Big City Recycles Rain Water

Rain barrels are catching on as a simple way to capture water for the
garden. Some people are going even further to save water. They’re piping
rainwater into their indoor plumbing. Ann Dornfeld reports:

Transcript

Rain barrels are catching on as a simple way to capture water for the
garden. Some people are going even further to save water. They’re piping
rainwater into their indoor plumbing. Ann Dornfeld reports:


For years, the rain that fell upon Seattle’s city hall vanished almost as soon
as it hit the roof. It gushed down to the street and washed away oil and
heavy metals left by passing cars. In minutes, the rain became toxic waste
that flowed into the city’s waterways.


These days, Seattle’s new city hall doesn’t let rainwater slip away. This city
hall puts rainwater to work.


(Sound of toilet flushing)


City Councilmember Richard Conlin demonstrates one of the building’s
rainwater-filled toilets. It looks perfectly normal. Conlin says that’s not
always the case:


“It actually does get discolored, particularly during the leaf season, or
when the rains first start in the fall. And so for a while we had notices
in the bathroom saying ‘don’t pay attention to the fact that this water
is discolored. It’s because it’s recycled rainwater.’ But I think people
have really gotten used to it now.”


Rain that doesn’t get absorbed into City Hall’s green roof is channeled to a
million-gallon tank in the basement. It goes through a series of filters, then into the pipes. It’s called a rainwater catchment system.


“Right now we’re using it for pretty much all of the non-potable
functions that we have in City Hall. It’s probably good enough quality
to use for potable functions, but we aren’t going to go there because
we have great water that we get in the city and we’d have to do some
treatment in order to meet legal standards.”


Conlin says the city installed the rainwater system as a way to
practice the conservation that city leaders preach.


Bob Scheulen is a member of the choir. When he and his wife built their
house several years ago, they built a hollow concrete patio that stores
7,000 gallons of rainwater.


Scheulen says despite Seattle’s rainy reputation, droughts are common in
the summer:


“Basically there’s two choices if people want to continue to
use water as the population grows: the city can either build a lot more
reservoirs and drown more land or people can conserve water or be
their own utility for those summer months.”


Scheulen lifts a metal hatch on the patio floor and sticks his head inside:


“I bet we can see how full it is right now. Oh, it’s gettin’ pretty full. It’s
probably 60% full. A couple more
rainstorms and it’ll be probably completely full.”


The family’s washing machine uses rainwater, and they flush their toilets
with it. But Scheulen says what uses the most water is the garden:


“This year we did not run out of water but last year I got a little
overzealous in watering my flowers and I did run out. (Laughs)”


Mike Broili says that kind of awareness is exactly what most Americans are
missing. He runs Living Systems Design, and he installed Bob Scheulen’s
filtration system. Broili says he learned how much water he uses when he
lived in a cabin in Alaska. He hauled his own water for 15 years:


“And when you have to carry your water, you become really
sensitized to how much you’re using and how you use it and where
you use it.”


Broili says you don’t need to live in a rainy climate to run your home on
rainwater:


“There’s enough water that lands on the roofs even in the Southwest
to supply their needs.”


Broili admits the rainwater catchment systems he builds are pricey: 1500 to
15,000 dollars. But he says his clients recognize the value of water:


“Of all of the water on the planet, and this is a water planet, 7/1000ths
of it is actually available for human consumption. That’s a tiny, tiny,
tiny portion.”


Broili says as the population grows, pretty soon the only affordable way to
get water will be from the sky.


For the Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links

The Big Business of Nanotechnology

Technology using things very small is becoming very big business these days.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many consumer products, such as paints,
cosmetics, and vitamins. But some critics are concerned that the use of
nanotechnology is not being regulated. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Technology using things very small is becoming very big business these days.
Nanotechnology is already being used in many consumer products, such as paints,
cosmetics, and vitamins. But some critics are concerned that the use of
nanotechnology is not being regulated. Julie Grant reports:


It’s trendy these days to take your vitamins in liquid form. The idea is that the body
absorbs more vitamins from liquids than pills or tablets. And one company has taken
the liquid vitamin a step farther. Michael Gerike is president of NanoSynergy
Worldwide.


“Excuse me, I gotta spray my vitamins.”


(Sound of spray)


He sprays this nano B12 into his mouth a few times a day. Grerike says the particles
in it have been shaved down to the nano-size… much smaller than the average liquid
vitamin:


“An average particle could be 50-100-1000 micron. And ours are in the nano-meter
range. As an example, if you could imagine a micron being the diameter of the
earth, a nanometer would be the diameter of a nickel.”


Gerike says most vitamins are absorbed through the gastro-intestinal tract, but
nano-size particles are so tiny they can move right through cell walls and can be
absorbed directly into the bloodstream.


Grant: “Is there anything to be concerned about, I mean, because they’re such small
particles and because we don’t know how they might be incorporating into our cells?”


“Well, we’ve been taking them for the last three years, and I’m doing pretty good.
Scientifically, that question probably will be answered in the future. However, these
are natural products, so we’re really not altering the molecular structure of the
compounds. Therefore, theoretically, we shouldn’t be doing anything differently,
we’re just making the particle smaller.”


But we’re not just talking smaller. Nano-particles are really, really small.
Nanotechnology uses particles so small that the normal barriers that would prevent
absorption into the cells of organs, or directly into brain cells, might not matter. That
could mean big advances in some medical procedures. But it could also mean products
accidentally released into the air or water could get places where they shouldn’t, and
that has some people very concerned.


Ian Illuminato is with the environmental group Friends of the Earth:


“If you talk to anyone who is scientifically knowledgeable on nanotechnology, they’ll
tell you that when anything is brought down to the nano level, it has different
reactivity, and it has different components, and different ways that it acts in the
environment. If not, why would they use it?”


It’s not clear if those tiny particles can be dangerous. Those changes can do all kinds of beneficial things: make paints tougher to chip, make batteries
last longer. Nanotechnology is already being used in hundreds of products, but they’re all unregulated.
Government regulators are hesitant to regulate a compound depending on how small it is. But at
the nano-level, some compounds could behave a lot differently.

The Food and Drug Administration website says there’s just not enough information available yet to
know if the technology needs to be specifically regulated. The Environmental Protection Agency
has spent 30 million dollars on research into nanotechnology. Half of it’s been spent to find ways to
use nanotechnology to clean up the environment. Half of it was spent to see if nanotechnology
might damage the environment.


Clayton Teague is director of the federal government’s National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office:


“I think everyone in the field, whether you’re a pro who says shouldn’t make anymore until understand
perfectly, or one who thinks we really need to move forward as fast as can, I think between those two extremes…
everyone agrees need lot more data to fully understand how the new nano materials are going to interact with environment, how they’re going to interact with biosystems,
and indeed with human beings.”


Teague says researchers and investors in the nano-industry want to understand better how
particles at such a small scales could become more beneficial – or more toxic than larger particles.


They don’t want to scare the public, they want to sell to the public, but because so little is known
about nano-particles, some Fortune 500 companies and investors are reluctant spend a lot on
nanotechnology research. Researchers and policy makers say they need to do
more homework, so nanotechnology doesn’t get stuck with a bad public reputation.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

A Future for ‘Futuregen’?

  • FutureGen would burn coal and capture carbon dioxide produced in coal plants like this one. (Photo by Erin Toner)

The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to-
hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It’s been in the planning stages for several years.
But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built. Sean Crawford reports:

Transcript

The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to-
hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It’s been in the planning stages for several years.
But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built. Sean Crawford reports:


Many power plants already burn coal, but there is growing concern the
emissions they release into the atmosphere contribute to global warming.
The solution would be a way to use this plentiful, domestic resource – coal –
without emissions.


That’s where FutureGen comes in. The plant, a research facility, would
burn coal and capture nearly all the carbon dioxide produced in the
process. Instead of floating into the atmosphere, the greenhouse gas
would be stored underground. Other emissions such as sulfur dioxide and
nitrous oxides would be removed.


If that plant is successful, it means coal could be a more popular fuel.
Since there’s billions of tons of it in the U.S., it would mean much less
dependence on foreign fuel such as natural gas. Coal could even be a
substitute fuel for automobiles if it’s converted to hydrogen or a coal diesel
fuel.


That potential for FutureGen to start a coal resurrection almost sounds too
good to be true, and Ken Maize believes that’s the case.


Maize is editor for Power Magazine, which is a publication that for
more than a century has focused on electricity generation. He says for all
the hype over FutureGen, power companies remain uninterested. He says
it would be expensive for them to install technology FutureGen promotes.


Power providers in the private sector, who had been expected to put
money toward the building of FutureGen, have mostly stayed on the
sidelines. That means the cost to the federal government has ballooned to
nearly twice what it was when FutureGen was introduced. Maize has taken
to calling the project Never Gen because he doubts it will be built:


“You know it’s been political from the beginning of course. Bush wanted to show he
was doing something for energy. It has all of the elements of projects, scores of projects that I have seen in the past, that
looked like they were going to go somewhere and the wheels begin to
wobble and pretty soon they come off.”


But the coal mining industry hopes that doesn’t happen with FutureGen.
Phil Gonet lobbies for Illinois’ coal companies. He thinks FutureGen has a
future:


“I’m cautiously optimistic that the funding will proceed. What started as a 1
billion dollar project, the last figure I saw was about 1.4. So you kinda get concerned. And when government is
funding even a portion of that, I think there is some concern but I’m optimistic, the
funding has been included in President Bush’s budget and hopefully
whoever the next president is will see the wisdom of this.”


FutureGen has come under scrutiny for the rising cost, but it still has a lot
of support in environmental circles. Harry Henderson is with the Natural
Resource Defense Council. He likes the potential FutureGen brings, but
says no one should expect a lot of new clean burning coal plants to come
online in the near future, unless the federal government requires tighter
emission controls for existing facilities. As for only building new plants
with the carbon capture technology, he says it won’t make financial sense:


“Presently, an investment in highly, highly expensive infrastructure when they would be
competing against people who would be competing against people who
had absolutely almost no burden to do this, like the current plants that capture absolutely no carbon, when you’re competing against them, it is an unfair competition.”


But FutureGen is a model. It could show what could be done with coal.
That’s important to Illinois, since coal is becoming an increasingly
unpopular fuel because of the growing concern about global warming.


Jack Lavin is the Economic Development Director for the State of Illinois.
He’s put countless hours, energy, and dollars into landing FutureGen in
his state. But while Lavin celebrates Mattoon, Illinois’ selection as home to
the nearly zero-emissions coal-burning power plant, he knows his work is
far from finished:


“There’s lots of competing interests for budget priorities. And we believe that clean coal is a very high budget priority. And that’s going to
take work with the Congress, the Department of Energy and whoever’s in
the White House, to make sure those projects are fully funded… including
FutureGen.”


It’s unclear if there’s a long term commitment to FutureGen at the federal
level. Construction could begin in another year, but the Department of Energy is already talking about restructuring the project with a hefty price tag, there’s speculation President Bush’s initiative could be shelved once he
leaves office. For those in the coal industry, and the State of Illinois, making sure the federal
government follows through with its promise could be the toughest sell job
of all.


For the Environment Report, I’m Sean Crawford.

Related Links

Wildlife Refuge Takes Down Levees

  • An aerial view of the Big Muddy Refuge. (Photo courtesy of FWS)

The federal government is in charge of building levees along the nation’s rivers,
but another agency within the government sometimes works to take them down.
Tom Weber reports on one such case where officials are working on
a long-range plan for a wildlife refuge:

Transcript

The federal government is in charge of building levees along the nation’s rivers,
but another agency within the government sometimes works to take them down.
Tom Weber reports on one such case where officials are working on
a long-range plan for a wildlife refuge:


The Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge stretches along the floodplain
of the Missouri River between Kansas City and St. Louis. Right now, it includes
11,000 acres, but it’s a mish-mash of parcels that don’t always touch.


So officials at the refuge are starting a 3 year process to come up with a long-
range plan. They’ll only add land to the refuge when landowners want to
sell, but if they get enough of them, it might mean some levees can be taken
down.


Tim Haller is with the Fish and Wildlife Refuge:


“Some areas we have acquired a large enough area where we can allow the river to
flood into its floodplain, and that inadvertently provides a relief to adjacent
levees. That water spills out on us and not onto cropland.”


Haller, though, says no levee will ever come down if doing that would harm
farmland.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tom Weber in St. Louis.

Related Links

States: More Money Needed to Shrink Dead Zone

  • A shrimp boat. Shrimp can't survive in the oxygen-depleted water in the Dead Zone so the EPA is trying to control runoff. (Photo by Lester Graham)

The EPA has revised a plan to control polluted runoff from 31 states that
contribute to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. But states say there needs to
be more money too. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The EPA has revised a plan to control polluted runoff from 31 states that
contribute to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. But states say there needs to
be more money too. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Fertilizers such as nitrogen and phosphorus run off farm fields in
the Mississippi River basin. The nutrients then wash down the river, leading to
excessive algae growth in the Gulf of Mexico. That creates a dead zone of
20,000 square kilometers that harms shrimp and other species.


An EPA task force has released a plan that puts the states in the lead role for
cutting nutrients. But panel member Russell Rasmussen says what’s missing are
the billions of dollars needed to shrink the Dead Zone by the stated target of
75%:


“There just haven’t been the resources brought to bear to achieve that goal and it
doesn’t look like they’re going to be there between now and 2015.”


The EPA says major environmental progress in the Gulf is less a question of cost
and more about public-private partnerships.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Mega Fish Farms Coming to U.S. Waters?

  • A catfish farmer loading 2,000 pounds of catfish into a truck to be transported for processing. Right now, fish farming in the U.S. can only be done in inland or near shore waters. The U.S. government is deciding whether to allow fish farms in federal waters, in the zone between three and 200 miles offshore. (Photo courtesy of USDA)

The federal government is deciding whether to allow fish to be raised
in cages in the ocean. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

The federal government is deciding whether to allow fish to be raised
in cages in the ocean. Rebecca Williams reports:


The U.S. imports more than 80% of all the fish we eat. About half of
those imported fish are grown on farms in huge underwater cages.


The U.S. government is deciding whether to allow these commercial fish
farms in federal waters. The first place it might happen is in the
Gulf of Mexico.


Tom McIlwain chairs the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council:


“There’s biosecurity reasons for being able to produce those foodstuffs
in the US. I think we can do this in an environmentally sound manner.”


McIlwain says a number of permits would be required before anyone could
start operating an ocean fish farm. But some environmental groups are
worried about pollution from the farms.


And some fishermen who catch fish in the open ocean are worried these
fish farms could drive down the price of their catch.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Gm Electric Car ‘Not Just Pr Stunt’

  • A view of the Chevy Volt, which could be in showrooms in the next few years. (Photo courtesy of GM)

General Motors killed their last electric car
in the 1990s. Now the automaker is working on a new
car that could go 40 miles on electricity alone. The
car could be in showrooms in two to three years.
Dustin Dwyer visited the shop where
the new Chevy Volt is being designed:

Transcript

General Motors killed their last electric car
in the 1990s. Now the automaker is working on a new
car that could go 40 miles on electricity alone. The
car could be in showrooms in two to three years.
Dustin Dwyer visited the shop where
the new Chevy Volt is being designed:


Inside the design studio, a milling machine grinds away at a clay model of the Volt.
GM first introduced a concept version of the car last year. Now, designers and engineers
are working on a production version.


The Volt would basically be a hybrid. But it’s different than hybrids on the road today,
because the gas engine would just be a backup. Much of the time, the electric motor
would power the car on its own.


People at GM hope the Volt can improve GM’s image on the environment.
Bob Boniface of GM says the Volt is the real deal:


“This is not just a PR stunt… this is a real program, it’s got real engineers, real designers and obviously a real
building dedicated just to this car.”


Boniface says development of the Volt has been more public than most projects, and that
puts the pressure on for the company to get it right.


For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

Debating Holiday Consumerism

  • Santa in a window display. Some families wrestle with the question of how much to give each holiday season. (Photo by Mark Brush)

A lot of people don’t want to get caught up
in the consumerism of the holidays. But often
family and friends expect to get gifts from loved
ones. Julie Grant spent time with one family where gift-giving is a real struggle:

Transcript

A lot of people don’t want to get caught up
in the consumerism of the holidays. But often
family and friends to get gifts from loved ones.
Julie Grant spent time with one family where gift-
giving is a real struggle:


Susan Testa is stuck in the middle between her sister and her husband. They see the
Christmas holidays very differently. Susan and her husband Matt try to teach their two
little girls to live in balance with the natural environment. That means at Christmastime,
Susan says her husband wants to put the brakes on buying gifts:


“I think if it was up to Matt, we would have nothing because it’s just too much
consumerism, too much waste, too much this, too much that. I want to balance that
with, well, let’s not go overboard. Let’s bring some green concepts, which we’re both
very interested in, into the tradition. However, let’s not be scrooges about the whole
thing either.”


But on Christmas Eve, Matt doesn’t have visions of sugar plums dancing in his head.
He’s got visions of wastefulness. He can’t stand to watch the wrapping paper pile up as
the relatives rip open gifts:


Matt: “It doesn’t sit well with me, this frenzy of ripping things open, where no one can
even be appreciated or it’s hard to link the gift to the giver because of the frenzy going
on.”


(Sound of child in background)


Susan: “Well, what do you want to do, say okay, everyone stop. Let’s take a moment to
realize the true meaning of Christmas. And just put your gifts down and open them slowly… what do you think needs to be done?”


Matt: “Less about the things, more about the act of getting together, of sharing and all that.”


Matt says at the very least, instead of mindless toys and gadgets, the family ought to
give smart gifts: educational gifts, savings bonds – or giving the holiday gift money to
charity:


“Oh, he’s such a killjoy. You know, he’s missing the whole point of it.”


That’s Susan’s sister, Pam Nervo.


On Christmas Eve, Susan and Matt take their family over to Pam’s upper middle class
suburban home for a gift-giving session. Unlike Uncle Matt, the nieces love watching all
the wrapping paper pile up on Christmas Eve, and they don’t want educational gifts, and
Aunt Pam doesn’t plan on buying them for Sue and Matt’s girls either:


“I’m not gonna be the aunt that gives the educational toys. Not gonna happen Matt, not
going to happen.”


Pam and Sue are sisters, but their families have different philosophies. While Susan is
concerned about celebrating the love of the season and the earth we live on, Pam thinks
Susan and Matt should worry less about the consumerism of Christmas and spend more
time celebrating the birth of Jesus:


“I think when you don’t have the religious aspect to it, you are stuck with the
commercialism of it. That’s what happens. When you don’t have religion as part of your
life, that’s all this is, it’s a show.”


Julie: “Unless what you see as sort of, I mean, I’m just playing devil’s advocate for Matt a
little bit… unless what you see as your moral center is kind of…”


Pam: “Are you saying, I don’t know. Do you really want
your moral center to be based on the ecology system here. Is that what we’re saying?
That this is your moral center? That’s kind of crazy. I can’t imagine that being your
belief system.”


As we said, Susan is stuck between very different philosophies between her husband
Matt and her sister Pam.


But the holiday with the extended family is just that one day. The important thing for
Matt and Sue is that they teach their children the holiday season is more than just the
holiday shopping season. They turn to their 5-year-old daughter Geanna, smiling, Matt
asks her about her favorite part of Christmas:


Matt: “What’s your favorite part of Christmas?”


Geanna: “Um, getting presents.”


Matt: “Really?”


Geanna: “It’s just fun opening up presents.”


Well, nice try Matt. So, for this year Susan says she’ll be buying gifts she thinks the kids
in her life will enjoy. Environmental or educational qualities are secondary.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Clearing the Air for Wind Turbines

  • Wind turbines can capture the power of wind along ridgelines, but environmentalists worry government restrictions are not strong enough to protect birds that fly along the ridgelines. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

The process for protecting wildlife from new wind turbines varies by state and sometimes within states. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports wind developers and the
federal government say that is hindering the nation’s ability to take advantage of this renewable energy:

Transcript

The process for protecting wildlife from new wind turbines varies by state and sometimes within states. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports wind developers and the
federal government say that is hindering the nation’s ability to take advantage of this renewable energy:


The federal government is looking into wind turbine guidelines on two states,
California and Pennsylvania, and they couldn’t be more different. California’s
guidelines restrict wind farms from certain areas and hold them responsible
for the deaths of any wildlife, such as birds that run into the spinning blades.


In Pennsylvania, the guidelines are voluntary and if they’re followed, they exempt the wind
turbine developers from fines for wildlife deaths. Along the western edge of
the Appalachians there’s a ridgeline that stretches from the top of
Pennsylvania all the way to Maryland. There are breathtaking views of rolling
hills and farmland.


And we’re at one lookout point, called Shaffer Mountain. Veterinarian Tom Dick is
here counting migrating birds for the Audubon Society. Watching a pair of
broad wing hawks soar by, he says the wind here creates invisible highways:


“The wind is coming out just right, they found the lane, they’re making no
movement at all. They have a long migration to central and South America, and they
want to make it as effortless as possible, so they’re using the energy of the wind.”


That wind energy is attractive to wind turbine developers, too. Less than a
mile away, the Spanish wind turbine manufacturer, Gamesa plans to build a
30-turbine wind farm.


Tom Dick is against the project. He says the US Fish and Wildlife Service
discourages wind farms on migratory corridors like Shaffer Mountain:


“They just don’t want to see them on there, but there’s no teeth in the laws today.”


The laws Dick refers to is called a “Voluntary Agreement.” And nearly every Wind
Developer in the US has signed on. They agree to work closely with the state
conservation agencies to reduce impacts to wildlife. And in exchange,
Pennsylvania shields developers from liability if animals happen to die as a
result of the proposed wind farm.


Developers like this working relationship with Pennsylvania’s Game
Commission. They know what’s expected of them and they can adjust their
plans as wildlife problems arise. Tim Volk is Gamesa’s Shaffer Mountain
Project Coordinator and he says spring bird migration data the state required, has
already reshaped the project:


“So that lead us to set some of our windmills back about 400 feet to avoid any
potential impact to them.”


Critics say protecting developers from liability rather than protecting wildlife
from death is the opposite of what Pennsylvania should be doing. But
advocates for renewable energy say without such assurances, wind
development in the US will never live up to its potential.


Mark Sinclair heads the Clean Energy States Alliance:


“Every wind project is going to kill a couple of birds. It will happen. The problem right
now is that these wildlife laws are so strict, they really create a financial and
development challenge for wind projects.”


Sinclair says Pennsylvania’s system is the best in the nation, while guidelines
recently released in California might hinder development there:


“There’s less of incentive in California for a developer to follow these guidelines, because, what do I
get out of it? No permit and no guarantee the state won’t go after me for killing
several birds unintentionally.”


California’s guidelines are intended to assist local governments in deciding
where turbines should and should not go, but to use them is optional, and
wind turbine developers still responsible if they end up killing a lot of birds.


Everyone acknowledges that federal guidelines are needed and while some states
want more protection for their wildlife, other states like Texas don’t consider it
an issue. So for the next two years, a federal committee plans to weigh all
the options. It’s made up of representatives from various states, the wind
industry, the Audubon Society, and research scientists. Whatever
guidelines the committee develops, US Fish and Wildlife officials predict the
protection from liability that Pennsylvania has established will play a
prominent role.


For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links

Wolves Make Mark on Yellowstone

  • The wolves in Kinna Ohman's report as seen through a spotting scope. Wolves have helped strengthen several species of plants and animals in Yellowstone National Park. (Photo by Marlene Foard)

Scientists are surprised by the changes one animal can make in America’s first national park.
Since the wolf returned to Yellowstone, the predator’s had wide-ranging and unexpected effects
on the ecosystem of the park. As Kinna Ohman reports, top predators such as wolves might be
more necessary than previously realized:

Transcript

Scientists are surprised by the changes one animal can make in America’s first national park.
Since the wolf returned to Yellowstone, the predator’s had wide-ranging and unexpected effects
on the ecosystem of the park. As Kinna Ohman reports, top predators such as wolves might be
more necessary than previously realized:


Yellowstone National Park holds many wonders, but few things capture a visitor’s imagination
like the wolf:


“Whoa, I can see their eyes.”


Marlene Foard lets me peek through her scope and see members of the Slough Creek wolf pack
tearing into a recent kill. As we watch, we hear another group of wolves howling in the distance:


“Did you hear ’em? Yeah, did you hear that? Oh my God…”


(Sound of wolves howling)


Visitors are not the only ones fascinated by the wolves. Lately, scientists have been caught up in
the excitement too. Not just by the wolves, but how the wolves are changing Yellowstone.


(Sound of creek)


It’s a cold yet sunny day in the park. I’ve met up with Doug Smith, the project leader of
the park’s wolf recovery program. But we’re not going to look for wolves today. We’re about to
see how wolves are changing the landscape:


(Sound of footsteps)


“This is Blacktail Deer Creek that we’re walking up on. And it’s surrounded by willows.
And these willows about ten years ago were not growing as luxuriantly as they are right
now.”


This new willow growth happened after the wolves’ reintroduction to Yellowstone, and many
scientists are making a connection. Willow can be a food for elk especially in the winter, but
since the wolves have returned, elk would rather be on hillsides and open areas where they can
see wolves coming. And once they leave the river valleys behind, plants like the willow are
recovering.


The willow’s recovery is important because it helps other wildlife. Beaver eat willow and use it
for building dams. And ponds created by beavers are great habitat for endangered birds, like the
warbler. Doug Smith says the fact this could be caused by wolves caught everyone by surprise:


“Nobody thought of this. I was around at the beginning. There were many studies done
looking at what the impacts of wolves would be. And I can’t remember reading about this
at all.”


And it goes beyond the willow. Bill Ripple is a professor of Ecology at Oregon State University.
He came to Yellowstone in 1997 to study why aspen trees were declining. Ripple wasn’t thinking
wolves, but one day, when studying tree ring data, he saw the aspens’ problems began just when
the last wolves were killed off in Yellowstone. He was equally surprised:


“I didn’t see anything in the record. It wasn’t on my radar to see how wolves may be
affecting aspen trees. That was not even considered at all. And all of a sudden, it appears
that this one animal can have this profound effect on the entire ecosystem.”


And this got Ripple thinking about the top predators a little differently. He says these effects
might even extend to other animals:


“I think that this effect of predators would probably go well beyond just cougars or wolves.
You know everything from black bears to grizzly bears to lynx to wolverines. They may all
play important roles that we don’t even know about at this point.”


Not everyone thinks predators are needed for ecosystems to thrive. There are hunters who
consider wolves unnecessary and even competition for animals such as deer and elk, but Doug
Smith says it’s important to realize the contribution of wolves goes beyond what hunters can do.
Willow and aspen re-growth depends on wolves changing elk behavior. And this has to happen
year round:


“Human hunters, well known this fact, and I’m a hunter and I know this, prey behavior
changes during the hunting season, and before and after they go back to doing what they
want. Having a carnivore on the landscape changes prey behavior year round. A totally
different presence than human hunting.”


But there’s a caveat. Smith says there has to be a certain number of wolves on the landscape for
these changes to occur. And the number might be more than humans are willing to tolerate:


“You know, just having wolves on the landscape does not do it. And that’s a very, very
important point because some people are using wolves to argue that we’re going to get this
ecosystem restoration, this ecosystem recovery. But they need to be at a certain minimum
density. And that might be in some places at densities that are too high for humans to
socially tolerate.”


So, ultimately, ecological recovery could depend on humans, not the wolves. Human tolerance
needs to be high enough to allow top predators like the wolf to return to ecosystems, otherwise,
full recovery might never happen.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kinna Ohman.

Related Links