Category: Newsletter

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.

What Is Habitat Conservation?

The most common definition for habitat conservation is a management practice that creates plans for preserving, protecting, and restoring habitats and is responsible for preventing species extinction, fragmentation, or reduction in range.

History of Habitat Conservation

For centuries, nature was viewed as a resource for economic gain and controlled by government rules and regulations. The 18th and 19th centuries marked the beginning of the conservationist ideology. The ideology included three core principles: 

• Identifying human activities that impact the environment
• Ensuring environmental preservation for future generations
• Conducting conservation efforts responsibly

The first regulatory application of conservation principles was established in the forests of British India. Sir James Ranald Martin was a pre-eminent British military surgeon in India. He encouraged the notion that there are links between human and environmental health. He published medico-topographical reports demonstrating damage from large-scale deforestation and desiccation. Martin used his research to lobby for forest conservation activities in British India.

In 1842 the Madras Board of Revenue, led by botanist Alexander Gibson, started local conservation efforts in British India. This forest conservation program was adopted based on scientific principles, making it the first case of state conservation management of forests. In 1855, Governor-General Lord Dalhousie introduced the first permanent and large-scale forest conservation program in the United States and other colonies. This program promoted the inception of the world’s first national park in 1872: Yellowstone National Park.

By the mid-20th century, people began to appreciate the value of nature itself rather than focusing on the economic benefits. Various movements and activist groups raised awareness to protect natural capital. Several countries, including the United States, Canada, and Britain, enacted legislation to protect the most fragile environments and ecosystems.

The Importance of Habitat Conservation

Today, governments and non-governmental organizations worldwide are creating policies focused on protecting habitats and preserving biodiversity. The commitment and daily actions of volunteer associations in local communities make an enormous difference in ensuring that future generations understand the importance of natural resource conservation.

Habitats serve a multitude of organisms, and therefore it is of utmost importance to preserve them. Several reports have documented habitat loss in fragile ecosystems, such as coastal and inland wetlands, coastal sage scrub, oak woodlands, vernal pools, and free-flowing rivers. Moreover, many endangered species are found in these habitats. Degraded or reduced habitat area leads to species extinction. The fundamental relationship between habitat and species requires habitat protection to conserve biological diversity.

Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) created the SHC approach to establish self-sustaining wildlife populations with landscape and system sustainability. This adaptive management framework informs decisions to expand resources for wildlife species or species groups in priority landscapes with biological importance. The SHC identifies and selects areas or regions and decides where and how to deliver conservation effectively and achieve predicted outcomes, which are crucial in sustaining endangered species, fish, and wildlife populations.

The strategic conservation of habitats is an ongoing process that includes biological planning with measurable outcomes. The objectives of the SHC design include different management practices and ecological functions for various species. Additionally, monitoring, research, and evaluation are the basis of every decision, grounded in the best science available.      

Partnerships with the U.S. Geological Survey, State and Tribal wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, landowners, and other individuals and organizations with extensive knowledge of the issues allow SHC to assess the risk better and provide effective solutions for landscapes that need conservation.

Strategic Conservation Framework

Through strategic habitat conservation, the USFWS takes strategic, accountable, and adaptive action toward conserving ecosystems. The consistent use of this framework enables the workforce to create a solid plan and creative design and deliver strategically planned conservation actions. Moreover, shared outcomes help members to operate in a more coordinated and collaborative way. The science-driven conservation framework enables project transparency and an extensive, detailed decision-making process.

Strategic habitat conservation focuses on large-scale projects in wildlife and natural resource conservation. Some of the program goals with the SHC include land conversion efforts; improving environmental conditions that impact wildlife; providing reports for the increased public demand for transparency and interagency collaboration; sustaining species, populations, communities, and systems instead of the management of separate resources components; implementation of science-intensive approaches.

Sources

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. (n.d.). Strategic Habitat Conservation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from: https://www.fws.gov/office/arcata-fish-and-wildlife/strategic-habitat-conservation

Reprinted from Environmental Law and Policy Monitor.

Executive Order 14095

On April 21, President Biden signed Executive Order No. 14096 (EO), titled “Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice For All.” The EO builds on prior executive orders by President Biden related to environmental justice, racial equity, and climate change, as well as on the original executive order on environmental justice issued in 1994 by President Clinton (Executive Order No. 12898). Overall, the EO establishes a stronger framework with specific milestones for implementing environmental justice across federal agencies. Below is a summary of the EO’s key provisions.

The EO reaffirms the whole-of-government approach to environmental justice (EJ). Several aspects of the new order stand out. First, it stresses the enforcement of environmental and civil rights laws as important tools to achieve EJ. Second, the order provides a new, broader definition of EJ, which expands the protected categories to include Indigenous populations and individuals with disability, and it includes affordable housing as an element of achieving EJ. Third, the order shifts the standard for EJ from preventing disproportionate and significant/high adverse human health and environmental effects to disproportionate and adverse effects. Fourth, the EO explicitly identifies climate change and cumulative impacts as effects that must be addressed.

How Are Federal Agencies Impacted?

Reporting requirements are established by the EO for EPA and DOJ. EPA is required to report annually to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council on its reviews of state air permitting actions. DOJ is required to assess agency efforts to ensure compliance with civil rights laws and report annually to CEQ regarding pending or closed litigation.

The EO requires each federal agency to develop an EJ Strategic Plan within 18 months, and such plans must be posted online. EJ Strategic Plans are to establish agency goals, vision, and priority action items, and outline how regulations, policies, or permits could be used to improve accountability. The EJ Strategic Plans should consider requiring public reporting by regulated entities, expanding the use of pollution measurement tools (e.g., fence line monitoring), and removing exemptions and waivers that may undermine EJ goals. After submitting their EJ Strategic Plans, agencies will be required to submit an EJ Assessment to CEQ evaluating the effectiveness of the plans.

Executive Office of Environmental Justice

The EO establishes the White House Office of Environmental Justice within CEQ. This office will be led by a Federal Chief Environmental Justice Officer to be appointed by President Biden. This office is in addition to the already existing White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council.

The EO also establishes an EJ subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council, which is an advisory agency within the White House. The EJ subcommittee will focus on research and data sharing and will prepare an annual EJ Science, Data, and Research Plan. The purpose of the plan is to analyze gaps in the science, identify opportunities, and provide recommendations to agencies. The EO also adds extra members to the existing White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council and requires it to create a public, internet-based clearinghouse containing EJ materials.

Within six months, CEQ must issue interim guidance for agencies regarding implementation of the EO.

Sources

De Las Casas, V., Wortzel, A., & Noble, C. (2023). President Biden Signs Executive Order on Environmental Justice. Environmental Law and Policy Monitor. Retrieved from https://www.environmentallawandpolicy.com/2023/05/president-biden-signs-executive-order-on-environmental-justice/#more-5497

• Reprinted From CoastalOnlineReview.org

The U.S. House last week failed to override President Joe Biden’s recent veto of a resolution that would have rolled back federal clean water regulations, but the future for those rules remains cloudy as the Supreme Court weighs a case that could restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate ephemeral waters and streams.

House Republicans had sought to reverse the administration’s new waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule that included regulations that the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ reinstated in January. The protections apply to millions of acres of North Carolina wetlands and were repealed by the Trump administration.

NC Decision Makers Voice Concern

The GOP last week fell short of the two-thirds majority required to override Biden’s veto of the resolution sponsored by Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves, R-Mo.

The 227-196 vote included all seven North Carolina House Republicans and 1^st District Democratic Rep. Don Davis voting in favor of the veto override and Democratic Reps. Alma Adams, Kathy Manning, Wiley Nickel, Valerie Foushee and Jeff Jackson opposed. Second District Rep. Deborah Ross, a Democrat, did not vote.

“The Biden Administration’s waters of the United States rule is one of the most damaging in history, with the potential to devastate production agriculture, derail infrastructure projects and harm our economy,” Rouzer, who represents North Carolina’s 7^th District, said Tuesday in a press release. “Congress spoke with a loud bipartisan voice and voted against this overreach, but without enough votes from the other side of the aisle to override the President’s veto. We will continue to work to push back against and defang this onerous rule at every available opportunity.”

Rouzer had previously said that rule expands the federal government’s regulatory control, “cloaked under the guise of clean water.”

Stakeholder Groups Weigh-in

Clean water advocates, including the North Carolina Coastal Federation, which publishes Coastal Review, were opposed to the WOTUS rule repeal, saying in 2019 that the rollbacks would “cause significant damage to coastal natural resources and economy” and reverse efforts to protect and enhance thousands of acres of wetlands, hundreds of miles of coastal marshes and thousands of acres of estuarine waters.

Environmental justice groups, such as GreenLatinos, say there has been an ongoing campaign to create confusion around the purpose of the Clean Water Act and who is “burdened by regulations.” The group had urged the April 6 veto that was only Biden’s second.

“With this vote, all present Republicans and some Democrats have aligned with corporate interests and ignored the reality that if we truly value water as a human right, then our waters need to be better protected so that our communities have access to clean, healthy, reliable and affordable water,” GreenLatinos Director of Strategic Initiatives Mariana Del Valle Prieto Cervantes said in a March 29 statement released after the Senate’s 53-43 vote for a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, in which a simple majority is sufficient to pass. The House had also voted 227-198 to reject the rule under the Congressional Review Act.

WOTUS Over The Years

The Obama administration finalized the controversial WOTUS rule in 2015, expanding its definition and prompting legal challenges backed by agriculture, construction and coal industries.

The Trump administration replaced the WOTUS rule with the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which Biden vowed to repeal via executive order upon taking office.

The Biden administration’s revised WOTUS rule was itself dubbed a compromise that included acknowledgement of recent court decisions and a reversion to some Reagan-era policies.

“The 2023 revised definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ carefully sets the bounds for which bodies of water are protected under the Clean Water Act. It provides clear rules of the road that will help advance infrastructure projects, economic investments, and agricultural activities — all while protecting water quality and public health,” according to Biden’s veto message to the House.

Biden said the loss of a clear WOTUS definition would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies and downstream communities. He said the veto override would have also negatively affected tens of millions of U.S. households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams.

What’s Next?

Earlier this month, a federal judge in North Dakota halted implementation of the Biden administration’s WOTUS rule in 24 Republican-led states, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, pending the outcome of a lawsuit. Another recent injunction had blocked implementation in Idaho and Texas.

Elsewhere, the rule took effect March 20.

The Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Sackett v. EPA, to determine whether a federal appeals court set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The case involves an Idaho couple whose home construction violated the Clean Water Act because their lot contains wetlands that qualify as regulated “navigable waters.”

Over the holiday weekend, the New York Times reported that the US Environmental Protection Agency is drafting a new emissions limit for automotive tailpipes. This regulation would incentivize the production and distribution of all-electric passenger vehicles. This effort would be one of the most stringent climate regulations the Agency has introduced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Here’s What We Know

• Goal: 67% of US new vehicle sales are to consist of all-electric vehicles by 2032
• Anticipated to be the EPA’s strictest climate regulation
• EPA Press Announcement

Supply-Chain Constraints?

While this would be an ambitious goal for the Biden Administration, it is unclear how this regulation would impact auto manufacturers. Several manufacturers have introduced electric and hybrid vehicles to their line of products. However, the ability to scale production and sales in the next ten years could hinder the Administration’s goal. Passenger cars and trucks are among the most complex consumer products to manufacture due to the various tiers of suppliers for parts (Becher, 2023, as quoted in McNamara, 2023). On the heels of the recent supply-chain crisis, upscaled demand for electric vehicle parts could result in longer production times. 

Could This Improve Wetland Functions?

Vehicle effluent is one of the major pollutants in our waterways. With the increased use of electric cars, we could see improved water quality with reduced oil and gas releases. However, while electric vehicles themselves would not produce emissions, increased electricity generation to charge them would impact our air quality. Power plants can emit harmful pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide. These pollutants can hinder wetland functions as they deposit into soils and surface waters. 

The initiative to cap tailpipe emissions seems to cause an air quality Catch-22. If we reduce emissions from tailpipes, would it cause an equal amount of emission power plants to charge electric vehicles? Hopefully, this concern will be addressed in this proposed regulation. Once the announcement becomes available, we will attach a link to this article.

Sources

Capoot, A. (2023). EPA reportedly planning to announce significant limits on tailpipe emissions to boost electric vehicle adoption. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/08/epa-reportedly-planning-to-announce-significant-limits-on-tailpipe-emissions.html

Davenport, C. (2023). E.P.A. Is Said to Propose Rules Meant to Drive Up Electric Car Sales Tenfold. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/climate/biden-electric-cars-epa.html

Green, J. (2018). Effects of Car Pollutants on the Environment. Sciencing. Retrieved from https://sciencing.com/difference-between-human-natural-air-pollution-23687.html

McNamara, C. (2023). Speed bumps with & lessons to be learned from the automotive-manufacturing supply chain. Smart Industry. Retrieved from https://www.smartindustry.com/examples-of-transformation/supply-chain/article/33003243/speed-bumps-with-lessons-to-be-learned-from-the-automotivemanufacturing-supply-chain