.
Common Butterwort, Pinguicula vulgaris, photo courtesy of Stuart Anthony and the North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox
Butterwort species are in the genus Pinguicula, and these plants, found throughout the southeastern United States in very sunny, wet locations, have small leaves with sticky hairs. Often appearing greasy in texture, the leaves form the trap, and insects get stuck in the residue. The struggling of the insect triggers the butterwort to release more of the sticky fluid; once the residue has fully encased the food item, special cells in the leaves will begin releasing digestive enzymes. Believe it or not, this process gets even cooler! Butterworts also release a strong chemical that kills bacteria. This prevents the dead insect from rotting while it is slowly being digested.
A sundew species, photo courtesy of Phil Champion and the North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox
Sundews, which are in the genus Drosera, are one of the largest groups of carnivorous plants. In addition to species native to North Carolina, there are sundews found all over the world, found in bogs, fens, and marshes ranging from tropical climates to colder climates. Sundews are similar to butterworts in that their leaves, which are pad-like, are covered in sticky hairs. More struggling results in the fluid stickiness increasing; but instead of fully encasing the insect in a residue, the leaf pads will slowly curl up around the insect before digestion begins. Due to their small size, sundews’ prey items are very tiny, often small gnats and ants.
Swollen Bladderwort, Utriculariainflata, photo courtesy of Robby Deans and the North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox
The genus Utricularia contains the bladderworts, and it is the largest genus of carnivorous plants. Aquatic species of bladderworts grow fully submerged, except for the stem and blossom, and they may float freely in the water or attach themselves to a surface. Other bladderwort species that are more tropical are epiphytic, and still other species grow in very wet soil. The bladderworts are unlike any other carnivorous plant in that they have a unique bladder system. These bladders have a trap door covered in tiny hairs. When a prey item touches the hairs, it triggers the trap door to open in a millisecond and the bladder sucks in the prey, closing in about 2.5 milliseconds! So, in about 3.5 milliseconds, the bladderwort has caught its food. How weird and wonderful is that?
Purple Pitcher Plant, Sarraceniapurpurea, photo courtesy of David Midgley and the North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox
Now pitcher plants, in the genus Sarracenia, are probably some of the more recognizable carnivorous plants in the world. In North Carolina we have the purpurea species, so named because of the color of the flowers and the pitchers themselves. This species is often found in marshes and bogs but is also right at home in wet forest floors and pinelands. The purple pitcher plant’s leaves form pitchers that are open to the sky and collect rainwater. Insects are attracted to little droplets of nectar that are produced along the rim of the pitcher, and as they crawl inward, they encounter tiny hairs that point downwards. This results in a surface that is very easy to climb down, but impossible to climb up! Eventually the insects fall into the pool of water, which also contains digestive enzymes that the plant has produced. What is really cool about the purple pitcher plant is that it is pollinated by a member if the pitcher plant fly genus, Fletcherimyia. The larvae of these flies live in the fluid inside of the pitchers, feeding on some of the insects that have gotten trapped!
The Venus Flytrap, Dionaeamuscipula, photo courtesy of Lucy Bradley and the North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox
There is only one more carnivorous plant to discuss: North Carolina’s official state carnivorous plant, the Venus flytrap. Venus flytraps, Dionaeamuscipula, are mainly found in southeastern North Carolina, though some small populations have been found in northeastern South Carolina. This plant has specialized, folded leaves covered in large and small hairs. When an insect touches those hairs, it triggers the two halves of the leaf to close around the insect, trapping it. Like the butterwort, special cells on the leaves release digestive enzymes, and in about two weeks, the leaf will reopen and be ready to catch another insect. We North Carolinians love Venus flytraps so much that, not only has it been declared the state carnivorous plant, but there is also a house bill to authorize the Venus Flytrap Specialty License Plate! If House Bill 734 passes, some of the proceeds from each license plate renewal will go towards the Friends of Plant Conservation and the North Carolina Botanical Garden Foundation, which will use the money to fund plant conservation education and research.
The Venus flytrap, and many of the other carnivorous plant species, are endangered. Habitat destruction and overharvesting are the two major threats facing these plants today. These species require specific habitat conditions in which to grow and thrive, and if even one of those conditions is thrown off, the plants will start to decline. Gardening and houseplant fever unfortunately results in wild plants of all kinds, not just carnivorous ones, being poached in order to meet the demand. If you have to have a carnivorous plant, purchase one from a reputable nursery. There are many other amazing plants that share the same habitat needs as the meat-eaters, so consider creating a small bog or marsh garden in your backyard. In North Carolina, nurseries such as Carolina Habitats and Plant Delights can be excellent resources for learning how to recreate plant communities in a garden setting. State cooperative extension offices and their Master Gardeners programs would be a good resource for region-specific knowledge. Finally, if you want to see carnivorous plants in action, plan a trip to Carolina Beach State Park, south of Wilmington, North Carolina. These weird and wonderful plants are sure to make a lasting impression.
Special thanks to the North Carolina Extension Gardener Plant Toolbox and all of their amazing photographers for the photographs in this blog and for being a source of great information on the many carnivorous plant species in the state. https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has developed the Stream Duration Assessment Model (SDAM), a groundbreaking tool that significantly enhances the regulatory oversight and protection of the nation’s water resources. This model plays a critical role in managing and safeguarding streams and wetlands, crucial for maintaining biodiversity, water quality, and flood mitigation. The SDAM is designed to classify streams based on their flow characteristics—perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral—crucial for determining the jurisdictional status of water bodies under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This article explores the integration of state-established models with the SDAM for regulatory purposes and highlights its nationwide applicability for wetland permits.
The SDAM employs a science-based approach, integrating hydrological data, GIS analyses, and field observations to assess stream flow characteristics accurately. This standardized method is vital for delineating the scope of regulatory oversight, ensuring environmental impacts are thoroughly evaluated and mitigated, particularly in the context of Section 404 of the CWA, which governs the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
State-established models of stream flow complement the SDAM by providing detailed insights into the flow regimes of streams within specific geographic areas. These models, developed based on localized data, enhance the precision of the SDAM by incorporating nuanced understandings of stream behavior, reflecting the unique ecological conditions of different regions. Integrating these models involves aligning methodological approaches, standardizing stream type definitions, and harmonizing data analysis techniques to ensure consistency across jurisdictions.
The combined use of the SDAM and state models offers a more nuanced assessment of streams for regulatory purposes. It facilitates more informed decisions regarding wetland permits by identifying streams with significant ecological functions or those critical to maintaining watershed health. This approach supports a more adaptive and responsive regulatory framework, allowing for updates with new data as environmental conditions change, ensuring the relevance and effectiveness of stream assessments.
Nationwide, the applicability of the SDAM, enhanced by state-specific models, encourages collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies. This collaborative approach improves the regulatory process’s efficiency and fosters a shared commitment to protecting water resources. It exemplifies the balance between economic development and environmental stewardship, promoting the sustainable management of aquatic ecosystems.
Furthermore, the integration of state models with the SDAM highlights the USACE’s commitment to using science and technology to improve environmental regulation. It reflects a shift towards data-driven decision-making, setting a precedent for future innovations in water resource management. As the model is refined and updated, its utility for regulatory purposes will continue to improve, ensuring that development and infrastructure projects proceed in an environmentally responsible manner.
The integration of the Stream Duration Assessment Model (SDAM) with state-specific methods, such as the North Carolina (NC) method for assessing stream flows, exemplifies a tailored approach to environmental regulation and water resource management. North Carolina has developed its own methodologies for classifying streams and assessing their ecological significance, which can complement the broader framework of the SDAM.
Example: North Carolina’s Stream Identification Method
North Carolina’s method for stream identification and classification is designed to meet the unique ecological and hydrological conditions of the state, which range from the Appalachian Mountains in the west to the coastal plains in the east. This method involves detailed field assessments, including the examination of physical, chemical, and biological indicators to determine stream types and their jurisdictional status under state and federal regulations.
Key aspects of the NC method include:
Physical Indicators: These include the presence of a well-defined channel, bed and banks, and evidence of flow (e.g., water marks, sediment sorting) to distinguish between perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams.
Biological Indicators: The presence of aquatic life, such as fish and macroinvertebrates, which are indicative of perennial or intermittent streams capable of supporting diverse biological communities.
Hydrological Data: Use of historical precipitation, stream gauge data, and other hydrological models to predict flow durations and patterns throughout the state’s diverse landscapes.
Integrating the NC method with the SDAM allows for a comprehensive assessment that leverages local expertise and data while aligning with national standards for water resource management. This integration enhances the precision of stream classifications and the effectiveness of regulatory processes, including permitting for activities that impact water resources.
For example, when a developer proposes a project in North Carolina that may affect waterways, the combined use of the NC method and the SDAM ensures a thorough evaluation of potential impacts on stream flow and aquatic habitats. This dual approach facilitates informed decision-making regarding permit issuance, mitigation measures, and conservation efforts, balancing development needs with environmental protection.
Nationwide Implications
The example of North Carolina illustrates how state-specific methods can enhance the effectiveness of the SDAM in managing water resources across the U.S. By integrating localized approaches with the broader framework of the SDAM, states can ensure that regulatory processes are adapted to their unique environmental conditions, promoting sustainable water resource management and protection at both the state and national levels. This collaborative approach underscores the importance of tailored strategies in addressing the complex challenges of environmental stewardship and water resource regulation.
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Environmental advocates are closely monitoring the developments at the site of the massive electric vehicle plant slated for Blythewood in Richland County, with growing concerns about its impact on the delicate wetlands in the area.
Construction crews are back to work after receiving a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, allowing them to resume work that had initially been halted due to worries about wetlands damage.
This project has garnered significant attention, particularly after a report by WIS 10 news suggested that the Scout site could potentially impact a staggering 70,000 acres of wetlands, nearly 40,000 acres of ponds, and approximately 35,000 linear feet of tributaries. However, it’s important to note that this report is highly inaccurate and continues to be the top result in Google news searches related to the project.
While the correct figures are somewhat lower, they are still concerning. The USACOE’s permit will authorize the filling or disturbance of 74 acres of wetlands, 38 acres of ponds, and 7 miles of creek.
The new Scout Plant is situated off Interstate 77 in the northern part of Richland County, but questions and apprehensions loom large regarding its potential environmental impact, and the community is eagerly awaiting answers.
Blythewood Mayor Sloan Griffin shared his thoughts, saying, “It’s scary. Change is always accompanied by uncertainty. There are two sides to every coin – heads and tails. Some are excited, looking forward to the promise of 4,000 jobs and increased business opportunities in Blythewood, thanks to Scout.”
Construction will soon resume on the vast 1,600-acre site in Blythewood, where the Scout Motors manufacturing plant is set to be located.
Last September, Scout had to pause its work following concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which had identified evidence of wetlands damage even before the permit was issued.
Additionally, there’s a noteworthy finding indicating that one of the archeological sites, known as 38RD1468, is recommended for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. It holds potential for yielding significant insights into the area’s prehistory. However, it’s important to mention that there was not enough data collected during the Phase II investigations to determine its eligibility under other criteria (Criteria A, B, and C).
The Scout Motors project is undeniably intriguing. They are embarking on the production of electric trucks, a technology yet untested in the transportation of goods. This raises questions about the necessity of destroying 75 acres of wetlands for an unproven technology that may or may not compete effectively with traditional trucking methods. While the transition away from fossil fuels is commendable, it’s crucial to ponder whether it should come at the significant cost of our natural environment. Surely, alternative locations with less environmental impact could have been considered for this venture.
In the field, the wetland scientist engages in a variety of specialized tasks, including soil sampling to identify hydric soils, conducting thorough vegetation surveys, and assessing wetland hydrology through both direct and indirect means. These activities require a keen eye for detail, extensive knowledge of wetland ecosystems, and the ability to work effectively in challenging outdoor conditions. Additionally, the role involves meaningful interactions with local communities, landowners, and regulatory bodies, emphasizing the importance of wetlands in ecological balance and sustainable land use.
The day of a wetland scientist is not just about fieldwork; it also involves critical analysis and documentation back at the office or lab. Here, the scientist delves into data interpretation, report writing, and consultation with environmental experts, ensuring that their findings contribute to broader conservation efforts and comply with environmental regulations. The narrative also emphasizes the importance of continuous learning and professional development in the field of wetland science. This commitment to staying abreast of the latest research, technological advancements, and regulatory changes is vital for effective wetland management and protection.
Early Morning Research and Preparation: The scientist’s day begins with reviewing satellite images, wetland delineation protocols, and local environmental regulations. They ensure that all their equipment, including soil coring tools and water quality kits, is ready for the day.
Travel to the Wetland Site: The journey to the wetland site might be an adventure, often traversing through less-traveled paths. The scientist plans their route, considering the day’s objectives and the logistics of reaching the site.
Initial Site Assessment: Upon arrival at the wetland, the scientist conducts an initial survey, looking for visible indicators of wetland boundaries and making preliminary notes.
Detailed Wetland Delineation Work: The morning is spent in intense fieldwork, including soil sampling, vegetation identification, and hydrology assessment, to accurately delineate the wetland boundaries.
Fun and Exploratory Lunch Break: By midday, it’s time for a well-deserved break. The scientist often takes this opportunity to explore local eateries, enjoying the chance to discover unique and interesting restaurants in the area. This lunch break becomes a mini-adventure, offering a delightful pause from the fieldwork and a chance to savor the local cuisine.
Post-Lunch Delineation and Data Collection: After lunch, the scientist returns to the field, possibly revisiting certain areas for additional verification or moving to new sections for further delineation.
Community Interaction and Educational Outreach: The afternoon may also include interactions with local communities, landowners, or educational groups, discussing the day’s findings and the importance of wetland conservation.
Return to Base for Analysis and Reporting: Back at their office or lab, the scientist analyzes the collected data, begins processing samples, and starts drafting reports based on the day’s delineation work.
Consultations and Collaborations: The scientist might consult with environmental agencies or collaborate with colleagues, ensuring that the delineation aligns with regulatory standards and contributes to broader environmental research.
Evening Review, Planning, and Networking: The day concludes with a review of the work done, updating project files, and perhaps participating in professional networking activities, staying connected with the wider scientific community.
Continued Learning and Research: The scientist spends time in the evening catching up on the latest research in wetland ecology and planning for future professional development opportunities.
Relaxation and Personal Time: Finally, the scientist unwinds, reflecting on the day’s work and the culinary adventure they enjoyed at lunch, recharging for the next day’s challenges.
Several weeks ago, landowners and permit applicants received an email notification regarding the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs). Namely, according to the notice, the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) would not clarify any coverage requests under a variety of CWA Section 404 NWPs.
The Clean Water Act Section 404 NWPs are the general permits that authorize activities under the previously mentioned act, which “will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment.”
In the email from the Army Corps, it is stated:
We were informed today that due to the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 21, 2021, to remand USEPA’s 2020 CWA 401 rule with vacatur, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not finalizing any permit decisions that rely on a certification or waiver under the 2020 rule at this time. The Corps is working to provide more refined guidance that provides a way forward that allows us to finalize permit decisions. (Emphasis added)
All interested parties can find this informal notification on at least one government website in the “Latest News” section.
However, following the current developments, the agency has not issued a formal notice or press release yet, which has halted coverage under its NWP program. The Army Corps finalized the NWPs list in January 2021, and the entire list went through formal notice and comment rulemaking. Before being issued, the NWPs were subject to the CWA Section 401 certification process. Nevertheless, this move affects the following 16 NWPs:
12. Oil or Natural Gas Pipeline Activities 21. Surface Coal Mining Activities 29. Residential Developments 39. Commercial and Institutional Developments 40. Agricultural Activities 42. Recreational Facilities 43. Stormwater Management Facilities 44. Mining Activities 48. Commercial Shellfish Mariculture Activities 50. Underground Coal Mining Activities 51. Land-Based Renewable Energy Generation Facilities 52. Water-Based Renewable Energy Generation Pilot Projects 55. Seaweed Mariculture Activities 56. Finfish Mariculture Activities 57. Electric Utility Line and Telecommunications Activities 58. Utility Line Activities for Water and Other Substances
Information worth mentioning is the fact that the Army Corps’ notification was published weeks after EPA’s announcement that the Northern District of California court decision “requires a temporary return to EPA’s 1986 rule until EPA finalizes a new certification rule.” It is still unclear why the N.D. of California decision would result in a nationwide vacatur of the 401 Rule or why that court decision would affect NWPs. The NWPs were properly promulgated, and the procedure was based on the law that was in effect at the time. To date, there is no official explanation by any agency. In fact, there is no consideration or conclusion by any court that NWPs, or the Section 401 certifications issued for them, are unlawful.
Another circumstance that raises questions is the Senate vote 92-5 to confirm Michael Connor to serve as the assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. The notification was issued on the same date as the confirmation of Mr. Connor, so it is unknown whether he ordered the halt in permitting. Without any doubt, Mr. Connor has the power to make headway on the administration’s infrastructure, resilience, and climate goals, which in fact, will be hindered by the significant uncertainty left on its account. We can summarize that, until further notice, NWP coverage will not be granted for stormwater management projects, land- or water-based renewable energy projects; or electric, telecommunications, or water utility line activities, as well as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities.
In the meantime, until the government comes up with a solution and a decision on this matter, landowners and project proponents have an option to apply for an individual CWA Section 404 permit. The NWP process is designed to streamline the process for those activities with minimal environmental impact. As for comparison, the NWP process usually takes 60 days to be finished, while an individual permit can take up to one year or more. Annually, the Army Corps grants CWA Section 404 general permit coverage for more than 50,000 activities, and in the same period, issues on average 2,500 individual CWA 404 permits.
This Army Corps’ notification raises many questions. First of all, it is unknown how long it will last the process of “providing more refined guidance”? Is there a need for changes and new programmatic Section 401 certifications for the NWPs mentioned above? Will the agency be on the lookout for those certifications before coverage can be granted? If the answer is YES, what changes will follow? There are two possibilities for the development: re-promulgation of NWPs, which would include new certification conditions; and the second option is the agency to strive for adding new conditions without going through the rulemaking process? Until the EPA comes up with a new certification rule, it remains unclear whether the agency will require each of the activities authorized under CWA Section 404 to receive an individual Section 401 certification.
Property owners and project proponents are directly affected by this situation because of the potentially delayed certification process with individual permit applications. This, however, is quite a different sort of problem than halting coverage under already-issued NWPs.
There has also been some unofficial information that the Corps has already reinstated the Nationwide permit review. However, as they have not confirmed that the Nationwide permits were put on hold they have not announced any further updates. There is a lot of confusion on this matter and it is highly recommended that you check with your local Corps District to confirm if the Nationwides in question are available for your region. There seems to be a high variability between districts as to the status of the the Nationwide program.
Back in 2020, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) promulgated by the Trump administration significantly reduced the coverage of the water bodies in the United States. For many environmental organizations, agricultural and specialty crop stakeholders, this decision was inadequate, and Trump found himself the target of criticism. In contrast, developers and industry stakeholders welcomed this decision with open arms.
Nevertheless, as the political set is changing, the decisions issued by the Administration undergo changes as well. Quickly after taking the service, President Biden took steps toward repealing the Trump-rule. After reviewing the actions taken by Trump Administration, the key term in the Clean Water Act (CWA) is changing for another time. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), on June 9, 2021, made a joint announcement that they intend to examine and make alterations to the WOTUS rule. Biden Administration explained that these alternations are driven by the inconsistency and certain obstacles to the new scientific and environmental policy aspirations. Additionally, Corps and EPA had sizeable concerns about the NWPR and established an unavoidable need for changes. They intended to replace the NWPR through the rulemaking process.
Almost three months later, On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered an order in Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, so now things have moved in the planned direction, and the Biden administration can take a short break. The federal court ruling made a decision to put an end to the Trump-era Clean Water Act rule. It is not specified whether the Arizona district court’s order would apply locally or nationwide.
As Judge Rosemary Márquez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled, the decision to withdraw the federal protection for streams and wetlands across the country was defective and too flawed to keep in place. The decision made by the federal court effectively puts an end to the Trump era and is a fundamental change that affects the entire nation. Consequently, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is not currently in effect.
While the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is one of the most controversial decisions of the previous Administration, according to many, the new regulatory go in favor of both developers and farmers. At the same time, the EPA is spared from punishment by ruling out the Trump-rule, as the agency is preparing a replacement for the NWPR.
In an email, the former EPA Office of Water attorney, Mark Ryan, said that: “The immediate effect is a nationwide vacature of the 2020 rule. There will be an appeal. Assuming the judge’s order is not stayed on appeal, then EPA will not have to go to the trouble of repealing the 2020 rule, and can move straight to drafting the new rule (which is almost certainly underway already).”
When it comes to the ruling and determining which “waters of the United States” are qualified to undergo federal protection under the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers consider implementing the 1986 regulation, which George W. Bush interpreted in the Agencies’ 2008 guidance. Legal experts explain that there is quite a big difference between restoring the Clean Water Rule and reverting to the pre-2015 status quo.
This change makes some space and relieves EPA of unnecessary obligations. Therefore, instead of revoking the previous regulation, the EPA can focus its efforts and resources to anew the definition of “water of the U.S..” Ryan stated: “I think this relieves a bit of the pressure. Now they have one, not two big rulemakings to deal with.”
The most recent update about the EPA’s decision is that the agency currently discusses and evaluates the ruling. Timothy Carroll, the EPA spokesperson, stated that there aren’t any further comments on the final decision. All things considered, the recent changes leave many open questions. The one most commonly asked is whether there will be a return to the 2015 Obama rule?! Do the industry stakeholders intend to appeal the vacatur order to support the NWPR? Will the Ninth Circuit limit the extent of the vacatur to Arizona? How do these decisions impact the current regulatory landscape?
For years, Massachusetts has actively attempted to prevent the destruction of swamps, marshes, seasonal ponds, and other wetlands. These areas protect numerous threatened species, filter pollution, and control floodwaters. This policy began three decades ago when developers became required by law to replace almost every square foot of wetlands destroyed in the process of building houses, parking lots, and shopping malls.
Today, however, according to an examination by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, the state’s landscape is littered with examples of the policy’s failure. Many of the areas created as replacement wetlands are now dry land, filled with invasive species, or much smaller than intended. Others, built near roads and sidewalks, degraded from pesticide control or foot traffic. Furthermore, due to a lack of vigor in carrying out the policy, some developers never even fulfilled their promises to replace the wetlands they destroyed.
The rate of wetland construction failure is not amiss to specialists, some of whom have joked that the best way to identify sites is to spot abandoned shopping carts and old tires. Matt Schweisberg, head of Wetland Strategies and Solutions, an environmental consultant firm in Merrimac, and former chief of the New England wetlands protection program for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, when asked if replacement wetlands match the ecological function of the areas destroyed, asserted, “It’s almost a blanket assumption that they don’t work.”
According to the preliminary results of a University of Massachusetts Amherst study, only 51 of the 91 wetland projects that researchers were given permission to access were successfully built—and some of these were much smaller than originally planned. In 28 cases, the developer attempted to build the wetland unsuccessfully, and in 12 cases, the wetland was never built at all.
These numbers reflect a string of long-running problems plaguing the state wetlands program, including: an administration that is ill-equipped to enforce the law and monitor sites, state budget crunches that have delayed some long-planned improvements, and challenges in building wetlands in areas that have always been dry.
The policy’s failure up to this point has led many regulators to rethink the policy all together. Now that the economy has begun to improve, large tracts of affordable dry real estate have become hard to find. An alternative that is under consideration is that instead of replacing the wetlands destroyed in construction, developers would have to contribute to a fund that would be used to create larger, more meaningful wetlands elsewhere.
A decision is expected soon due to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to allow developers to contribute to a fund used to build and preserve existing wetlands. Therefore, unless Massachusetts changes its policy, then its regulations would conflict with federal policy.
Municipal officials are worried, however, that a move away from the current policy would do little to benefit the communities that have lost their wetlands to construction. Furthermore, developers are concerned that the required contributions to the federal fund would prove too expensive.
Michele Restino, conservation agent for the city of Taunton, claimed, “The replication areas need to be next to what is destroyed. If it goes to Boston (or elsewhere), how does it do any good here?”
The director of the wetlands and waterways program at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Lealdon Langley, however, thinks that the current policy approaches wetland preservation in the wrong way. He asserted, “There are plenty of places where things can go wrong. We think it’s important to put emphasis on avoidance, and then reconstruction. We want to keep wetlands intact.”
Massachusetts’ “no net loss” policy for wetlands may be one of the stricter state policy’s regarding wetland preservation, but many of its shortcomings are applicable to a number of states. Appropriate funding and maintenance, as well as finding a location that can support all the complexities of wetland replication, must be available when constructing new wetlands. Furthermore, efforts must be made to preserve natural wetlands to ensure environments don’t lose the benefits wetlands provide. The new federal policy allows for greater attention and care to be given to larger wetland systems, however, it could also mean the extinction of wetlands from some environments entirely. A middle ground must be found to ensure wetland loss does not become a major problem in certain areas, and that also provides funds for the preservation and maintenance of all wetland systems.
Often thought of as vermin, beavers have been trapped and shot, while their dams have been destroyed by dynamite and bulldozers. However, the dry climates that have caused droughts throughout the West have brought beavers back to the forefront of landscape preservation.
By creating their dams, beavers raise the water table along rivers, which supports the tree and plant growth that stabilizes banks and prevents erosion. The dams also contribute to improved fish and wildlife habitats, and encourage richer soil to develop. However, in the dryer parts of the country that have been suffering from severe droughts, the most beneficial contribution of beavers is the water their dams collect.
Before beavers were considered pests, the tens of millions of semi aquatic rodents that dwelled in North America formed an integral part of the hydrological system in North America. Jeff Burrell, a scientist for the Wildlife Conservation Society in Bozeman, Montana, described how important the beaver once was for environmental stability. He said, “The valleys were filled with dams, as many as one every hundred yards. They were pretty much continuous wetlands.”
However, by 1930 the beaver population dropped to less than 100,000—most of which dwelled in Canada—because of fur trapping. Since then the number of beavers has bounced back to an estimated 6 million, and an appreciation for beaver dams has begun to grow.
Lately, hydroelectric and reservoir dams have been heavily criticized because of the extensive changes they cause to the natural environment. The benefits of beaver dams, both natural and artificial, have, subsequently, become an attractive alternative. In fact, the demand for natural damming has risen so much over recent years that government agencies sponsor workshops on the West Coast to train wetland workers how to attract beavers.
Burrell claimed that as long as beavers are able to help, we should take advantage of the resource. He said, “We can spend a lot of money doing this work, or we can use beavers for almost nothing.”
Beavers are the ecosystem’s natural engineers. Each time a family of beavers moves to a new territory, it begins a new dam in order to create a pond and shelter. As the water trapped behind the dam increases because of the buildup of twigs, mud, and stones, the entrance to the beaver’s shelter becomes submerged underwater, and thus protected from predators.
The new pond nourishes the nearby willows, aspens, and other trees, as well as providing a safe place for fish that require slow moving water. Land creatures such as deer, elk, and songbirds benefit from the grasses and shrubs that grow as a result of the pond.
The greatest benefit of the pond, however, is the increased levels of underground water. The boosted water supplies would considerably lower the groundwater costs for farming. Cheaper water preservation will be crucial going forward, especially in areas suffering from drought. Burrell claimed, “People realize that if we don’t have a way to store water that’s not so expensive, we’re going to be up a creek, a dry creek. We’ve lost a lot with beavers not on the landscape.”
The danger of allowing beavers to dam streams freely is that their damming may cause floods in residential and urban areas; if unchecked beavers can be destructive to ecosystems that are not already short of water. Therefore, it is important to only encourage beaver activity in areas that need help managing and retaining water.
Beaver activity has been increased in arid climates such as those found in Arizona. However, the consequences of doing so are largely unknown. Julian D. Olden, an ecologist at the University of Washington, discovered that beaver ponds made in Arizona proved to be ideal habitats for invasive fish, such as carp, catfish, and bass, which will eventually overrun the native species. He concluded, “There’s a lot of unknowns before we can say what the return of beavers means for these arid ecosystems. The assumption is it’s going to be good in all situations, but the jury is still out, and it’s going to take a couple of decades.”
It appears clear that beaver activity is not recommended in all situations, but the positives of allowing beavers to dam water supplies in low-water-areas seems to outweigh the negatives. As mentioned by Olden, the overall consequences will only be able to be gauged after a large amount of time has passed. Until then all we can do is hope that the positives continue to outweigh the negatives.
EPA’s Proposal to Define its Jurisdiction over Bodies of Water
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed that a rule be implemented to establish more clearly which bodies of water—for example, wetlands and streams—actually fall under the Clean Water Act, and, subsequently, under their own authority. The proposal became a controversial topic that forced Gina McCarthy, the EPA Administer, to claim that the rule does not significantly expand the EPA’s current authority to those bodies of water that lay outside of the agency’s jurisdiction.
Such a statement only added to the debate, however. Republicans argue that the rule grants the EPA too broad a reign, and that inconsequential bodies of water will become subject to federal regulation. Pennsylvania Representative Lou Barletta asserted, “I have heard from many of my constituents that this rule would force them to prove that large mud puddles and ditches on their property are not federally regulated waters…sometimes, a mud puddle is just a mud puddle.” Perhaps the regulation of inconsequential bodies of water is exactly what McCarthy meant to allude to when she said that the new rule would not “significantly” expand the EPA’s authority.
Democrats, however, appear somewhat split on the issue. The larger percentage of Democrats dismiss the Republican concern as excessive use of hyperbole. Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resource Committee, claimed that if such concerns were taken seriously, then not only have we “departed from reality,” but have also returned to “the earlier era of the 2003 and 2008 guidance.” Other Democrats, however, such as West Virginia Representative Nick Rahall—the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee—agreed with the Republicans that such a rule may result in federal overreach. He stated, “The only certainty that these regulations provide is the sure knowledge that under them, anyone undertaking any activity so much as a ditch in the United States will have to deal with the bureaucracy known as the EPA.”
This debate remains far from over, however. In early September, the House passed legislation that would prevent the EPA from implementing their proposed rule with a vote of 262 to 152. The bill would block the EPA from using their proposal in any way regarding the Clean Water Act.
Obama’s administration, however, “strongly opposes” the bill, and will advise that President Obama veto’s the bill if it reaches his desk. The Obama administration is allegedly only interested in protecting the waterways from pollution. They claimed that “clarifying the scope of the Clean Water Act helps to protect clean water, safeguard public health, and strengthen the economy.” They continued by asserting that the bill not only “would derail current efforts to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and guidance,” but would also “sow more confusion and invite more conflict at a time when our communities and businesses need clarity and certainty around clean water regulation.”
This debate is set to continue, and with the threat of a presidential veto looming overhead, it may prove to be a significant issue in upcoming elections.
