Surface water levels were low: the pools at Hemlock Bluffs were dry or too shallow to take water quality measurements, but we did have standing water in our forested wetland at Mason Farm.
June 2024 Monitoring: Reflections from a new volunteer
chase.bergeson • June 17, 2024
We got to enjoy some beautiful weather for our June monitoring. We once again monitored water quality, hydrology, and surveyed for amphibians. Thank you to all who joined us this month!
We participated in the Society for Ecological Restoration’s Make a Difference Week and picked up litter from our sites as we monitored. This wasn’t out of the ordinary for us, as we always pick up trash when we go. Our wonderful volunteers like to leave our sites cleaner than when they found them. Luckily, thanks to great management, most of our sites tend not to be pretty clean from the start.
Although we saw fewer amphibians than in our previous monitoring sessions we did see a number of adult frogs and salamanders. You can view our observation on our
iNaturalist page.
Fashion Magazine
green frog
Although we had mostly returning volunteers this month, we were fortunate to have some great new volunteers as well, including both of Carolina Wetlands Association’s summer interns, who attended all of our monitoring sessions! As a special monitoring summary, one of our interns describes what it was like to be a new volunteer, below.
Reflections from a new volunteer
by Erin Mansfield
I'm Erin Mansfield, a student in Environmental Science at NC State and a summer intern for Carolina Wetlands Association. This was my first time volunteering with VWMP, and I was lucky enough to go to all three monitoring sites. While it's hard to pick, I would say that Robertson Millpond was my favorite of the three sites: it was my first time out monitoring, and I thought the bald cypress trees were beautiful (even if their knees tripped me a few times). Being my first time out, I learned a lot about how the monitoring process works, and the specific steps to accurately collect our data. I also learned how wonderful all the volunteers and PIs are! It was a friendly atmosphere, especially with how I was a bit nervous as a newcomer. One of my favorite things about working in the environmental field is the supportive community I often find.
My favorite part of the monitoring itself was testing the water levels in the wells. I enjoyed the mystery of when the dip meter would finally start beeping at you to tell you you've reached the water table, as well as debating with my fellow volunteers the correct hundredth-foot measurements to record. I'm a very data-oriented person, so I liked being able to record real, concrete numbers in the field and think about what they mean in the context of the wetland itself. I'm curious to see how the water level changes throughout each season. As long as I'm in the region, I'll definitely come back for future events: it'll be interesting to experience monitoring as someone used to the sites and procedures instead of as a newcomer.
Calling all plant lovers!
In September, we will be heading out to our monitoring sites once again for our annual vegetation surveys and to look out for invasive, non-native plants. We’d love to have participation from anyone interested or skilled in wetland plants, even if it’s your first time monitoring. Please let me know if you want to join!
It’s also a good time to start reviewing some of the common plants we see, by checking out some of the resources below and staying tuned for more upcoming Plant of the Month blogs. We look forward to seeing you in the wetlands!
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
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.