Microplastics, tiny fragments of plastic less than 5 millimeters (about 0.2 in) in size, have become a growing topic of conversation in recent years. Since 1950, about 8 million tons of plastic have been produced, but only about 10% of that has been reused and recycled. The rest of that plastic has found its way to landfills, the ocean, and roadsides, to name a few. Primary microplastics are plastic materials designed to be small in order to perform a specific function. Think about the exfoliating beads you see in face cleansers, or the grittiness you can sometimes feel in your toothpaste. Secondary microplastics come from the breakdown of larger plastic materials: water bottles and storage tubs are good examples. Through wear and tear, the effects of the sun, wind, and water, larger plastic items break down into tiny pieces. Most plastics that have been produced take thousands of years to fully decompose; so in the meantime, those tiny plastic pieces end up in the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, and the soil beneath our feet.

Most microplastic studies have focused on the ocean. How do microplastics affect marine life, and in turn, how would that consequence affect us? Research has shown that microplastics are often absorbed and ingested by sea creatures, and if they survive having the plastic inside of them, and do not become ill or die from the toxins that might have come along with the plastic pieces, then those toxins and fragments stay within the animal. When that animal is eaten, the plastic moves up a notch in the food chain; the amounts of microplastic present within a creature’s tissues increase the further up the food chain you go. Microplastics have been found in people, and studies have found microplastics in our food, honey, and sugar. They are everywhere, and a recent study published in the Science of the Total Environment journal in January of this year revealed that microplastics had been found in soil samples collected more than seven meters (23 feet) below the surface. The samples had originally been collected as part of an archaeological excavation in the 1980s, and, until now, the samples were thought to be from stratigraphic layers untouched by human activity.

The authors of the study caution that their research is in the early stages, but for archaeologists, this development might result in seismic changes to the field. Preserving prehistoric and historic resources in situ, that is, in their original state, as opposed to digging them up or moving them elsewhere saves time and resources. The idea is that being encased deep within the earth will preserve the resource for a long time, but this research presents the distressing notion that microplastics have been contaminating archaeological sites for decades. Why are microplastics a problem in soils? Not only are they ingested by soil-dwelling animals and absorbed by vegetation, but the presence of microplastics can alter the chemical and physical composition of the soils and sediments themselves. As a result, sites, features, artifacts, and remains buried underground may deteriorate more rapidly, and the chemicals released from the microplastics as they decay could potentially compromise radiocarbon dating and trace element analyses.

The researchers emphasize that soil is often not studied holistically as a complex ecosystem. Archaeology as a field tends to view soils and sediments solely as the casings surrounding the good stuff, and not as an entity that acts on and is acted upon by the artifacts and ecofacts humans leave behind. In order to fully understand how the presence of microplastics will affect preservation, more research must be performed on soil as an ecosystem, taking into account its physical, chemical, and biological components together. Soils are unique in that they can change from one kind to another, if the environmental factors change. Studies on microplastics in our oceans, our air, and our food are important, and should continue. The consequences of microplastics in our soils, while still relatively unknown, are consequences all the same. More attention should be focused on figuring out exactly what effect those consequences will have.

The following blog is a shorter version of the article Analysis: Millions of acres of NC wetlands can be developed due to SCOTUS, NC law by Adam Wagner, published in the Raleigh News & Observer on April 1, 2024. To read the full article, click here.

A large portion of North Carolina’s wetlands could lose protections due to the dual impact of a Supreme Court decision and a state law. When North Carolina lawmakers passed a provision in last year’s Farm Act that prevented development only in wetlands protected by the federal government, they couldn’t answer a key question: How many acres of wetlands here would lose protection? For North Carolina, the answers range from bad to worse, with the analysis determining that anywhere between 14% and 100% of the state’s non-coastal wetlands could be open to development. Those wetlands cover 490,000 to 3.6 million acres, many of them in the low-lying coastal plain. The wide range of risk in the analysis is due to ongoing litigation about what constitutes a federally protected wetland, said Adam Gold, an EDF manager for climate resilient coasts and wetlands in North Carolina and Virginia “The Supreme Court used really unclear language and this leaves the door wide open for potential interpretations.”

The timing of the North Carolina bill’s passage was just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett V. EPA decision, a rollback of federal wetlands protections. The decision narrowed which wetlands the federal Clean Water Act protects to those continuously “adjoining” streams, oceans, rivers and lakes in the U.S. The N.C. Home Builders Association was a key force behind last year’s rule change in North Carolina, arguing that the change was introduced to prevent state environmental officials from regulating some isolated wetlands no longer protected by federal rules. North Carolina has other state and local rules that will protect many wetlands that could lose federal protections, Chris Millis, the Home Builders Association’s director of regulatory affairs, told The News & Observer. He pointed to riparian buffer rules, vegetated areas near streams; watershed protection overlays that limit development and require stormwater controls in areas that are important to drinking water supplies; and floodplain protections that curb development in flood-prone areas. Millis also pointed to a March 2024 memo from Assistant Secretary of the Army Michael Connor to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers directing the agency to continue including wetlands that are no longer federally protected due to the Court’s decision in Corps mitigation projects. That means that even though a wetland might no longer be federally protected from development, the Corps could restrict development there. Citing reduced protections for some North Carolina wetlands, Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the 2023 Farm Act, but legislators overrode Cooper’s veto.

Wetlands are a key point of regulatory conflict, with businesses and developers arguing that protections are applied too broadly, stymieing building projects that should move forward with ease. Environmental groups say wetlands are key to a clean environment because they filter pollutants out of water and protect against flooding. An acre of wetlands can hold between a million and 1.5 million gallons of water, according to the EPA. That’s particularly important in isolated wetlands found in the Piedmont or North Carolina mountains, Gold said. By retaining water, he said, those wetlands reduce the amount of floodwater flowing downstream, helping everyone in the stream or river basin below. “The wetlands that are most at risk after this decision are the ones that are most critical for flood storage because they are towards the headwaters of watersheds,” Gold said.

Another concern environmental lawyers have about the Farm Act is that it goes further to roll back protections than previous rollbacks, which were primarily focused on permitting the filling in of certain wetlands for development activity. Those wetlands are now no longer protected by state rules limiting the discharge of pollutants into water. With the new information in hand, environmental advocates hope to start making the case for additional wetlands protections when lawmakers return for the short session next month. David Kelly, EDF’s North Carolina president, wrote in an email that lawmakers either have to find a way to convince developers to avoid the losses of wetlands or significantly ramp up funding for wetlands conservation and restoration. “We believe it’s important that science helps inform the policy discussion on wetland conservation in North Carolina and beyond, with the consequences of the Sackett decision providing a clear example of the kind broad ambiguity and uncertainty that can result when policy making is not rooted firmly in science,” Kelly wrote. “We stand ready; if there are any areas of environmental concern that are affected, we’re open-minded and we’re not trying to develop in areas that are truly wetlands,” Millis said.

The following blog post is a summary of the Saving the Wetlands article by Shenti Menon that appeared in the Environmental Defense Fund’s Volume 55, Number 1 Winter 2024 edition of Solutions magazine.

Photo courtesy of Getty Images

Louisiana’s coastline is a marvel, a dynamic landscape shaped by the mighty Mississippi River, but it’s also one of the fastest-disappearing places on Earth. Over the years, human interventions like levees and dams have disrupted the natural flow of sediment, causing the wetlands that act as a buffer against storms and floods to erode at an alarming rate. Since the 1930s, an area equivalent to the size of Delaware has vanished from Louisiana’s wetlands, leaving communities vulnerable to the increasing threats of climate change. Enter the ambitious project championed by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and partners: the restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands using the power of the Mississippi River itself. This groundbreaking endeavor, part of Louisiana’s $50 billion plan to bolster coastal resilience, seeks to counteract land loss by allowing the river to flow freely and replenish the disappearing wetlands.

The Mississippi River, flowing over 2,000 miles through the heart of America, carries with it rich sediment that has historically nourished Louisiana’s coastal ecosystems. However, human efforts to control the river’s course have disrupted this natural process, leading to the rapid disappearance of land. Levees and other structures built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage navigation and flood protection have inadvertently starved the wetlands of sediment, exacerbating the effects of subsidence and sea-level rise.

Represented in yellow, the Mid-Barataria sediment diversion will replenish the dying wetlands.

The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project represents a paradigm shift in how we approach coastal restoration. Instead of fighting against the river’s natural processes, Louisiana is embracing them. Engineers will create a 2-mile-long channel to reconnect the river with the vanishing wetlands of Barataria Bay, allowing sediment-rich water to flow in and rebuild land. This approach mimics the natural diversions that occur when the Mississippi finds weak spots in its banks, carving new paths to the sea and depositing sediment along the way. Already, natural diversions like Neptune Pass in Plaquemines Parish have demonstrated the potential of sediment to create new land. Satellite images show muddy sediment flowing into coastal waters, where it accumulates and forms the foundation for new wetlands. With the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, this process will be accelerated, restoring 20–40 square miles of wetlands over the next 50 years.

But the project isn’t without its challenges and controversies. Some stakeholders, particularly in the fishing industry, are concerned about the potential impact on their livelihoods. The diversion of freshwater into saltwater habitats could disrupt ecosystems and alter the distribution of fish and shellfish. However, proponents argue that the long-term benefits of coastal restoration far outweigh these concerns. By protecting and enhancing the natural environment, the project aims to safeguard not only vulnerable communities but also the rich biodiversity of Louisiana’s coast. Moreover, the project is not just about restoring land; it’s also about supporting the communities that rely on these ecosystems for their survival. Louisiana has allocated significant funds to mitigate the impact of the diversion on fisheries and other industries. Investments in new gear, oyster cultivation, and flood mitigation measures demonstrate a commitment to balancing environmental restoration with economic prosperity.

In addition to large-scale infrastructure projects, innovative initiatives are emerging to address the interconnected challenges of climate change and agriculture. Programs like the Regenerative Agriculture Financing Program, developed by EDF and Farmers Business Network, reward farmers for adopting climate-smart practices that reduce emissions and build soil health. By incentivizing sustainable farming methods, these programs not only mitigate climate change but also improve the resilience of agricultural systems. Louisiana’s coastal restoration efforts serve as a model for proactive adaptation to environmental challenges. By harnessing the power of nature and investing in community resilience, we can protect our precious coastal landscapes for generations to come. The challenges ahead are immense, but with collaboration and innovation, we can ensure a brighter future for Louisiana’s coast and its people.

#CoastalRestoration #MississippiRiver #Wetlands #Sustainability #Community Resilience #EnvironmentalStewardship #Innovation