Our vegetation surveys went more smoothly than last year, as we let iNaturalist and PictureThis take the lead on most of our plant IDs, while using our resources to check that the IDs made sense. We checked our app IDs against photos and descriptions of the plants from iNaturalist, field guides, and our own prior knowledge of plant ID.
June monitoring: Wetland warriors spent long days in the wetlands with plants, amphibians, and water, oh my!
chase.bergeson • June 9, 2023
We just wrapped up our second monitoring event of the year and were happy to see returning faces, new volunteers, and our plant lovers show up! We conducted our usual water quality and hydrology monitoring, but also surveyed for amphibians and plants.
We also used our best practices for photographing plants in iNaturalist so that it will be easier for citizen scientists outside of our organization to check our IDs. This included taking multiple photos of many features of the plants and using centimeter grids for contrast and size reference. Thanks to PI Thomas Reed for these great additions!
We got lots of practice with our rushes, sedges, and grasses. Luckily there were some seed heads to guide us.
We found lots of hydrophytic plants that are obligate (OBL) or facultative wetland (FACW) species, meaning that if you find them, you are likely to be in a wetland! Some of these included, lizard’s tail (OBL), jewelweed (FACW), fowl mannagrass (OBL), and false nettle (FACW).
You can check out the wonderful Common Wetland Plants of North Carolina book, updated by one of our previous board members, Kristie Gianopulos, here: https://www.ncwetlands.org/plantguide/
You can learn more about a plant and check its wetland status, here: https://plants.usda.gov/home
We also monitored for amphibians, but didn’t find much. This may be because our large groups spooked them, but could also be because our drier sites caused juveniles to metamorphosize early, before their pools dried up and head to upland areas. We actually found some already hatched spotted salamander eggs. Don’t worry they’ll be back next Spring!
We did find an Eastern Narrow-mouthed toad, Three-lined salamander, Southern Leopard Frog, and Northern Cricket Frogs!
You can check out everything we found on the data page of our website.
It was much drier than our March monitoring event with almost no standing water at our Mason Farm Biological Reserve monitoring site, that was 8 inches deep in March, and very little water left in the vernal pools of Hemlock Bluffs Nature Preserve. Even though we didn’t have much surface water, there were still many indicators that we could use to confirm that our sites were wet in the recent past.
For a wetland to be considered jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers, it must have hydrophytic vegetation (plants that can tolerate being wet), hydric soils (soils that show signs of prolonged saturation), and wetland hydrology. Vegetation and soils can help determine that a site has been wet for long periods in the past, but wetland hydrology indicators can help us determine if the site continues to be wet. Learn more here.
For our monitoring sites, our monitoring wells help us track wetland hydrology all year round, but looking for other indicators of wetland hydrology can help us confirm our well measurements and can be used in sites without wells to help determine whether our wetlands are really wet.
We saw several of these indicators at our field sites this month including:
Crayfish burrows, water-stained leaves, drift deposits, and we even smelled hydrogen sulfide!
All of these indicate to us that our wetlands are wet, even when we don’t see the surface water.
I had a wonderful time with all of you this weekend. Thanks to all of our wetland warriors for volunteering! I can’t wait to see you at our next event. Mark your calendars for our September sampling!
Photo credits: Thomas Reed
You might also like
Celebrating Our Carolina Wetlands
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.
Welcoming New Members to the Carolina Wetlands Association Board