Month: November 2005

Ten Threats: Luring the Lamprey

  • The sea lamprey, up close. (Photo courtesy of USFWS)

One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is the decline of many of the native species. The lake trout has been in trouble from over-fishing and because of an invasive species called, the sea lamprey. Conservation agents use a pesticide to keep the lamprey down, but it’s expensive, and sometimes it kills other fish. Now, researchers have discovered a lamprey pheromone that could help the fight against the sea lamprey. Stephanie Hemphill has that story:

Transcript

In our next report in the series Ten Threats to the Great Lakes we hear about how a native
fish has been hurt by an invasive species that swam into the lakes through a canal. Lester
Graham is our guide through the series.


One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is the decline of many of the native species.
The lake trout has been in trouble from over-fishing and because of an invasive species
called, the sea lamprey. Ever since it invaded the Great Lakes, scientists have been trying
to keep the invasive sea lamprey under control.


Conservation agents use a pesticide to keep the lamprey numbers down, but it’s expensive,
and sometimes it kills other fish. Now, researchers have discovered a lamprey
pheromone. They think the chemical attractant could be a big help in their fight against
one of the most destructive invasive species in the Great Lakes. Stephanie Hemphill
has that story:


The sea lamprey came into the Great Lakes through canals more than a hundred years
ago. The slimy parasites attach themselves to big fish and feed on them until they die.
Each lamprey can kill 40 pounds of fish in its lifetime.


Between sea lampreys and over-fishing, the big native fish, the Lake Trout, was wiped out
in the lower Great Lakes. Only a few survived in small pockets in Lake Huron. Lake
Superior is the only place Lake Trout survive in healthy numbers.


There’s an aggressive 15-million dollar a year program to keep sea lamprey numbers
down. Part of the effort is using a chemical called TFM that kills the lamprey.
Wildlife managers spread the lampricide in streams in the spring. It kills some of the
young lamprey as they swim down into the lake.


University of Minnesota biologist Peter Sorensen says he and other scientists noticed that
TFM kills not just the juveniles, but the larvae that live in the streambed too. They also
realized, after a stream is treated, very few adult lamprey come back to the stream to
spawn, or lay new eggs.


“And this led to an observation decades ago, which was key, that adult lamprey must be
selective in how they pick streams. They only pick a few, and if you remove the larvae
they don’t seem to go in there.”


Scientists suspected the larvae might play a role in the spawning migration of adults.
That might mean the larvae are putting out a pheromone that tells the adults it’s a good
place to spawn. Just one larva attracts a lot of adult lamprey, indicating the pheromone
is very potent.


It was up to Jared Fine to determine what the chemical is. Fine is a PhD student working
with Peter Sorensen. For two years he sifted through the water in tanks holding lamprey
larvae.


“Separating the different chemical compounds, testing them biologically, seeing which
ones have activity, coming back to the active ones, further separating them, and just
repeating this until you get down to the one or two or three compounds that have the
activity.”


Fine narrowed it down to three compounds. He purified them and gave them to a colleague in the chemistry department, Thomas Hoye. Hoye created a synthetic version of the most potent pheromone. He says it should be possible to produce it on a large scale, and that means it could be used to treat the
Great Lakes. The question is, how much would he need?


“You know, would it be a tank car load, would it be a football field, would it be a dump
truck? It’s none of those. Would it be a barrel? No. Is it a bucket-full? No. In
fact it’s only about 500 grams, that’s just one pound, would treat all that water for a
month.”


And that’s all it would take, because the lamprey only spawn for a month, but the
treatment would have to happen once a year. Peter Sorensen says when lamprey
approach a stream to spawn, their clock is ticking. They have a powerful urge to lay
eggs, and once they’ve done that, they die.


“They are driven animals. Frankly they’re kind of on autopilot and pheromones are
what’s driving that autopilot to a very large extent, and now that we’ve got it, I think we
can really powerfully use that to our advantage.”


Sorensen says fisheries managers could use the pheromone to attract more lampreys to
streams outfitted with traps.


“You know the key here is the fact that this pheromone is natural, safe, and should be
very inexpensive to add.”


Fisheries managers hope the pheromone will help reduce the cost of controlling the
lamprey and add a new weapon to their arsenal.


The news on lamprey couldn’t have come at a better time for wildlife managers
around Lake Superior. After years of relatively constant numbers, the lamprey
population jumped dramatically this year. Scientists say lamprey may be finding new
spawning grounds in the mouths of streams, where lampricide is less effective. They’re
hoping they can use the pheromone to draw the lamprey to traps further upstream.


For the GLRC, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Expanding the Seaway

  • A freighter leaving the Duluth harbor in Minnesota. (Photo courtesy of EPA)

One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes identified by many of the experts we surveyed
is dredging channels deeper and wider for larger ocean-going ships. In the 1950s, engineers
carved a shipping channel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
River. The St. Lawrence Seaway was to make ports in cities such as Chicago and Duluth main
players in global commerce. Today, the Seaway operates at less than half its capacity.
That’s because only five percent of the world’s cargo fleet can fit through its locks and
channels. For decades, the shipping industry has wanted to make them bigger. David
Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

We’re continuing our series Ten Threats to the Great Lakes with a look at the idea of
letting bigger ships into the lakes. Lester Graham is our guide through the series.


One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes identified by many of the experts we surveyed
is dredging channels deeper and wider for larger ocean-going ships. In the 1950s, engineers
carved a shipping channel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
River. The St. Lawrence Seaway was to make ports in cities such as Chicago and Duluth main
players in global commerce. Today, the Seaway operates at less than half its capacity.
That’s because only five percent of the world’s cargo fleet can fit through its locks and
channels. For decades, the shipping industry has wanted to make them bigger. David
Sommerstein reports:


(Sound of rumbling noise of front-loaders)


The port of Ogdensburg sits on the St. Lawrence River in northern New York State.
When the Seaway was built, local residents were promised an economic boom. Today
what Ogdensburg mostly gets is road salt.


(Sound of crashing cargo)


Road salt and a white mineral called Wallastonite – the Dutch use it to make ceramic tile.
Front-loaders push around mountains of the stuff. In all, the port of Ogdensburg
welcomes six freighters a year and employs just six people.


Other Great Lakes ports are much bigger, but the story is similar. They handle low-value
bulk goods – grain, ore, coal – plus higher value steel. But few sexy electronic goods
from Japan come through the Seaway, or the gijillion of knick-knacks from China or
South Korea.


James Oberstar is a Congressman from Duluth. He says there’s a reason why. A
dastardly coincidence doomed the Seaway.


“Just as the Seaway was under construction, Malcolm McLean, a shipping genius, hit on
the idea of moving goods in containers.”


Containers that fit right on trains and trucks. The problem was the ships that carry those
containers were already too big for the Seaway’s locks and channels.


“That idea of container shipping gave a huge boost of energy to the East Coast, Gulf
Coast, and West Coast ports, and to the railroads.”


Leaving Great Lakes ports behind ever since the regional shipping industry has wanted to
make the Seaway bigger.


The latest effort came in 2002, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the
economic benefits of expansion. The study said squeezing container ships through the
Seaway would bring a billion and a half dollars a year to ports like Chicago, Toledo, and
Duluth. But if you build it, would they come?


“Highly doubtful that container ships would come in. Highly doubtful.”


John Taylor is a transportation expert at Grand Valley State University in Michigan.
He’s studied Seaway traffic patterns extensively. He says there would have to be “a sea
change” in global commerce.


“Rail is too competitive, too strong moving containers from the coast in and out say from
Montreal and Halifax and into Chicago and Detroit and so on, too cost-effective for it to
make sense for a ship to bring those same containers all the way to Chicago.”


The expansion study sparked a flurry of opposition across the Great Lakes. It failed to
mention the cost of replumbing the Seaway — an estimated 10 to 15 billion dollars. It
didn’t factor in invasive species that show up in foreign ships’ ballasts. Invasives already
cost the economy 5 billion dollars a year, and environmentalists said it glossed over the
ecological devastation of dredging and blasting a deeper channel.


Even the shipping industry has begun to distance itself from expansion. Steve Fisher
directs the American Great Lakes Ports Association.


“There was quite a bit of opposition expressed through the region, and in light of that
opposition we took stock of just how much and how strongly we felt on the issue and
quite frankly there just wasn’t a strong enough interest.”


Most experts now believe expansion won’t happen for at least another generation.
Environmentalists and other critics hope it won’t happen at all.


So instead, the Seaway is changing its tactics. Richard Corfe runs Canada’s side of the
waterway. He says the vast majority of Seaway traffic is actually between Great Lakes
ports, not overseas. So, the Seaway’s focus now is to lure more North American shippers
to use the locks and channels.


“Our efforts have to be towards maximizing the use of what we have now for the benefit
of both countries, the economic, environmental, and social benefit.”


Today, trucks and trains haul most goods from coastal ports to Great Lakes cities.
Shippers want to steal some of that cargo, take it off the roads and rails, and put it on
seaway ships headed for Great Lakes ports.


For the GLRC, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Canals Past and Present

  • This is an ocean vessel in the Soo Locks, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. The Soo Locks connect Lake Superior and Lake Huron, allowing for ships to travel back and forth. (Photo courtesy of EPA)

One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes identified by experts across the region is the possible
expansion of canals to allow larger ocean-going ships into the lakes. Some see the expansion of
shipping channels as a threat to the environment; others see it as great economic opportunity.
Just like in the early days of settlement, they see the shipping channels on the Great Lakes as
a way to make trade opportunities better.

Transcript

In our next report from the series, “Ten Threats to the Great Lakes,”
Lester Graham brings us a look at shipping on the lakes. Some people think
bigger ships could bring more trade to the region:


One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes identified by experts across the region is the possible
expansion of canals to allow larger ocean-going ships into the lakes. Some see the expansion of
shipping channels as a threat to the environment; others see it as great economic opportunity.
Just like in the early days of settlement, they see the shipping channels on the Great Lakes as
a way to make trade opportunities better.


Native Americans had canoe trade routes on the Great Lakes long before the Europeans appeared
on the scene. When French fur traders arrived, they copied what they saw. They built birch-bark
canoes to travel the lakes and to haul back fur pelts.


(Sound of Saginaw Voyageurs paddling and singing “Alouette, gentile Alouette…”)


Chuck Hoover is with the Saginaw Voyageurs, a group of re-enactors who re-trace the French
Voyageurs routes. Hoover says the large canoes were great until you ran into rapids on the rivers
connecting the lakes.


“What you had to do was pick up everything, including the boat, and carry it across the dry land to
the next place that you could put in water that was navigable.”


Those portages could be as long as seven miles. Carrying a canoe big enough to haul more than a
dozen men and the heavy bundles of fur pelts was a tough job and it slowed trade. So, some small
canals were dug to make passage easier. As the region developed even more valuable natural
resources were discovered. Bigger canals were needed.


Stanley Jacek is an Area Engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the canal and locks
at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. He says by the middle of the 1800s mining around Lake Superior
had become big business.


“Back in those days they discovered iron ore and copper in the upper end of the lakes here. So,
they had to get all that commerce down to the heartland of the country, so locks had to be
built.”


With a canal and locks to help ships negotiate the drop from one lake level to the next, the ore
could be transported to the big steel mills in industrial cities such as Cleveland and Gary, Indiana.


Christopher Gilchrist is with the Great Lakes Historical Society. He says you can’t underestimate
the value of those canals.


“The water-borne transportation was critical for the creation of the industrial age in U.S. history.
There’s a reason why the steel mills are located right on the banks of these Great Lakes. All the major
steel mills were located right by the water so that they could get their raw materials cost
effectively.”


At the other end of the Great Lakes the St. Lawrence Seaway opened in the 1950s to make it
possible for ships on the Atlantic Ocean to enter the lakes, and another big canal and set of
several locks overcame another obstacle to shipping on the Great Lakes – The Niagara Falls.


The Welland canal allows ships to go around Niagara. Since it first opened in the 19th century the
Welland canal and its locks have been enlarged four times. Each time the Welland canal locks
and the St. Lawrence Seaway have been made wider and deeper, the shipping industry builds
bigger and bigger ships to the point that they literally just squeak through…


(Sound of ship squeaking against timbers)


…Often rubbing up against the timbers that act as bumpers on the locks’ concrete walls.


Throughout the history of the canals, there’s been pressure to make them bigger and bigger.
Many feel the amount of shipping through the canals is tied directly to the economic well being
of the nation. The more the canals can handle the better the economy.


(Sound of buzzing, roar of compressor)


Back at Sault Ste. Marie, the locks open to allow another big ship through.


Stanley Jacek, the engineer at the Soo Locks connecting Lakes Superior and Huron says the
economic impact is pretty easy to track.


“What we do here in the way of passing of commerce mimics what’s happening in the country. You
can actually see spikes in the economy by looking at our traffic here.”


But some say the canals could do more than just reflect the health of the economy. They could
spur the economy if even bigger ships could come into the lakes. The ships, the kind carrying
containers ready to be pulled by trucks or loaded on rail cars, could go directly to Great Lakes
ports instead of ports on the East or West coasts. More direct shipping might improve the
region’s economy.


But environmentalists are worried. They say bigger ships from all over the world might mean
more alien invasive species damaging the Great Lakes. The wider, deeper channels might
damage the environment along scenic rivers connecting the lakes, and some believe expanding
the channels will let too much water flow out of the lakes that could worsen the problem of lower
lake levels seen in recent years.


The plans for bigger ships are on hold for right now. But, given the history of the canals, many
believe expansion is only a matter of time.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Recycling Nuclear Waste

Several Midwest universities will be part of a controversial
effort to improve the recycling of nuclear waste. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Several Midwest universities will be part of a controversial effort to
improve the recycling of nuclear waste. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Spent nuclear fuel is piling up at many commercial nuclear power plants around the nation.
Scientists know how to re-process and re-use the fuel. but that’s currently not done
in the U.S. nuclear industry.


Michael Corradini is an Engineering Physics Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
He says the re-use of nuclear waste can be improved… and he contends this is the moment to do
it.


“And with the need for energy… particularly electrical energy… this is a way to more efficiently
deal with our spent fuel.”


Wisconsin and other Big Ten universities with nuclear engineering programs will team up with
the University of Chicago for a recycling project at the Argonne National Lab in Illinois. But an
anti-nuclear group contends that trying to recycle more nuclear waste makes it more likely some
spent fuel will be made into bombs. The university scientists say safeguards will be taken to
prevent that from happening.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Can Trash Shipments Be Stopped?

Political pressure is building for elected officials to do
something to stop shipments of trash from Canada. But as the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports, there’s no evidence to
suggest Canadian trash haulers will be stopped at the border anytime
soon:

Transcript

Political pressure is building for elected officials to do something to stop
shipments of trash from Canada. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rick Pluta reports, there’s no evidence to suggest Canadian trash haulers
will be stopped at the border anytime soon:


The effort to ban Canadian trash shipments has always been complicated by
the fact that waste headed to landfills is considered a commodity. And – on
the U.S. side of the border – international trafficking in commodities can
only be regulated by the federal government.


There is a bill in Congress to give states such as Michigan the authority to
regulate waste-hauling. And a bill in the Michigan Legislature would ban the
shipments from Canada 90 days after a federal law is enacted.


But there’s a question on whether Congress can hand a federal responsibility
over to the state of Michigan. And there’s a question on whether the state
of Michigan can legally cancel Canada’s contracts with private landfills.


Another possibility is simply increasing dumping fees. But that would place
an added burden on Michigan taxpayers who would also have to pay more to
have their trash hauled away.


For the GLRC, this is Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Trash Proposal Worries Canadians

Every day, hundreds of trucks loaded with trash from Ontario
stream across the U.S. border. The possibility of Congress passing a
bill that would allow states to close their borders to out-of-state trash
has some Canadian officials worried. It would mean Ontario would
have to find a new place to put the 3.5 million tons of garbage it sends
to the state of Michigan each year. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Dan Karpenchuk has more:

Transcript

Every day hundreds of trucks loaded with trash from Ontario stream across the U.S. border. The
possibility of Congress passing a bill that would allow states to close its border to out of state
trash has some Canadian officials worried. It would mean Ontario would have find a new place
to put the three-and-a-half million tones of garbage it sends to the state of Michigan each year.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk has more:


Garbage is a politically charged issue in Ontario. And so far most politicians, appear to have
ignored it. If the border closes, Toronto can store garbage for only two days.


The Toronto region has started the process of finding an alternative landfill, or another
technology to deal with the problem… but getting a new plan in place could take years.


Anne Mitchell is with the Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. She says the
provincial government and residents must make the issue a priority.


“And it’s going to take a lot of increasing awareness so that people in fact are managing their own
garbage better. Because I know right now we’re not.”


The province could allow, or even force, other large Ontario landfills to take Toronto’s garbage,
But that would almost certainly lead to fierce local opposition.


For the GLRC, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

No New Federal Dollars for Restoration

For the past year, the federal government, states, and
Indian tribes have been devising a unified restoration plan to
clean up and protect the Great Lakes. They released a first draft
this summer. But as negotiations continue, state governments and
environmentalists say the effort is being undercut by a major player.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has
more:

Transcript

For the past year, the federal government, states, and Indian tribes have been devising a
unified restoration plan to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. They released a first
draft this summer. But as negotiations continue, state governments and environmentalists
say the effort is being undercut by a major player. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Shawn Allee has more:


The first draft of the restoration plan called for dozens of ambitious measures. They
included cleaning up toxic waste and keeping invasive species out of the Great Lakes.
But more than anything, the first draft raised expectations.


“The public response to the draft report that was released this July was very
encouraging.”


David Naftzger is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors.


“Public meetings were held throughout the region and there is broad-based support for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.”


State governments generally praised the draft, but questioned the federal government’s
commitment to the effort. Now, they and environmental groups worry their fears were
justified.


Last month, administration advisors issued an internal report that called the first draft of
the plan too ambitious and too costly.


One major sticking point is how to prevent sewage from getting into the lakes. Sewer
upgrades could cost tens of billions of dollars. States want more money, but the
president’s advisors are balking.


Benjamin Grumbles is with the Environmental Protection Agency’s water division.


“We all agree that more work needs to be done on sewer overflows and that the federal
government will continue to provide money, but it’s not realistic to expect an infusion of
that level in the near term.”


Grumbles says federal help’s required to improve sewers everywhere, not just in the
Great Lakes. Grumbles says the administration’s committed to identifying long-term
restoration goals. Administration advisors say continuing negotiations should focus on
short-term measures that require no additional spending.


But David Naftzger says federal leadership should mean more federal dollars.


“This is deeply disappointing, while more can be done with existing resources and there
can be improvements to existing programs, quite simply many of our region’s challenges
require additional funding.”


The plan’s final draft is due next month.


Until then, state governments and environmentalists hope to prod what they see as an
increasingly reluctant partner.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Concrete Shores

  • Hardened shorelines protect buildings, roads, and homes, but many developers say a more natural method should be used. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Along many Great Lakes cities, long concrete or stone seawalls protect property against
wind and wave erosion. It’s a hardening of the shoreline that some people say is
necessary to protect expensive real estate. But some scientists and environmentalists say
it’s part of one of the ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. They’re worried those concrete
seawalls are not only hurting the environment… in the long run, they’re hurting the
economy. Lynette Kalsnes has this report:

Transcript

In our series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes,’ we’ve been looking at how humans make
changes that affect the health of the lakes. Lester Graham is our guide through the series.
He says the next report shows how far we’ll go to try to manage nature:


Along many Great Lakes cities, long concrete or stone seawalls protect property against
wind and wave erosion. It’s a hardening of the shoreline that some people say is
necessary to protect expensive real estate. But some scientists and environmentalists say
it’s part of one of the ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. They’re worried those concrete
seawalls are not only hurting the environment… in the long run, they’re hurting the
economy. Lynette Kalsnes has this report:


(waves lapping against concrete wall)


In the middle of a miles-long concrete shoreline, there’s a tiny beach. Steve Forman points
toward a small bluff at the base of a tree. The professor of earth and environmental sciences at
the University of Illinois at Chicago says the sand, grass and dunes help soften the impact of
waves and rain.


“This kind of relief is what you’d see in many natural coastlines, a coastline like this can
accommodate change better than one that’s been concreted up.”


Just feet away, the concrete picks back up, like a stark white runway that bisects the land and the
lake. Concrete revetments like these in Chicago are a familiar sight in urban areas across the
Great Lakes.


Roy Deda is with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps manages much of the
construction on public shorelines. Deda says hardening the shore is one way of protecting against
erosion.


“Where hardening of the shoreline is important and used, is where you have an existing
community in an urban area like Chicago. You have a lot of development in place already, and
basically you’re protecting what’s been built over a long history.”


Deda says it protects property. But scientist Steve Forman says using concrete walls comes at a
cost: the destruction of natural systems that are often helpful.


Forman says wetlands and stream valleys normally act like a sponge to absorb high lake levels.
They also release some of the water back when lake levels are low. Forman says concrete can’t
buffer those fluctuations.


“It makes the extremes potentially even more extreme in terms of lake level variations.”


So, when there’s a rainstorm, Forman says the water runs off the concrete quickly… instead of
being absorbed across sand or wetlands slowly.


He says the same thing is true for the water flowing into the lakes from rivers.


Discharge into rivers can go up by 50 times the amount it would if natural areas buffered the
rivers.


“Any time we change the landscape from its natural components, we also change the plumbing of
the Great Lakes. We change the way water is routed in and around and through the Great Lakes
as well.”


It’s not only rushing rivers and lake levels that cause problems.


When the shoreline is hardened… the wildlife and organisms that once lived there disappear.


Cameron Davis is with the Alliance for the Great Lakes. He says many rare species live in that
narrow ribbon where the land meets the water.


“When we harden the shorelines, we basically sterilize them in a lot of ways, because we’ve not
providing the kinds of habitat and cover that we need for many of them.”


And beyond the effect on wildlife… hardening the shoreline can also be a bad economic decision.


Steve Forman says permanent structures built near the shores are not as stable as they might seem
when lake levels are high and winter storms cause big waves that erode the land underneath them.


“When the lake levels go up, the erosion rates are just phenomenal…what you see are hanging
stairs everywhere, instead of stairs that take you down to the beach, they’re hanging over the lake,
basically.”


That’s why scientists and planners are taking action. The Alliance for the Great Lakes’ Cameron
Davis is calling on planners to balance protecting the shoreline … with preserving ecology.


“Frankly I don’t think shoreline planning across the region is that great. There really is no single
unifying policy we’re all using to guide what our shorelines ought to look like.”


He’s hoping that some cities will experiment with restoring natural areas along their shorelines…
He says we need to see if in the long run, nature can do a better job of protecting the shores.


For the GLRC, I’m Lynette Kalsnes.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Coastal Development Pressures

  • Construction along the shorelines can put a strain on natural systems. (Photo by Carole Swinehart/Michigan Sea Grant Extension)

One of the more subtle but relentless threats to the Great Lakes is
coastal development. Condos, ever larger and nicer beach homes
and buildings and parking lots in the watershed all have an
impact on the Lakes. As the population grows and the suburban
lifestyle keeps spreading, the health of the lakes is compromised
in countless tiny ways. Reporter Peter Payette finds those tiny
ways all add up:

Transcript

We’re continuing our look at ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.’
Lester Graham is our guide through the series. He says the
experts who were surveyed to determine the threats say rapid
development is among the problems affecting the lakes:


One of the more subtle but relentless threats to the Great Lakes is
coastal development. Condos, ever larger and nicer beach homes
and buildings and parking lots in the watershed all have an
impact on the Lakes. As the population grows and the suburban
lifestyle keeps spreading, the health of the lakes is compromised
in countless tiny ways. Reporter Peter Payette finds those tiny
ways all add up:


Greg Reisig is standing at the edge of a 20-acre construction site
just down the street from the shore Lake Michigan.


Below him is a man-made pond a few hundred feet long. It was a
dry summer around here, but the pond is full.


In fact, Reisig says the water level is always the same.


“And that indicates there’s a lot of ground water flowing
here…there’s a lot of water in this pond and you can see what
was a whole big wetland complex…there’s a lot of cedar and red
osier dogwood…all the wetland plants.”


There are no wetlands here now.


The site in northern Michigan was excavated for homes a few
years ago.


But now the Army Corps of Engineers says the wetlands that
were here need to be restored. A few acres likely will be
restored. But Reisig says almost the whole site was wetlands
once. He expects it will soon be a subdivision with not much
more than a drainage ditch connecting it to Lake Michigan.


“What will that do to the amount of flow of water going into the
bay? Because of hard road surfaces, hard driveways, roofs,
buildings and supposedly fertilized lawns. What will happen to
the water and how will that increase the flow to the bay?”


The developer’s attorney says this is nonsense. Matt Vermetten
says this land was heavily farmed and mined for clay.


“There are pockets of quote unquote wetland and those are there
because of excavation for clay. So is this a wetland complex of
the nature we speak of when we typically speak of such a thing? I
think not.”


Disputes like this are becoming more common around the Great
Lakes. John Nelson is the baykeeper with the Grand Traverse
Bay Watershed Center. The bay off Lake Michigan and attracts a
lot of people. But Nelson says development doesn’t have to be a
problem.


He says the problem is people don’t think about the ecology of
the lakes. For example, east of Traverse City, Michigan, resorts
dominate the coastline. Along the beach, thick stands of sedges
and rushes extend out a few hundred feet. But the sections of
dark green marsh alternate with stretches of clean sand and white
lawn chairs.


(birds calling on beach)


Nelson grew up here and says this part of the lake was never a
sugar sand beach.


“They’ve located in a coastal marsh. Instead of celebrating and
dealing with that they’ve chosen to see it as they would like to
have it and then change it.”


The impacts of the changes are cumulative. Fish and wildlife
habitat is fragmented. The natural filtering properties of the
wetlands are gone.


So every time the city gets a rain shower all the dust and grime
and pollution are washed right into the lake.


Census data show people are leaving many of the Great Lakes
coastal cities and spreading out along the coastline. But it’s not
clear how local governments should plan for the growth.


Mike Klepinger studies land use planning for the Michigan Sea
Grant program. He says it’s hard to make direct connections
between a healthy lake and particular land uses.


“We are getting more planning along the shoreline than we had
thirty years ago in the state. The number of counties and number
of townships that have a plan has gone up, for example. But we
don’t know whether those plans are really doing any good.”


And it’s hard to implement good planning on a broad basis. In
any area, dozens of different local governments might have
independent control over development.


Multiply that by the number cities, townships and counties along
the coasts of the Great Lakes… and it’s hard to see how it all can
be managed so that enough coastline habitat is preserved.


For the GLRC, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Protecting Crumbling Shorelines

  • This is a private beach Charles Shabica developed for a homeowner on Chicago's North Shore. The grasses in the background are native to the area and help stabilize the beach and bluff. They also help trap and filter runoff. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is changing how the shoreline interacts with
the lakes. Humans like to improve on nature. For example, we like to build things to
protect our property. Protecting a home from forces like wind, water and soil erosion can
be a tough job and expensive sometimes. But if your property is along the shore of a
Great Lake, it can be especially difficult. Reporter Shawn Allee looks at one engineer’s
effort to protect lakefront property and nature:

Transcript

We’ve been bringing you reports from the series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.’ Our
guide in the series is Lester Graham. He says the next report looks at protecting property
and protecting nature:


One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is changing how the shoreline interacts with
the lakes. Humans like to improve on nature. For example, we like to build things to
protect our property. Protecting a home from forces like wind, water and soil erosion can
be a tough job and expensive sometimes. But if your property is along the shore of a
Great Lake, it can be especially difficult. Reporter Shawn Allee looks at one engineer’s
effort to protect lakefront property and nature:


Great Lakes shorelines naturally change over time. Beaches erode. Dunes shift.
Sometimes, even the rockiest bluffs collapse.


That’s OK for nature, but maybe not for a house sitting on top of it. So it’s no wonder
that landowners try to stabilize their shorelines. To do that, they sometimes build walls
of steel or concrete to block incoming waves. It’s a tricky process. If the walls are too
short, they won’t stop erosion. But if they’re too long, they trap sand that moves
naturally along the lakeshore.


When nearby beaches can’t get sand, they degrade into muddy or rocky messes.


Charles Shabica is a coastal engineer. He’s been working at the problem for decades
now.


“My dream is to see the shores of the Great Lakes ultimately stabilized, but in a good
way and not a bad way where you’re causing problems.”


Shabica takes me to a small private beach north of Chicago. He engineered it to keep the
shoreline intact. The keys to that are two piles of rock that jut out into the lake.


The piles are just the right size – big enough to protect the shore, but small enough to let
some sand pass by. There’re other elements to the design as well.


Tall, blue-green grasses line the beach’s perimeter.


“Not only do waves tend to move sand around, but wind is also really an important agent,
too. So the beach grass and dune grass tends to stabilize the sand. And what will happen
is, you can see these things are seeding now, wind will blow the seeds and pretty soon
you get that stuff growing all over the place.”


A lot of homeowners and city planners applaud Shabica’s work. But not everyone does.


Some environmental groups say, once a landowner builds a wall or rock formation,
others have to follow suit, just to preserve their own sandy shoreline.


The environmental groups’ alternative? Keep development farther away from shorelines
and allow more natural erosion.


But that hands-off approach is not likely to happen. The majority of Great Lakes
shoreline is privately owned. And in many states, landowners often prevail in court when
they try to protect their investments.


Keith Schneider of the Michigan Land Use Institute says the question isn’t whether to
build near the shore, but how to do it.


He says, in the past, landowners tried to get off cheap. They didn’t pay for quality
construction or get expert advice on local geological systems.


“If you don’t pay a lot of attention to these systems, it’s gonna cost you a lot of money.
And if you build inappropriate structures or inappropriate recreational facilities, you’re
going to either be paying a lot of money to sustain them or you’re gonna lose them.”


A lot of coastal geologists agree that, for much of the Great Lakes coast, private
shoreline protection efforts – even the bad ones – are here to stay.


In urban or suburban areas, housing developments near the shore often include a buffer or
wall.


Michael Chrzastowski is with Illinois’ Geological Survey. He says, in these cases, the
shore can look natural…


“But it’s going to be a managed, engineered facility, because wherever you are on the
shore, you’re influenced by some other construction or historical development along the
shore that’s altered the processes where you are.”


That’s definitely the case along highly-developed, urban coastlines, such as Illinois’.
Other parts of the region are catching up, though.


“What’s going to happen is, other places along the great lakes as they become more
developed and they become more urbanized, they’re going to use Illinois as a model.”


That could bring more projects like Charles Shabica’s little beach. Shabica says that’s
not necessarily a bad thing.


It’s just a way to come to terms with our presence along the lakes.


“Human beings are here to stay. It’s our responsibility I think to make our environment
better for us, but not at the expense of the biological community, and your neighbors.”


That sounds reasonable enough. But it will ultimately mean the vast, natural coastlines of
the Great Lakes will be engineered, one beach at a time.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links