Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 9

One of the biggest challenges to new delineators and even some experienced wetland delineators is getting the plant community mapping done right.  This is a very important task as it serves as the basis for where and why the wetland sampling points are located where they are.  As you may recall the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Manuals require that each plant community should be represented by a sampling point.

The new Regional Supplements are really not much help on this.  They do describe in very generic terms what some of the common plant communities in the region and even sub-region are.  For example this is from the Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement.

Northern Mountains and Piedmont (MLRAs 147 and 148 of LRR S)

This subregion includes the northern Appalachian ridges and valleys (MLRA 147) and the northern Piedmont (MLRA 148). The ridge-and-valley portion is underlain by Paleozoic sandstones, conglomerates, limestones, and shales, whereas the Piedmont portion is underlain by generally older metamorphic and igneous rocks. The central portion of the Piedmont also contains sandstones, conglomerates, and shales that were laid down in the ancestral Atlantic Ocean during the Triassic period. Average annual rainfall over most of the subregion ranges from 31 to 52 in. (785 to 1,320 mm), and average annual temperature ranges from 44 to 57 °F (7 to 14 °C) (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006).

 

Only about 55 percent of the ridge-and-valley portion of the subregion and 25 percent of the Piedmont portion are forested today. Agricultural and urban development makes up the remainder of the subregion. Common tree species in forested areas include white oak, black oak, northern red oak, bear oak (Q. ilicifolia), chestnut oak, American elm, hickories, tuliptree, Virginia pine, pitch pine (P. rigida), eastern redcedar, and other species (Society of American Foresters 1980; USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006).

As you can see there is a general description of the trees found in the region.  However, there is not much else.  In this example understory species are not mentioned and there is no discussion of the other plant communities in this area.  The Corps goes on to later extol the need to identify the plant communities.

“The manual uses a plant-community approach to evaluate vegetation. Hydrophytic vegetation decisions are based on the assemblage of plant species growing on a site, rather than the presence or absence of particular indicator species. Hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that require or can tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during the growing season.”

So getting this right is very important.  To help you with this I have a few tips and tricks to get you started.

First, you need to identify a plant Community text for your region.  For example in North Carolina, Classification Of The Natural Communities Of North Carolina Third Approximation, by Michael P. Schafale and Alan S. Weakley (1990) is a great reference document for understanding how these plant communities are distinguished.

This is an example of a portion of the vegetation description for a specific plant community.  There is actually quite a bit more that is present and is very useful.  Location, geology, soils and other features are described relative to this community type.

Carolina Hemlock Bluff

Vegetation: The canopy is generally well developed, though not always closed, owing to extreme rockiness and steepness. Tsuga caroliniana is the dominant trees; species such as Quercus montana (prinus), Pinus rigida, Pinus pungens, Quercus rubra, or Tsuga canadensis often occur. Undergrowth is generally a dense layer of heaths, especially Kalmia latifolia, Rhododendron catawbiense, Gaylussacia spp., and Vaccinium spp. The herb layer is very sparse below the dense shrub growth. Species may include Gaultheria procumbens, Mitchella repens, Chimaphila maculata, Galax urceolata (aphylla), Xerophyllumasphodeloides, and Trilliumundulatum. Bryophytes (Dicranumspp., Leucobryumalbidum, and L. glaucum) and lichens (Cladonia spp. and Cladina spp.) are sometimes prominent.

From this description alone you would be able to develop a plant list and assign wetland indicators.

In just about every state there exists a plant inventory and classification text.  Most of these are published by a state land grant university.  These are usually the major agricultural institutions.   However, in the North Carolina example one professor is from NC State and the other is from the University of NC.  NC State has a major agricultural program.  UNC is more of a research institution.  This collaboration has produced a terrific document and a great example of universities working together.  Just don’t bring up basketball.

I had mentioned a few newsletters ago the Swamp School is launching a new online training program called Virtual Swamp Tours.  This virtual trip to the swamp is intended to show you what these plant communities look like in person.  We hope to have the first set of tours up in a few weeks.  We are also including a sample tour in our hydrology webinar that we are offering next week.

Have a great week!

– Marc

Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 7

In the spirit of the Winter Olympics I thought I would do a little digging on wetlands in Russia.  Russia is the world’s largest county.  According to Wetlands International, the country includes very large areas of wetlands, including peatlands of various types (raised bogs, fens, and transitional mires) covering 1.8 million km2, 120,000 rivers with a total length of 2,300,000 km, 2 million lakes with a total volume of 370,000 km3, and diverse marine wetlands occurring over a 60,000-km stretch of the national coastline.

Since 1975, Russia has been one of the one of the Ramsar countries.  It has designated 35 wetland sites totaling 10.3 million hectares for the Ramsar list.  However, they have also protected areas of wetlands the go well beyond the Ramsar criteria.  Approximately, 9,000,000 ha of wetlands are protected within the strict nature reserves (zapovedniki),  5,300,000 ha, in the federal sanctuaries and wildlife refuges (zakazniki), 650,000 ha, in the national parks, and 60,000,000 ha of wetlands are protected at the local level.

Some of the more significant wetland systems include (From Wetlands International):

• The Volga Delta, the largest deltaic complex in Europe and one of the richest bird habitat in the world, covering 19,000 km2;
• Kandalaksha Bay on the eastern side of the White Sea and Lake Khanka in the Russian Far East, renowned for their importance for breeding and migrating waterbirds;
• The world’s largest peatland system of Bolshoye Vasyuganskoye covering 50,000 km2 in Western Siberia;
• Lake Baikal containing 20% of the world’s liquid fresh water with its unique fauna characterized by the highest number of endemic species of all the inland water bodies;
• Large wetland areas along the coasts of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov on the south;
• Extensive tundra wetlands underlying by permafrost on the north, and many others.

On the plains of Western Siberia, a continuous bog landscape is found, with a great number of lakes and wide river valleys. This area comprises a great ‘duck factory’, comparable with the prairie pothole country of North America.

Wetland concerns in Russia are similar to those in the United States.  Loss of wetlands due to drainage for agriculture and water supply dams have been significant.  There is no large scale assessment of Russia’s wetlands and many systems are vulnerable to development pressures.

To help Russia manage some of its environmental issues representatives from the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Technological Platform, Russian regional administrations, and private industry met with EPA experts in Washington, DC in 2009 to discuss development of economic mechanisms in addressing legacy waste sites in the Arctic Region. The delegation also visited United States Superfund and Brownfields sites, to observe and review innovative technologies and best practices in land remediation and destruction of hazardous wastes.

While this is not directed at wetlands, it is a start. It is reminiscent of the early days of the Clean Water Act in the 1970’s.  The focus then was water contamination.  In Russia today the major concern is hazardous waste, especially in the arctic regions.

Wetlands International has drafted a national strategy for Russia.  It includes a number of key points including:

• Develop and implement a national wetland inventory program;
• Protect the most important wetlands by means of designating sites of special (international, federal and regional) importance;
• Establish a network for monitoring the status of wetlands and a system for collecting, storing and analyzing data on wetlands in the form of National Wetland Cadastre supported by relevant legislation and institutional network;
• Develop legislation that will provide for wetland wise use and conservation throughout the country;
• Raise the awareness in wetland functions and values among the general public and specific target groups;
• Promote the participation of indigenous and local communities and other stakeholders in the decision-making process concerning wetland management and conservation;
• Promote research in wetlands as a basis for management and conservation action;
• Promote international cooperation in the field of wetland conservation and sustainable use.

Wetlands International recently published a guidebook for creating concepts for visitor centers and eco-trails in wetlands.  It is targeted at a wide audience, including those that have the intention of establishing a visitor center or a wetland center, plan to renovate an old natural history museum, design a network of walking trails, a child-friendly exhibit or a play area. This publication contains the detailed description of the steps they will go through to plan the concept development process, the practical examples and tips to avoid common mistakes.  It sounds like a great publication. Unfortunately, it is only available in Russian.   You can download it here. 

das vi danya

Марк

The Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 3

Each year we like to take a look back at the wetland jobs market with the hope to find some encouraging news. Most of our focus has been on the wetland assessment side of the business. This is always a tricky analysis as the data is usually extrapolated from various sources and the cobbled together. There is not labor class called “wetland scientist.” Although, after reading a couple of new reports, there should be. It is a growing business.

About a week ago Forbes magazine published and article entitled, “Now THIS Is What We Call Green Jobs: The Restoration Industry ‘Restores’ the Environment and the Economy.” The focus of the article was about a new economic report published by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on the topic of the ecologic restoration industry. The study was limited to the restoration side of the wetlands business and included other types of restoration. Everything from wetlands to streams to endangered species were included in the study.

One of the biggest challenges of the study was defining what exactly is meant by restoration. This served as the first aspect of the study and helps identify industries associated with restoration. The authors did not want to include non-green types of projects affectionately known as gray projects. The challenge was not to mix hazardous waste restoration with wetland or stream restoration. Oftentimes these types of restoration are co-mingled.

The second aspect of the study was to identify the jobs that arose from the green restoration work. Again the authors were faced with the challenge that many of the green jobs were housed within existing engineering and consulting firms. The trick was to segment out the individuals that work in the green aspects of the firms work.

A number of highly credible economic sources were used in the development of the study. Number companies like Price Waterhouse Coopers have been tasked with developing economic analysis studies for various clients that focus on green restoration. The Nature Conservancy has undertaken a number of these studies on some of their projects that are quite informative.

Getting back to jobs there is an economic principle called employment multiplier. Quite simply this is the number of jobs that are created for a given amount of money spent in a particular industry. This is usually expressed as a number of jobs per million dollars spent. This is part of a bigger analysis called economic multipliers. This translates to a increase based upon spending. This is also called a total demand multiplier. For example for every million spent the result is 2.5 million increase in output. Therefore, you have a total demand multiplier of 2.5.

The report provides and analysis of variation in job impact estimates by project type and geographic scale. The news is good.  This table represents a number of case studies and the jobs associated with them.

As you can see the number of jobs associated with the restoration industry is relatively high. By comparison the oil and gas industry has an employment multiplier of 3.

The following is the conclusion from the UNC report.

Based on a thorough review of the literature, it is clear that the U.S. has a highly active restoration industry, contributing growth and jobs to the national economy in the short-­‐term as well as long-­‐term value and cost-­‐savings. Despite the commonly held idea that environmental regulations like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act impede development, there is ample evidence that the public and private investments driven by these regulations have a stimulating effect on economic output and employment. Restoration investments appear to have particularly localized benefits, which can be attributed to the tendency for projects to employ local labor and materials (Weinerman, Buckley and Reich 2012, Davis et al. 2011, Shropshire and Wagner 2009). Though contractors and workers may experience seasonal and inter-­‐annual fluctuations in income and employment, like their counterparts in the construction industry, preliminary evidence indicates that restoration jobs are well compensated in comparison to average wages (Shropshire and Wagner 2009).

Federal appropriations for restoration-­‐related programs can be conservatively estimated at $2.5 billion per year (see Appendix: Restoration Program Database). Public and private investments linked to compensatory mitigation total an estimated $3.8 billion per year (Environmental Law Institute 2007), and non-­‐profit investments in natural resources and wildlife preservation and protection are estimated to exceed $4.3 billion annually (Southwick Associates 2013). As demonstrated by the economic contributions literature, these large-­‐scale restoration investments stimulate output and employment in a wide range of other industries, through supplier and household spending effects. However, due to variability in multiplier effects at different geographic scales, across different geographic areas, and among different types of projects, there are real challenges to scaling up contributions estimates to the national level. Further research is needed in order to understand the total size of the Restoration Economy, and the impact that restoration investments have on the national economy.

Between the private, public and non-profit groups a total of 8.1 billion is spent on restoration annually. That translates to 8,000 jobs. Not too shabby.

Have a great week!

– Marc

Swamp Stomp

Volume 14, Issue 1

Hello and welcome to 2014. Happy New Year!

I thought I would start off the first Swamp Stomp of 2104 with a bang. The end of last year was just a warm up to the new plans EPA and the Corps have been cooking up for us. This year we can expect it to be implemented.

What I am talking about?

EPA news rules for what is a jurisdictional waters of the US.

One of the major cornerstones of the new rules is an understanding of the concept of “significant nexus.” This concept arose from the Rapanos and Carabell case that went before the Supreme Court in 2006. In the eight or so years since that case, we have been left pondering what exactly Justice Kennedy was saying with his term significant nexus. He never really defined it.

To better understand where this is going you have to understand that the Supreme Court did not render a majority opinion in the Rapanos case. Justice Kennedy concurred with the plurality opinion, but his opinion was his alone. He held that a wetland or non-navigable water-body falls within the Clean Water Act’s ambit if it bears a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable waterway. Such a nexus exists where the wetland or water-body, either by itself or in combination with other similar sites, significantly affects the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the downstream navigable waterway.

For the past seven years The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been utilizing draft guidance to determine what is a jurisdictional water and what is not. This took the form of a non-binding guidance document developed by the Corps and draft regulatory guidance developed by the EPA in 2011. The later was withdrawn in October of 2013.

So what is a significant nexus?

The existing understanding of significant nexus includes two parts. First, there must be a connection to a downstream waters of the US. Second, the area in question must have an effect on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable water.

The problem is with the second statement. There seems to be a cause and effect relationship between the suspect water and the established downstream traditionally navigable water. The problem is how do you assess an effect of a system that has not yet been affected? Can we assume that our upstream impact will cause a downstream “significant” impact? Likewise, what if there is no planned impact to the upstream water. We just want to know if the water-body in question is jurisdictional.

In September, 2013 the EPA prepared a report that summarized the latest published documents of the connectivity of wetland and streams to downstream waters. The short version of this report is that almost every water-body is connected to every other water-body. This is especially true when it is raining. Water seems to go everywhere! However, is it significant? The report never addresses that point!

Significant

According to Webster:

Full Definition of SIGNIFICANT

1: having meaning; especially : suggestive
2a : having or likely to have influence or effect : important; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount
b : probably caused by something other than mere chance

In the EPA guidance they suggest that significant is more than “speculative or insubstantial.”

Based upon a review of the September 2013 EPA report it would seem that the burden of proof that a project does not have a significant impact to downstream waters remains with the applicant. One major concern with the EPA report is that it does not discern between insignificant and significant. In fact it would appear that all connections are significant.

Nexus

Again according to Webster:

Full Definition of NEXUS

1: connection, link; also : a causal link
2: a connected group or series
3: center, focus

Nexus is kind of a funny term to have been used to define a jurisdictional water. It speaks directly to cause and affect relationship. The casual link is the key to understanding perhaps what Justice Kennedy meant. He could have said just “link.” But that does not adequately describe the relationship. It is not just that the two water-bodies are linked, but rather the link is the cause of a downstream affect. When you add significant to the phrase you can assume that Justice Kennedy envisioned water relationships that were insignificant as well as significant. Otherwise why not just say nexus?

A glance into the future

The following is from the leaked draft of the new EPA waters of the US rules. It is from page 31 of part 1.

Significant nexus: The term significant nexus means more than speculative or insubstantial effect that a water, including wetlands, either alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region (i.e., the watershed that drains to a water identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (3) of this section), has on the chemical, physical or biological integrity of a water identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (3) of this section. “Other waters,” including wetlands, are similarly situated when they perform similar functions and are located sufficiently close together or close to a water of the United States so that they can be evaluated as a single landscape unit with regard to their effect on the chemical, physical or biological integrity of a water a identified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (3) of this section.

Yes, that means non-wetlands can provide the significant nexus connection to make a landscape feature jurisdictional. These non-wetland areas may also be jurisdictional due to the nexus they provide.

If you want to dive into this deeper, please consider joining us at one of our NEW EPA RULES classes this winter and spring.

Have a great week!

Marc