Author: Marc Seelinger

On 3 August 2023, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a final rule to adjust its civil monetary penalties (CMP) under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1922 (RHA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the National Fishing Enhancement Act (NFEA) to account for inflation.  With this new rule, the new statutory maximum penalty levels listed in on Table 1 below and will apply to all statutory civil penalties assessed on or after the effective date of this rule. This represents a 7.745% increase over the 2022 rate.

In addition, violations are considered Class I administrative penalty orders under Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act, judicially-imposed civil penalties under Section 404(s) of the Clean Water Act, and Section 205 of the National Fishing Enhancement Act. Under Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act.  Class I civil penalties may not exceed $25,848 per violation, except that the maximum amount of any Class I civil penalty shall not exceed $64,619. Under Section 404(s)(4) of the Clean Water Act, judicially-imposed civil penalties may not exceed $64,619 per day for each violation. Under Section 205(e) of the National Fishing Enhancement Act, penalties for violations of permits issued in accordance with that Act shall not exceed $28,304 for each violation.

The statutory civil monetary penalty amounts are for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, and are assessed on or after August 3, 2023.

Table 1

Citation	Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP) amount established by law	2022 CMP amount in effect prior to this rulemaking	2022 Inflation adjustment multiplier	CMP Amount as of August 3, 2023
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1922 (33 U.S.C. 555)	$2,500 per violation	$6,270 per violation	1.07745	$6,756 per violation.
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(2)(A)	$10,000 per violation, with a maximum of $25,000	$23,990 per violation, with a maximum of $59,974	1.07745	$25,848 per violation, with a maximum of $64,619.
CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1344(s)(4)	Maximum of $25,000 per day for each violation	Maximum of $59,974 per day for each violation	1.07745	Maximum of $64,619 per day for each violation.
National Fishing Enhancement Act, 33 U.S.C. 2104(e)	Maximum of $10,000 per violation	Maximum of $26,269 per violation	1.07745	Maximum of $28,304 per violation.

Reprinted from Coastal Review

They are neither confined to the Carolinas, nor are they bays. That their name is misleading is in many ways very appropriate for the enigmatic formations known as Carolina bays.

But it isn’t what they are that holds the mystery; rather it is how did they get here?

Found in the coastal plains along the Atlantic shoreline, Carolina bays are shallow wetland depressions that are fed by rain or groundwater. They range in size from less than an acre to thousands of acres.  Most of the 500,000 or so Carolina Bays are in the Carolinas and Georgia, with the highest concentration found in Bladen County in North Carolina’s southeast coastal plain.

The term “bay” is a nod to the various species of bay trees and shrubs commonly found growing alongside most Carolina bays, but they are also unique reservoirs of many species of carnivorous plants, salamanders, frogs, turtles, birds and mammals.

Viewed from the ground they could easily be overlooked. But when viewed from above, Carolina bays create a dramatic imprint on the landscape. They all have a distinct elliptical shape, with a northwest to southeast orientation. They could be described as the crop circles of the wetlands. And oddly, this wouldn’t be their only connection to extraterrestrial theories.

When aerial photography was used to survey farmland in the 1930s surveyors were surprised to see thousands of elliptical depressions across the Eastern Seaboard. Interest in their origin quickly grew, with hypotheses ranging from ocean currents, wind patterns and sinkholes, to meteor showers and prehistoric gigantic beavers.

The mystery of the Carolina bays reached a fever pitch in the 1950s, when a respected University of North Carolina geologist named William Prouty steadfastly contended that the bays were a result of a meteor or comet colliding with the Earth over 12,000 years ago. This idea made quite an impact, so to speak, and debate continued for years about the cosmic nature of Carolina bays. One popular theory links the extinction event known as the Younger Dryas extinction (the same one responsible for wiping out the mammoth) to the formation of Carolina bays, suggesting that the wind and debris created from a comet colliding with the Earth near the Great Lakes region caused the depressions that became the bays.

Exploding comets and mass extinctions make for quite a dramatic birth story. And while everyone enjoys a bit of drama in their tales, doubt about the cosmic creation of Carolina bays led scientists to investigate individual bays more closely. What they found turned out to be a much more earthly creation process.

For instance, if Carolina Bays were the result of a single impact event then they should all be the same age.

“Data negates they [Carolina Bays] were formed at the same time,” said Anthony Rodriguez, associate professor of coastal geology at UNC’s Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City.

Rodriguez, along with then-graduate student Matt Waters and UNC associate professor, Michael Piehler, set out to study the origin and evolution of Lake Mattamuskeet, a conglomeration of multiple Carolina Bays in Hyde County on the Albemarle-Pamlico peninsula. Not only did they find no evidence linking these Carolina bays to a cosmic event such as the Younger Dryas extinction, but they also discovered that Lake Mattamuskeet is much younger, by at least 6,000 years, than Carolina bays were assumed to be.

Instead of an icy comet raining onto the Earth, Rodriguez and his colleagues discovered that Lake Mattamuskeet had a fiery beginning. Their analysis of the lake showed that cycles of burning peat associated with dry periods in the climate caused a basin to form where water later accumulated. Winds transported sand and silt, shaping the rim into the characteristic elliptical pattern. And, ta-da, after 1,000 years or so you have a Carolina bay.

When asked about the celestial hypothesis about the origin of Carolina bays, Rodriguez says carefully, “I think in the scientific community it certainly is not believed to be the case. But there is still a subset of believers in a cosmic beginning.”

He has reason to be careful in his response. A web search on Carolina bays brings up multiple sites that provide personal theories touting their cosmic beginnings, interspersed with a limited number of sites detailing the current scientific understanding. It appears that by many, the belief in a cosmic origin is still as passionately supported as it was in the 1950s.

This is not lost of Rodriguez. Parents to similarly aged children, Rodriguez and Piehler were surprised to open their children’s science textbook at a school open house to find that Carolina bays are still being linked to cosmic events.

“On one hand, at least they were in there,” said Rodriguez. “But this just isn’t the case. We couldn’t believe that this is still being told about Carolina bays.”

Still, Rodriguez and his colleagues are cautious to apply the results of their study on Lake Mattamuskeet to explain the origin of other Carolina bays.

“Although we think Lake Mattamuskeet formed by a peat fire, and other bays also might have, they probably aren’t all formed this way,” said Rodriguez.

But he does believe that wind is the driving force in shaping most, if not all, Carolina bays into their characteristic elliptical shape.

“These are soft substrates that shift with wind direction over time. The old timers, from the ‘30s to ‘50s, if you draw a line along the long axis (of the Carolina bays they surveyed) that line shifts a little bit as you move farther south. This goes along with wind direction,” explained Rodriguez.

Despite the growing understanding of the origin of some Carolina bays, the vast majority of them have yet to be closely studied. Rodriguez notes that he has had difficulty receiving funding for additional studies on Carolina bays, causing him to table future research on other sites.

And while some are protected as state or national parks, many of the Carolina Bays are already gone. Over the years, thousands of Carolina Bays have been drained and turned into farmland, recreational spaces, or converted to roadways — erasing these unique geological and ecological formations — and taking the mystery of their origin with them.

Source

Loomis, C. (2013). The Fiery Origins of Carolina Bays. Coastal Review. Retrieved from https://coastalreview.org/2013/08/the-fiery-origins-of-carolina-bays/

Republished from Virginia Mercury

Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality released a memo last month detailing how it will approach reviews of applications for permits involving wetlands following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sharply limits the number of wetlands subject to federal protection.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that wetlands must have a surface connection to a larger navigable body of water, rather than only an underground connection, in order to be federally protected.

Virginia officials and environmental groups say the state already has strong laws on the books that provide broad protection of both tidal and non-tidal, or inland, wetlands. But the Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reduced federal involvement in reviewing protections and shifted more responsibility to states.

Jurisdictional Determinations

The biggest change Virginia will face is in handling jurisdictional determinations, or identifications of water body boundaries through a process known as delineation that is used to determine whether the government has oversight of a particular water. 

Previously, DEQ relied on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make those determinations. That relationship was already in flux: In May, the Corps requested that all new applications for permits come with completed determinations, citing workload issues, and it paused determinations as the EPA sought a change to a rule defining what federal waters are. The Sackett ruling has exacerbated that situation, with the Corps unlikely to resume determinations until the new rule is finalized in light of the decision.

Amid uncertainty among developers on who will conduct the determinations and in anticipation of an increased workload to process applications with the loss of their federal partners, DEQ released the June 29 memo detailing its review process under the new interpretation of the law.

“At this time, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) does not know how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will implement the Sackett decision in permitting and delineation boundary decisions,” the memo states. “We anticipate that there may be new federal guidance, checklists, field procedures, regulations and other information made public in the future.”

Jeff Steers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Permit Guidance

The memo says the agency will “strive” to review permit applications for projects that already have delineations within 30 days. Under DEQ’s new process, all delineations must be conducted by professional wetland delineators certified by the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation. 

A footnote to the memo notes there are an estimated 118 professional wetlands delineators in Virginia, with over 100 in the private sector. 

DEQ will still accept applications with delineations identified by non-certified professional delinations, but the agency says it “cannot provide a time frame on how long that review will take.”

DEQ’s request for all delineations to be performed by certified professionals is a way for “projects to move forward in a timely manner,” a news release from the agency states.

“Balanced economic development and environmental protection are integrally linked,” said DEQ Director Michael Rolband in a statement. “We are doing everything possible to ensure that the Sackett decision does not harm Virginia’s growing economy or environment.”

Andrew Clark, vice president of government affairs for the Home Builders Association of Virginia, said that the Corps’ freeze on issuing approved jurisdictional determinations could extend into next year and have a “chilling effect” on development. 

“Jurisdictional determinations provide clarity on the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to a project and allow developers to identify site constraints that may impact community design, site planning, infrastructure placement, unit types, and density,” Clark said in an email. DEQ’s approach, he said, “will minimize permitting delays and regulatory uncertainty.”

Wetland Delineations

One avenue of uncertainty for wetlands protections is how the delineations will be made going forward.

Virginia state code requires delineations to follow guidance laid out in a 1987 manual from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But even though Sackett has reduced the scope of the Corps’ oversight of wetlands, Jonathan Gendzier, a staff attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said he hasn’t “heard of any” changes planned to the manual. 

The new review process outlined by DEQ is “applaudable,” said Chris French, a member of the Protect Hanover group that has been fighting for wetlands protections during the development of a Wegmans distribution facility outside Richmond, but the 30-day window may be a tight opportunity for a thorough review. Delineation decisions can be complicated and frequently require field verification, explained French.

The process is “pretty comprehensive,” French said. “For a large site like Wegmans, one company spent weeks on it. [DEQ] is trying to meet a need with the resources they have. You don’t want to have delays. You don’t want to have impacts to wetlands either. You have to ensure they’re complementary.” 

Maintaining Protection Efforts

Environmental groups like nonprofit Wetlands Watch say staffing levels at DEQ will also need to remain high to keep Virginia’s wetland protections intact. 

“Virginia doesn’t want to go back,” said Wetlands Watch Executive Director Mary-Carson Stiff. 

Peggy Sanner, Virginia executive director for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said DEQ has developed a “thoughtful process to help address the need for wetlands protection and permitting efficiency,” but added, “It is imperative that Virginia continues to safeguard wetlands that are no longer federally protected.”  

Martha Moore, vice president of government relations for the Virginia Farm Bureau, said Virginia’s guidance “is consistent with the [Sackett] ruling as it referred to the states to regulate, which Virginia already did.”

“DEQ, like a number of state agencies, has a lot of vacancies so I would assume this would [be] like any other regulatory program they administer that they have to utilize the resources they have,” Moore said. “I think the issue is finding people as opposed to not filling positions. They would need qualified people to help implement the regulatory requirements of all of their programs.”

Source

Paullin, C. (2023). Virginia offers wetland permit guidance following Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling. Virginia Mercury. Retrieved from https://www.virginiamercury.com/2023/07/14/virginia-offers-wetland-permit-guidance-following-supreme-courts-sackett-ruling/

With recent graduates entering the professional world, I thought it might be helpful to offer some advice on entering the wetland job market. Several of our subscribers either work in a related wetland science field or are interested in wetland studies. If you know any recent graduates looking to start their wetland career, please pass this post on!

First, I want to congratulate you on your hard work. You are probably now wondering “What can I do to get a job?”

The answer is simple; you need “real world” training. No matter your field, you need to look at the required skill sets for a prospective job and get them now. This applies to all industries, not just wetland science.

I am sure the last thing you want to hear is that you need more schooling. Four years of college should be enough to get started. However, no matter what job you are looking at, your employer will require that you either get on-the-job training or attend a training workshop. More often than not, a college degree opens the door to a job, but it does not give you all of the required skills.

A simple example is found at your local supermarket. Generally, supermarkets have at least one week of employee training before they face the public. You could have an MBA but not know how to run the register or which aisle you can find peanut butter. Supermarkets have a treasure hunt for groceries as part of their training to learn the store layout. Add in the inventory reporting, human resource compliance, how to deal with U-scan, etc., and it can be quite a lot. None of which you are going to learn in college. Each new employee needs to undergo the training process, which takes time.

How does this translate to wetland science?

Right now, we are at the beginning of wetland delineation season. Employers need to increase their work crews for the busy season and hire new recruits for projects that have already started.

So, what can you do?

Get trained now! Enroll in an introductory wetland delineation class. Having a wetland delineation training certificate on your resume puts you ahead of other job seekers.

Why?

You can start working on billable work almost immediately. In addition, you have saved the company the tuition, any class-related travel expenses, and the most expensive aspect of training, non-billable hours. This can represent thousands of dollars the company does not have to spend. By going into the job interview with this training, you are the most cost-effective hire they will consider, and you can start making them money right away.

We at the Swamp School obviously have a stake in this, but we want to help you get a job. As part of our training program, we provide you with many job resources and are happy to discuss any job-seeking advice we can offer. Give us a call or start a chat if you need any help.

As hurricane season draws near, studies show that coastal wetlands can mitigate property damage from flooding and storms, saving taxpayers millions of dollars annually in averted losses.

The study, jointly conducted by researchers from the University of California Santa Cruz and scientists from private insurance, conservation, and engineering groups, assessed the value of the ecosystem services provided by wetlands to mitigate flood damage in the northeastern United States caused by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The researchers estimated that $625 million of property damage was prevented by coastal wetlands. From Maine to North Carolina, the study found an average 22% reduction of damages for each of the areas assessed.

Their findings established a clear, positive correlation between wetlands and the value of nearby properties. They also found a positive correlation between wetland areas and averted losses due to flooding. This correlation was consistent in heavily urbanized coastal areas that had lost most of their wetlands, such as New York, where wetlands cover only 2% of the land yet still saved the state $140 million.

Wetlands as a buffer

Wetlands can serve as a buffer between the ocean and inland properties. As the storm surge produced by a hurricane moves onto the land, wetland vegetation significantly reduces the wave energy and height, with some wetlands attenuating surge action by up to seventy centimeters per kilometer.

Despite the profound ecosystem service value, only about 3% of private and public investments in coastal infrastructure go toward wetland restoration. The remaining 97% goes toward “grey” infrastructure, such as concrete seawalls that can be expensive to maintain and often only redirect flood water to other areas, potentially exacerbating the damages to life and property.

Aside from damages caused exclusively by hurricanes, the researchers also measured the annual flood mitigating benefits derived from salt marshes in Barnegat Bay in Ocean County, New Jersey. They found that properties buffered by wetlands experienced an average of 16% fewer losses than those not buffered from the ocean by wetlands, suggesting that wetland restoration is a sound investment even if few hurricanes make landfall in the region.

How can we plan ahead?

An affiliated report by Lloyd’s Tercentenary Research Foundation assessed strategies for funding wetlands restoration initiatives. The restoration strategies included investing in flood-mitigating wetland restoration and conservation before a catastrophic weather event, which would reduce the price of insurance premiums and securities, allowing the resulting savings to pay for the initial costs of restoration. Then, after a natural disaster does occur, a portion of the public and private recovery and rebuilding funds would be allocated towards further wetland restoration efforts, making the coasts even more resilient and reducing flood insurance premiums further.

By quantifying the monetary value of the ecosystem services provided by wetlands, wetland conservation is legible to politicians, investors, and laypeople. This understanding will lead to an increase in wetland management for the benefit of humans and ecosystems alike.

Sources:

Siddarth, N., et al. (2017). The Value of Coastal Wetland for Flood Reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports, 7 (9463). Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09269-z

Stephens, T. (2017). Coastal wetlands dramatically reduce property losses during hurricanes. University of California Santa Cruz Newscenter. Retrieved from https://news.ucsc.edu/2017/08/coastal-wetlands.html