Farm Buffer Strips a Lasting Solution?

  • Tom Miller's farm in Central Illinois includes buffer strips that provide habitat and food for wildlife and keep chemicals and soil out of a nearby river. Photo by Jonathan Ahl.

Each spring, the seasonal rains and melting snow lead to millions of gallons of water entering rivers and streams around the Midwest. While that water is important for the rivers’ health, it brings with it soil, herbicides, and insecticides from farms. Programs designed to help keep soil and chemicals on the farm and out of the watershed are growing in popularity around the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl has more:

Transcript

Each spring, the seasonal rains and melting snow lead to millions of gallons of water entering
rivers and streams around the Midwest. While that water is important for the rivers’ health, it
brings with it soil, herbicides, and insecticides from farms. Programs designed to help keep soil
and chemicals on the farm and out of the watershed are growing in popularity around region. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


It’s a cold Spring day on Tom Springer’s Farm. But the strong winds and light rain do not
dampen the spirit of Springer. He’s showing off strips of land that contain tall grasses that would
normally be farmland waiting for the Spring planting:


“What we’re doing, we’re trying to create shelter belts up against these food plots for the birds
and the wildlife to have shelter in the winter.”


Springer is referring to buffer strips. The long, narrow pieces of land that take up about one acre for
every 30 acres of this farm in Central Illinois. The strips provide food and habitat for wildlife
such as quail and pheasants. They also provide a “catch” for some of the soil and chemicals that
would otherwise end up in the nearby Mackinaw River. That’s why some groups call them filter
strips. Springer is taking part in several state and federal programs that pay him to take the land
out of production and convert it to these buffer strips. Springer says he likes having the wildlife
around and wants to help the environment. But he says the financial incentives are the essential
ingredient that makes his buffer strips a reality:


“It was getting to the point that us small-time farmers we’re going to get pushed out because of
the economics of it. So I went ahead and did this, and it’s really worked out good. It’s a different
way of farming. It really is. What I’m doing, I’m farming the wildlife. I’m farming the
conservation program.”


Depressed crop prices and growing expenses are making the buffers strips a more popular
alternative for farmers. Adding to the financial advantage are not for profit groups such as Trees
Forever and Pheasants Forever. They make contributions of time, materials, and expertise to
farmers like Springer. That makes it easier to build the strips that comply with the state and
federal subsidy programs.


Tom Miller is with Trees Forever. He says the government payments get farmers to consider the
program. But he says they stay in because they know what they’re doing is right for the
environment. Miller says farmers are learning the dangers of plowing their land right up to the
banks of rivers and streams:


“Typically in the past, it’s been whatever farmland was there they would farm up to the edge.
But I think increased awareness and education over the last ten years from local and state
agencies and non-profits helped farmers realize you can’t do that.”


Miller says his group’s Buffer Initiative and others around the Midwest are gaining momentum
and making a difference in cutting down on pollution in waterways. But not everyone believes
these buffer strips are the magic bullet to fight erosion and chemicals in the watershed:


“I would say they are necessary but they’re not sufficient.”


Terry Kohlbuss is the director of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, a central Illinois
governmental group that has pushed for numerous water clean-up programs. He says buffer
initiatives are good programs. But he says it is only a drop in the bucket in the fight to help
bodies of water:


“But the other important source of that accelerated flow of water through the natural drainage
system is from developed areas. The solution set here is that there are probably 15 to 20 or 30
different types of programs that need to be in place to really get after this problem successfully.”


Kohlbuss says land management plans that cover all types of land will be necessary if there is
ever going to be meaningful progress in keeping soil and chemicals out of the rivers. Other
critics of the Buffer Strip program say there’s no guarantee the program will last because farmers
are reacting to the subsidies. Tom Springer says he has heard the criticism that if crop prices go
up or the payments run out, farmers will give up on conservation programs:


“I think a lot of them, if the program burns out in fifteen years, they’re talking about tearing a lot
of these out. We’ll I’m not, I’m going to leave mine in. They are on sand hills that were always
burnt up in the fall, you know. Most of the time it wouldn’t make much of a crop anyway, so we
are going to use it for conservation measures.”


Organizers of the buffer strip programs hope all of their participants will have the same point of
view as Tom Springer. Meanwhile, they continue working on finding more farmers to sign up for
the program.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Study: Common Products Damaging Food Chain?

The anti-bacterial soap and the toothpaste you use might be damaging the base of the food chain in your local streams. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The anti-bacterial soap and the toothpaste you use might be damaging the base of the food chain
in your local streams. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Chemicals from personal care products, including things such as certain soaps, deodorants, hair
dyes and contraceptives appear to be reducing the number of kinds of algae in streams. Algae is
the base of the food chain for aquatic life. In a report in the journal Nature, University of Kansas
researcher Val Smith and a student exposed algae to the chemicals at levels typically found after
they’ve been through the wastewater plant. The diluted chemicals from the personal care
products killed some kinds of algae in the lab experiment.


“So, that means that these anti-microbials, even though they’re designed to do other things for us,
seem to have a negative effect on something we like which, of course, is algae in streams.”


The next step is to see if the lab findings can be confirmed in the field.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Wetlands Policy Leaves Some High and Dry?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced
plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is
in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction
over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres
of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


More than ten years ago, 23 suburbs in the Chicago area wanted to convert an old stone quarry
into a landfill to combat a shortage of space to put trash. But in the 25 years since the quarry was
abandoned, it filled with water and became home to birds, fish and plants.


The federal government called the site a
wetland and blocked the landfill project citing the Clean Water Act. The Corps said the old
quarry was now an important part of the environment because it provided plant and wildlife
habitats and protected the surrounding area from floods. The communities sued the Army Corps
of Engineers over the issue.


The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the federal government
can’t enforce the Clean Water Act on bodies of water that were isolated and not part of a larger
water system. The five to four decision of the court put that responsibility in the hands of the
states. The U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers recently released plans to abide by those
rules.


Cameron Davis is with the Lake Michigan Federation, an advocacy group focusing on
environmental issues in the Great Lakes region. He says the federal government is backing
down too quickly:


“Well, I think what we’re seeing is another example of the administration scaling back the federal
environmental protections. Especially at the time when the states simply are not well equipped to
be able to pick up where those federal protections leave off. In an ideal world, the type of
proposal we are seeing would have been done in coordination with the states. It would
have been done in a way that will not leave wetlands out to dry.”


Davis says the Supreme Court decision only specifically relates to one case, and the federal
government was too quick to expand those thoughts to other wetlands. Davis says a longer
review process of exactly which wetlands the federal government can regulate would provide
better policy and more clarity on the issue. But the EPA says it is not sidestepping its
responsibility. Ben Grumbles is with the EPA’s Office of Water. He says the agency is doing
what it feels it has to do to comply with the Supreme Court decision.


“It’s our intent to take the interpretation that is the most reasonable and the most defensible one
that is also consistent with our mission of protecting wetlands and watersheds. We are fully
committed to protecting wetlands and watersheds to the full extent under the Clean Water Act
and the Supreme Court decision.”


Grumbles says while the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are planning to abide by the high
court ruling, it will also be working with states to help them protect wetlands that fall outside of
the federal governments newly-defined jurisdiction. Grumbles also says the EPA is taking public
comment so it can better define what makes a body of water an isolated wetland. While the EPA
and advocacy groups have differing opinions of how to interpret the Supreme Court decision, the
legal debate might not be over.


Chris Shafer is a law professor at the Thomas Cooley Law
School in Lansing, Michigan. He says the high court made a mistake by
assuming isolated wetlands are not the responsibility of the federal government:


“I think the court also made a giant leap of logic by saying that, ‘Well, it’s not really a major issue
in terms of wetland protection because the states will take over this responsibility.’ That’s just
laughable because the states are not likely to take over wetland protection. It’s very
controversial, it’s very difficult, it’s very expensive.”


Shafer says the Supreme Court decision is so narrowly focused on such a small area of the law,
that clarification from Congress would remove any doubt as to where the federal government
could assert its authority in wetland issues. Right now there are no plans for such legislation, and
observers say it’s doubtful that a Republican-controlled Congress and the current administration
would address the issue. Environmental activists say in the mean time, they will turn their focus
to state legislatures to encourage them to pass laws to preserve these wetlands no longer protected
by the federal government.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Proposed Pipeline Divides Community

A Findlay, Ohio-based oil company says it needs a new petroleum pipeline to help get gasoline and jet fuel products to market in the Great Lakes states. But Marathon-Ashland’s proposal has sparked opposition from environmentalists and some small business owners in Southeast Ohio who fear possible contamination of waterways and disruption of some pristine areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Borgerding has the story:

Transcript

A Findlay, Ohio based Oil Company says it needs a new petroleum pipeline to help get gasoline and jet fuel products to market in the Great Lakes states. But, Marathon-Ashland’s proposal has sparked opposition from environmentalists and some small business owners in Southeast Ohio who fear possible contamination of waterways and disruption of some pristine areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Borgerding reports.


The proposed 149-mile long pipeline will cross the Ohio River from Kenova, West Virginia and snake through parts of the Wayne National Forest and scenic Hocking Hills in Southeastern Ohio and South Central Ohio. Company spokesman Tim Aydt says the project will help stabilize gasoline prices in a region stretching from eastern Illinois to western New York.


“The existing pipeline infrastructure that serves us today is decades old and it was designed when there was only one grade of gasoline and one grade of diesel fuel. And it was designed to serve a population about half the size it is today. Over time, with the growth we’ve had in the Midwest we’ve outgrown that pipeline capacity and as a result we’ve witnessed the last two summers where we’ve had constrained supply that’s resulted in price spikes.”


The pipeline might help stabilize gasoline prices in the region by adding a second source of supply for refined petroleum products. Currently, The Great Lakes region is dependent solely on pipelines running out of refineries in the Gulf Coast states such as Louisiana and Texas. But, Marathon-Ashland’s proposal also presents a potential environmental risk. The pipeline will cross 363 streams, 55 wetlands, and parts of three watersheds. For some, the prospect of a pipeline carrying gasoline and jet fuel through environmentally sensitive areas has sparked fears. Jane Ann Ellis is a founder and trustee of Crane Hollow…. a privately owned, dedicated state nature preserve in the path of the pipeline.


“If this pipeline would be built and if there was any kind of leak this would decimate the clean water that we have. It is easier to keep your drinking water clean than it is to clean it up afterwards. And it’s cheaper in the long run for the general public.”


Michael Daniels also opposes Marathon-Ashland’s project. He owns a country inn that attracts tourists from Ohio and surrounding states. He says many of his customers come to the region to hear chirping birds, babbling brooks, and to see the fall foliage. Daniels says both construction and operation of the pipeline will have a negative effect on his business.


“Certainly! Who would want to come as a tourist and be exposed to that kind of noise and intrusion into their experience? So, there’s no question that it will impact my business.”


But company spokesman Tim Aydt says the pipeline route through parts of a national forest and other environmentally sensitive areas is the best possible route.


“We wanted to avoid population centers. We wanted to avoid residential or commercial developments and we wanted to avoid flood plains where we could. So, when all of that was put into the mix we came up with the best route overall. Obviously it’s not the cheapest route because it’s not a straight line between two points. But, about 80 percent of the route follows existing utility corridors or those areas that are less prone to development.”


Marathon-Ashland says without the pipeline the Great Lakes could soon face shortages of gasoline, lines at the pump and greater fluctuations in gas prices. The tension between the company and pipeline opponents turns on the question of whether Marathon-Ashland will be required to submit an “environmental impact statement.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is expected to make that decision early this year following a recommendation from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Corps spokesman Steve Wright says there’s no question such a requirement will delay the project.


“That will take longer. You know they take varying lengths of time but certainly they can’t be done very quickly.”


Marathon-Ashland contends an environmental impact statement (EIS) is unnecessary. But, opponents of the plan say the EIS is critical since the pipeline puts so many streams and wetlands at risk for potential pollution.


For the Great Lakes radio Consortium I’m Tom Borgerding

Lake Levels Scrape Bottom

Much of the industry in the nation’s mid-section relies on
shipments of raw materials on the Great Lakes. Great Lakes ports in the
U-S and Canada handle more than 200-million tons of material annually.
The Lakes are also a source of water and recreation for nearly a third
of
the nation’s population. But, during the last two years, water levels
have
been falling at a record breaking pace. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Farmers Take a Stand

Many rural communities are learning their water supplies are
contaminated with pesticides from nearby farm fields. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… in one small town…
farmers realized what was happening and took a stand: