Hello and allow me to introduce myself, Aaron Ellis, as your new Volunteer Wetlands Monitoring Program Coordinator! Chase and I will continue to work together for a few more weeks until she goes on maternity leave. We'll miss you Chase!
Fall 2024 Monitoring: Sleuthing Plant IDs and Dodging Hurricanes
chase.bergeson • October 21, 2024
Please also welcome, Seana Finn, a graduate research assistant at NC State University, and is assisting Carolina Wetlands Association (CarWA) with their Volunteer Wetland Monitoring Program. Her research interests focus on using participatory science for water quality and exploring people's perceptions of valuable ecosystems like wetlands. "I’ve had a blast attending the VWMP events so far! I am a Florida native, but I’ve called North Carolina home for the past six years. I’m a proud Shaw University alumna, and before becoming a research assistant, I had the wonderful opportunity to work with the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, which deepened my love for this amazing state and its natural wonders. I’m excited to be working with CarWA and look forward to being involved in such a fun project!" says Seana.
Our fall monitoring went very well at Hemlock Bluffs and Robertson Millpond, with clear weather and many of our seasoned volunteers on site, with a few new faces too. At Mason Farm, we also had a great day, but unfortunately were unable to do our complete monitoring at Study Area 2 due to damage to the road from Hurricane Helene and inundation of our vegetation plots. Some of our lead volunteers still made the mile-long trek back to the site to offload our well data and take a site visit summary. Special thanks to Paul, Andrew, and Daphne! The power of flows from Helene also knocked down many of our boundary poles at Hemlock Bluffs.
At this time of year, we focus on vegetation surveys along with hydrology and water quality. We have several reasons for this- for one, many of the plants we encounter still have mature leaves, are in bloom, or have fruited, which makes them much easier to identify. Our vegetation surveys can be somewhat intensive, depending on how many plants are located within the designated survey area. There’s lots of crawling around with plant books, lists, and photo taking to ensure we are capturing all of the species growing in the plot! We are very grateful for our plant-savvy volunteers who responded to our call for this monitoring season.
Also we would like to thank NCDEQ employee and our resident wetland plant expert Kristie Gianopulos for attending our monitoring days, and her invaluable help at identifying plants! In fact, it’s her book, Guide to Common Wetland Plants of North Carolina, that we use as a primary reference in much of our work.
We also conducted invasive vegetation species surveys at each of our sites. We saw many of the usual suspects, including Chinese privet, patches of Japanese stiltgrass, a few Callery pear, and also the appearance of a few autumn olive. Overall though it appeared as though there was not a large increase in their documented areas at Robertson. However, we did discover a large patch of a non-native wintercreeper bordering Study Area 1 at Hemlock Bluffs.
We were able to map the percent coverage and location of each invasive in a new test form that Chase built in Kobo Toolbox. We will continue exploring and refining how we document invasive species, so if you are or know of a tech-savvy someone who can help us design a great solution, please let us know! Our volunteer opportunities don’t stop at taking physical measurements in the field- we would love help with our QA/QC of data we collect as well.
If you want to freshen up your plant ID skills, see the resources below.
Our previous plant observations
Previous plant of the month blogs
Common Guide to Wetland Plants
Identification of Common Trees of North Carolina
NC Native Plant Society Non-native Invasive list
NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant Guide
A field guide for the identification of invasive plants in southern forests
Mistaken Identity? Invasive plants and their native look alikes
Please feel free to save my email,
aaron.ellis@carolinawetlands.org, for any questions, concerns, or other volunteer opportunities! I am looking forward to meeting more of you in our upcoming monitoring sessions.
You might also like
Celebrating Our Carolina Wetlands
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.
A Decade of Celebrating Carolina's Wetland Treasures
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.