Volunteer Leadership key to VWMP Fall 2023 Monitoring

chase.bergeson • October 11, 2023

Thank you to all our wonderful volunteers for making our Fall 2023 monitoring a success!! We are so grateful to our volunteers who were able to remain flexible when our monitoring was interrupted by Tropical Storm Ophelia and scattered over three weekends. If you weren’t able to make it on our new dates, we hope you will join us for our other upcoming events and for our next round of monitoring, the first weekend of December. 

In addition to the great flexibility you showed, we must give a big round of applause to the volunteer leadership that was shown during our monitoring.


Special thanks to Mickey Jo Sorrell, Paul Jadot, and Tom Schwarcz for stepping up to leadership roles in our monitoring efforts.


This quarter, they volunteered to lead our water quality and hydrology monitoring and did a fantastic job explaining our methods, encouraging other volunteers, and collecting quality data. 


Beyond field leadership, we also want to thank Michael Stokes, Leigh Aultman, Caleb Brownfield, and Riley Westman for helping us behind the scenes to check over our data and do quality assurance and quality control of our data. With their help, we are able to ensure that our data is of high quality. If you are interested in being involved in this process, please let me know! 


Thanks also to our amazing volunteer Principal Investigator, Amanda Johnson, who has spent many, many hours helping to design our protocols, train volunteers, check data, and plan. Even though she wasn’t able to join us in the field this quarter, she prepared the information we needed on Natural Communities and Invasive Species at our sites. You can read more about Amanda’s amazing work here. 


Congratulations to our wetland warriors: 

Maya Hardison, who reached 25 hours volunteering with us and received her Carolina Wetlands Association hat. 


and 


Tom Schwarcz, who reached 50 hours volunteering with us and received a Carolina Wetlands Association magnet. 




We have been monitoring for almost 2 years and we hope that more of our monitoring will be led by volunteers in the future. Please keep a look out for more opportunities to take leadership roles with monitoring in the field and behind the scenes. We hope that the excellent commitment and leadership of our volunteers will help keep our monitoring program going for a long time. 


If you volunteered with us this quarter, we would love to have your feedback about the monitoring experience, what we did well, and how we could improve. Please help us, by filling out this brief (5-10 minute) survey. 


In addition to our awesome volunteers, we were joined this quarter by staff from Wake County and Hemlock Bluffs that talked us through invasive species mapping and management at their sites. They also helped us look for and map invasive species on site. With their help, we were able to not only map the invasive species that we expected to find (Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and Japanese stiltgrass), but also identify Bradford pears, marsh dewflower, and thorny olive on site. As we became aware of the prevalence of many of these invasive plants at our sites, it became difficult for us not to want to immediately start removing them. You can read more about some of these common invasives, here. If you want to contribute to invasive removal, please join us on Friday, October 27 at Mason Farm Biological Reserve to learn more about invasive species at that site and help with hands-on management. ï»¿

We also discussed the unique natural communities that we find at our three sites, including the furthest north and west example of a Cypress Gum Swamp in NC, a population of Hemlock trees usually found further west in the mountains, floodplain pools, and a Piedmont Swamp Forest restricted to the Triassic Basin in the eastern most portion of Orange County. You can read more about the natural communities at our site, at the links below. 


Hemlock Bluffs 

Mason Farm Biological Reserve 

Robertson Millpond Preserve 

 

Overall, our sites were fairly dry. We had no standing water in the pools at Hemlock Bluffs and thus were not able to take any water quality samples there. Even at Mason Farm, water levels were very low. 

Although we weren’t doing an amphibian survey, we did see frogs, salamanders, and snakes as well! It’s never a dull day in the wetlands.

You might also like

Celebrating Our Carolina Wetlands

By rick.savage • November 3, 2026
The U.S. Congress is poised to weaken federal protection of wetlands. To understand why these changes matter, it helps to know how wetland permitting actually works. How Wetland Permitting Is Supposed to Work Whether the permit goes through the State agency (e.g. NC DEQ or SC DES which reviews water quality impacts) and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and EPA (which review the physical, chemical, and biological impacts), every application is supposed to follow a three-step mitigation sequence: avoid, minimize, and compensate. Avoid. The reviewer works with the applicant to determine whether the impact can be avoided altogether. Often, it can. Minimize. If the impact can’t be avoided, the reviewer and applicant look for ways to reduce it. Compensate. If the remaining impact is large enough, the applicant must compensate for the loss using a formula provided by the ACOE. Mitigation normally takes place in the same watershed and provides the same function as the wetland that was lost. This process takes time, but it is essential. It ensures that applicants don’t overlook options that could spare valuable wetlands. What Senate Bill 5653 Would Change Senate Bill 5653 , the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA),aims to speed up federal and state regulatory decisions on housing and other development projects. But the bill would increase environmental degradation and undermine the federal-state partnerships that protect clean water. Here is the core problem: when permitting is rushed, reviewers can’t carry out the avoid, minimize, and compensate process. More wetlands will be damaged, and there will be no way to make up for the lost wetlands and the benefits they provide. A Weak Answer to the Housing Shortage BAAJA does little to address the real causes of the national housing shortage and construction challenges. Instead, it increases pollution and works against the central goal of the Clean Water Act: to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, including wetlands. The bill is an assault on the nation’s rivers, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. It also looks like a deflection from Congress’s inability to pass legislation that meaningfully tackles the lack of available housing. Undercutting State Authority Over Water Quality BAAJA also limits the authority states hold under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, making it harder for them to meet the water quality standards they have set for their own waterbodies. That would set back five decades of progress toward cleaner water, progress to which every sector of society has contributed, and it would affect generations to come. Fewer Wetlands Protected, and Weaker Review for the Rest This is yet another attack on wetland protection, and it affects all of us. Even those wetlands that remain regulated after recent jurisdictional retreats by EPA and the ACOE would not receive the normal permitting review. In practice, that means they aren’t truly protected either. What You Can Do Contact your representative. Ask your senators to oppose Senate Bill 5653 . You can find and contact your U.S. senators here , or look up your U.S. representative here to share your concerns with the House as well. Support Carolina Wetlands Association. We are your organization fighting to protect wetlands. The next time you explore a wetland or pour a clean glass of water, consider making a donation to help us keep up this work.
By chase.bergeson • October 16, 2026
A Decade of Celebrating Carolina's Wetland Treasures
By kim.matthews • October 7, 2026
On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) offering additional ways to define “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Why this definition matters The WOTUS definition determines which water bodies the federal government can protect under the Clean Water Act. In November 2025, the agencies proposed revisions to bring the definition in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA. After taking public comments, they have now put forward further options. The new proposal narrows federal jurisdiction even more, potentially stripping protections from the vast majority of U.S. wetlands and seasonal streams. What our comment letter says The Carolina Wetlands Association is submitting comments opposing the proposal. Our main concerns: It would undermine the Clean Water Act’s purpose. The law’s goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. This proposal would severely undercut that goal. The “days of water” test is a poor measure. The proposal decides jurisdiction by how many days a year water is present. That number correlates poorly with a waterway’s ability to carry pollution downstream to the rivers, lakes, and estuaries that would stay protected. Streams dry for as few as 30 days a year could lose protection, and polluters would have an incentive to discharge into them rather than into protected waters. Drinking water is at risk. About 56% of North Carolina’s stream miles feeding public drinking water systems are intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater streams. In South Carolina the figure is 51%. These systems serve 6.6 million people, who would bear higher health risks and treatment costs. Wetlands do critical work. They filter pollutants and nutrients that cause algal blooms, dead zones, and fish kills. Losing that function would also degrade groundwater, which many people drink untreated. The legal reasoning is flawed. We argue the agencies misread the Supreme Court’s language. “Relatively permanent” describes geographic features such as streams with defined beds and banks. The word “continuously” modifies “flowing” and doesn’t limit what counts as relatively permanent. It would be hard to implement. Many affected streams have no data showing how many days they lack surface water. That makes the rule difficult for agencies to administer and leaves landowners unable to tell whether the Clean Water Act applies to their property. The impacts haven’t been analyzed. The agencies should not finalize a rule before measuring the added pollution flowing from newly unprotected waters into those that supply drinking water, or projecting the resulting damage to downstream uses. What you can do Read the SNPRM Submit your comment by October 9, 2026, under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW-2025-0322 . Personal stories about the streams, wetlands, and drinking water you depend on are especially effective. Learn more: read the comments we submitted on the November 2025 version of the rule, many of which still apply.