erosion - The Environment Report

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:

(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.

Ten Threats: Wetlands – Where Life Begins

Great Lakes coastal wetlands filter water, give lots of wildlife a place to live and help prevent erosion. These wetlands are also greatly responsible for feeding the fish of the Great Lakes. (Photo by Lester Graham)

The Ten Threats to the Great Lakes were identified for us by experts from all over the region.
Again and again they stressed that the shores and wetlands along the lakes were critical to the
well-being of the lakes and the life in them. Great Lakes coastal wetlands filter water, give lots of
wildlife a place to live and help prevent erosion. But the coastal wetlands are also greatly
responsible for feeding the fish of the Great Lakes. Biologists are finding that when people try to
get rid of the wetlands between them and their view of the lake, it hurts the fish populations.
Reporter Chris McCarus takes us to where life begins in the lakes:

Transcript

We’ve been bringing you the series, Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. One of the
keys to the health of the lakes is the connection between the lakes and the land.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham is our guide through the series:

(sound of walking in water)

About a dozen researchers have come to Saginaw Bay off of Lake Huron. They walk from the
front yard of a cottage into some tall grass and black mud out back. The coastal wetland is wide
here.

Don Uzarski is a professor from Grand Valley State University. He wants to see just how many
different kinds of microorganisms live in this wetland. He asks a colleague to dip a fine mesh net
into the muck.

“Why don’t you give us your best scoop there…”

The net’s contents are poured into a tray. The water and muck is pushed aside and tiny animals
are revealed. None of them is any bigger than an inch.

“There are a lot organisms right there. That’s a lot of fish food. Lot of water boatmen. We have
scuds swimming through here. We have snails. Probably a bloodworm. I don’t see it. But the
red thing.”

Uzarski says this is a healthy patch of wetland. It’s where Great Lakes life begins.

“The whole community starts here. And we’re talking about everything from the birds and fish
and all the things that people tend to care about more. But without this stuff we don’t have
anything.”

These microorganisms are at the bottom of the food chain. Lake trout, walleye and salmon are at
the top. But this natural order has been disturbed by humans. Only parts of the wetland are able
to work as nature intended. The bugs, snails and worms are supposed to be everywhere here. But
Uzarski says they’re not.

“Look at if we take 20 steps over there we’re not going to find the same thing. It’s gonna be
gone. And where’s that coming from? It’s coming from these disturbed edges. Which were
disturbed by? It was the spoils from dredging out that ditch right there.”

The dredging material is piled along the edge… a bit like a dike. Uzarski says that’s one of the
three main threats to coastal wetlands.

The dikes stop the natural flow of water. Farm and lawn fertilizers, sediment and chemical
pollution are not filtered out when they run off the land. Dikes also stop the water from carrying
food for fish out into the lake… and in the other direction, water can’t bring oxygen from the lake
into the wetlands. They’re at risk of becoming stagnant pools.

A second threat to the wetlands is alien invasive plants. Ornamental plants intended for gardens
have escaped. Phragmites, purple loosestrife, and European water milfoil among others all choke
out the native plants that help make the wetland systems work.

But… the greatest threat to the coastal wetlands is construction. We’ve been building homes,
buildings and parking lots right over the top of some of the Great Lakes’ most critical wetlands.

Sam Washington is Executive Director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the state’s
largest hunting and fishing advocacy group. He says we need healthy wetlands if we want to
keep fishing the Great Lakes.

“If we didn’t have wetlands, if we didn’t have the ability to regenerate the bottom foods in the
food cycle of these animals, we wouldn’t have the big fish that people go out in the Great Lakes
to catch everyday. They just wouldn’t be there.”

Washington says the way to fix the problem is easy… but it will require us to do something that
comes really hard…

“The best thing human beings can do for wetlands, even though we really believe we know how
to fix everything, is just to leave ’em alone.”

Sam Washington gets support from the biologists who tromp out into the wetlands. They say
we’ve got to protect the whole food chain… so we should leave wetlands alone and just let nature
do its job.

For the GLRC, I’m Chris McCarus.

Tug-Of-War Over Great Lakes Seawall

Some people who escape to Promontory Point from the "concrete jungle" of Chicago are worried about the Point's future. (Photo by James Lin)

Cities along the Great Lakes often depend on sea walls to keep the crashing waves from eroding the shoreline. Some of those walls have been around for close to a century. One city wants to rebuild its protective walls. But the neighborhood near one popular section is not happy about it. They say the huge limestone blocks give the area character. They don’t want concrete to replace any of it. But the structure is deteriorating, and the city and Army Corps of Engineers want to shore it up. The plan for repairing the seawall is igniting an age-old debate between historic preservation and shoreline protection… and it’s got an entire neighborhood ready to fight. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes has more:

Transcript

They say the huge limestone blocks give
the area character. They don’t want concrete to replace any of it. But
the structure is deteriorating, and the city and Army Corps of Engineers
want to shore it up. The plan for repairing the seawall is igniting an
age-old debate between historic preservation and shoreline protection…
and it’s got an entire neighborhood ready to fight. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes has more:

(Sound of water)

Jack Reed stands on the edge of the huge limestone rocks that make up the seawall, drying himself off. He just swam a mile along the shore of Lake Michigan. He drapes a big flannel sheet over his head that he’s fashioned into a makeshift changing tent, and modestly gets out of his swimsuit.

The 67-year-old has been swimming off this rocky peninsula that juts into Lake Michigan for forty years now. He says the trees and the giant limestone rocks made him appreciate nature and realize how much he needs a break from the city.

“I sort of hate to leave and go back to the grind, ’cause when you’re out here, you can relax and look at the sky and get in the water and watch the birds and the clouds go by. It’s like a vacation trip, just as long as you have time for.”

The place where Reed comes to swim and relax is called Promontory Point. The point is lined with large limestone blocks that stretch along the water like a chunky, irregular staircase.
People come here to swim, fish and bicycle. They have picnics, walk their dogs and throw Frisbees.

The city and Army Corps want to replace a lot of the limestone with concrete. They say the limestone seawall is getting weak. They just overcame an important obstacle by winning approval for their concept from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency which recognizes the limestone wall as a historic part of Chicago. Jack Reed says replacing the limestone with concrete would make the Point seem sterile.

“The thing about concrete is it’s artificial. It’s manmade. We spend most of our lives inside buildings and buses and subway tunnels; that’s all manmade.”

Reed says he comes here to escape what he calls the “concrete jungle” of the city. He says the limestone makes a soft, naturalistic transition between land and water. But the lakeshore isn’t as natural as it looks.

Less than a century ago, this whole area was part of the lake. The point was created by dumping debris into the lake in the 1920s. Workers built the limestone seawalls on top of wood shorings. Now the wood is rotting, and the rocks are shifting. The city and the Army Corps say that’s dangerous for people and for the shoreline.

And the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency says there needs to be balance between safety and historic preservation and making the shoreline accessible to people with disabilities. David Blanchette is with the state agency. He says the wall has to be reconstructed to stabilize the shoreline.

“Our job is to make sure that this historical resource, which was built for a specific purpose quite some time ago, preserves as much hisotric character as possible, but still allows it to function for its intended use.”

The work at Promontory Point is part of a 300-million dollar project to replace miles of old limestone revetments along the city’s lakeshore, but the point has caused a snag in the plan. Community members and preservationists have stalled the work at Promontory Point for years now.

The Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois put the point on its list of ten most endangered historic places in the state, putting it at odds with the Historic Preservation agency.
And Council president David Bahlman says it’s one of the few spots left where the lakeshore hasn’t been hardened with concrete.

“Let’s say it’s an unacceptable compromise that moves closer to ensuring that two-thirds of the point is going to be destroyed.”

Most critics acknowledge something needs to be done to protect the shore from erosion. But they say it’s entirely possible to come up with a plan that preserves limestone on the entire seawall, not just part of it. A community group is now lobbying the U.S. Senate for legislation to prevent funding for construction unless the limestone wall is preserved much as it is. A similar measure has already passed the U.S. House.

For the GLRC, I’m Lynette Kalsnes.

St. Clair Erosion Lowering Lake Levels?

A report finds the erosion in Lake St. Clair is causing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron water levels to drop. (photo by Jere Kibler)

A new study says erosion in the St. Clair River has caused water levels to drop on Lakes Michigan and Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes has more:

Transcript

A new study says erosion in the St. Clair River has caused water levels to drop on Lakes Michigan and Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes has more:

W.F. Baird and Associates is a coastal engineering firm. They recently conducted a study that found that water levels dropped on the two Great Lakes by eight to thirteen inches over the last forty years. Rob Nairn is the study’s lead author. He says that’s about twice as much as authorities thought.

“The outlet to Lake Michigan/Huron, which is the St. Clair river, is in fact expanding. The analogy would be if you had a drain hole in a bathtub, that drain hole is getting bigger, and more water is going out. And as more water goes out, the lake level drops.”

Nairn says the erosion may be caused by dredging, sand mining, or shoreline protection measures that prevented new sediment from getting into the water.

Several environmental groups say the lower water levels could hurt shipping and boating, and damage natural habitats. They’re calling for the U.S. and Canadian governments to stop the reported water loss.

The International Joint Commission says it can’t confirm the report, but it plans to take a closer look at the study’s findings.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lynette Kalsnes.

Companies Push for Forest Certification

Magazine publishers and other companies are thinking ahead and getting their paper from forests that have been certified. But what does this really mean? (Photo by Stanley Elliott)

Officials in the Midwest want to prove they’re not damaging their state forests. States that sell timber to paper companies are spending thousands of dollars to earn a certificate that says they’re managing the forests in a sustainable way. Paper producers are demanding that state foresters earn certification because officials want to stave off protests from consumers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

Officials in the Midwest want to prove they’re not damaging their state forests. States that sell timber to paper companies are spending thousand of dollars to earn a certificate that says they’re managing the forests in a sustainable way. Paper producers are demanding that state foresters earn certification because officials want to stave off protests from consumers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

It’s lunchtime and employees on break from Compuware in downtown Detroit are browisng through the magazine racks at Borders. Melody Kranz says she reads three different magazines every month. She says she is an avid recycler and an impassioned environmentalist, but never considered what kind of paper was going into her magazines.

“I don’t know why I haven’t thought about it, I just haven’t. I will now. Because I’m a gardening nut, I love to garden. So yeah, I just never really thought about it.”

But executive David Refkin is betting that Franz and others like her would think twice before picking up Time Magazine if they thought a forest was demolished to make the paper. Refkin is the Director of Sustainable Development for Time Incorporated. He says he’s noticed a strong surge in environmental awareness over the past two or three years.

“We don’t want people looking at a magazine and feeling guilty that a stream has been damaged and the fish are dying in there, or that habitats aren’t being protected because people are practicing bad forestry practices.”

Refkin says his company wants to take action now, before consumer groups decide to boycott its magazines over ecological issues. Time uses more coated paper for its publications than any other company in the U.S. The company is asking that 80 percent of all paper products Time buys be certified by 2006.

To the average consumer, that may not seem like big news. But for paper producers and foresters, it’s earth shattering. Larry Pedersen is with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Pedersen says getting certified means years of work for state employees. The government has to prove to investigators that its management standards take into account issues such as biodiversity, water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat. Pedersen says the state is also required to provide records for each tree from the moments it’s planted or inventoried to the time it’s cut down and then made into planks or paper. But he says it’s worth the effort.

“A number of wood and paper-using companies brought it to our attention that they needed to have certified products because their consumers were demanding those. And with us having four-million acres of state forestlands, we saw the writing on the wall that we needed to jump on this.”

State forests in the region generate a lot of revenue. Wisconsin’s forests earn two and a half million dollars from timber sales and Ohio pulls in almost three million. Michigan’s forests bring in 30 million dollars annually. Earlier this year, Michigan’s Governor Jennifer Granholm announced that all state forests will be certified by January 1st of 2006. And the Great Lakes State is not alone… New York, Wisconsin, and Maine are also pursuing certification and Ohio and other states are considering it.

Andrew Shalit, with the environmental activist group Ecopledge, says he’s glad Time Warner is encouraging paper companies and state governments to get certified. But he says that doesn’t necessarily mean the paper is produced in an environmentally friendly way.

“It’s great to say that they’re going to get all of their paper from certified forests. The question is, who is certifying? And in the case of Time Warner, a lot of the forests are certified by a group called SFI, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and their standards are so weak as to be almost meaningless.”

There’s a heated debate over just what certification means. There are currently two groups that certify forests in the U.S. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative, or SFI, was originally founded by the timber industry but is now an independent body. The Forest Stewardship council, or FSC, came out of the environmental movement… or more specifically, out of the effort to protect South American rainforests. Shalit says he doesn’t think SFI certification is as rigorous or as comprehensive as FSC.

“It really is a problem for the consumer because you see something in the store and it has a little green label on it with a picture of a tree and it says sustainably certified, and you think you’re buying something good. It’s hard for the individual consumer to keep up with that.”

Shalit says several states, like Michigan, have solved the dilemma of rival certification programs by getting dual certification. he says although the system has flaws, it will improve if consumers demand more stringent forestry regulations.

Executives at Time Warner hope they can avoid boycotts and pickets by taking action preemptively. The company is leading the push for forest certification in the U.S., and environmentalists say the federal government may have to bow to pressure eventually and get the national forests certified as well.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Hazelnuts Crop of the Future?

John Munter grows hazelnuts on his farm in northern Minnesota. He says the bushes are better for the environment than corn or soybeans, and that hazelnuts could be an important food in a future of climate change. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

You might have tried hazelnut flavoring in your coffee. And we all know about the hazelnuts in European chocolate bars. Hazelnuts – or filberts – are traditionally grown in Turkey, Italy, and Oregon. Now, researchers are developing varieties that could thrive in more challenging climates, such as the Great Lakes region. A man in northern Minnesota is growing hazelnuts. It’s part of his attempt to live off the land. And he says hazelnuts are the perfect crop for a future of global climate change. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill visited his farm:

Transcript

You might have tried hazelnut flavoring in your coffee. And we all know about the hazelnuts in
European chocolate bars. Hazelnuts – or filberts – are traditionally grown in Turkey, Italy, and
Oregon. Now, researchers are developing varieties that could thrive in more challenging
climates, such as the Great Lakes region. A man in northern Minnesota is growing hazelnuts. It’s
part of his attempt to live off the land. And he says hazelnuts are the perfect crop for a future of
global climate change. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill visited his
farm:

John Munter lives on 40 acres of hay fields and woods. He and his wife and their four children
live in a ranch-style house in the middle of the fields. Munter works at a Northwest Airlines
reservation center. But his heart is here at the farm. It was settled by his grandfather, a Finnish
immigrant, 90 years ago.

Munter has a full beard. He wears round wire-rimmed glasses. And when he goes out to do the
chores, he puts on a fraying denim jacket that must be 50 years old. It belonged to his great-
uncle.

(sound of Munter walking outdoors)

“Here’s our maple sugaring operation… this is the garden here, you can see it’s pretty small.
We’re so busy it’s hard to spend a lot of time gardening… and to my right is the log sauna…”

John Munter has a lot of projects. He wants to be as self-sufficient as he can on the farm.

Twelve years ago he planted some hazelnut bushes south of the old farmhouse. They’re protected
from the north wind here, and they’ve grown to about seven feet tall.

This is a new crop for northern Minnesota. There are wild hazelnuts growing around here, but no
one had tried the newer varieties, that are bred to produce more and bigger nuts.

Four years ago, Munter’s bushes began producing nuts. He’s especially happy with one of the
bushes.

“It really just pounds out the nuts. They’re not real big, but they’re plentiful, last year we got
maybe two pounds of nuts from this little bush right here… Now this bush here produces nuts
early. They’re a signal to me because when the squirrels start attacking my nuts, they take after
this one first because they ripen earlier. You can see a bush loaded with hazelnuts, and the next
morning it’s stripped. And then they go to the next bush, and the next one, and so on. (Hemphill:
‘Then how do you get anything out of them?’) Well, I’m letting the animals have them at this
point, because I’m too busy with all my other projects to process all these little nuts.”

You have to take the long view with hazelnuts. Right now, these bushes are 12 years old, and
they’re just beginning to produce nuts. But Munter says in ten years, he could get hundreds of
pounds.

He could sell them to candy-makers, or just eat them. They’re high in protein and vitamins. And
Munter says the oil is as healthy as olive oil. Most hazelnuts come from Europe and Oregon.
John Munter is determined to show they’ll grow in northern Minnesota.

“They’re great for climate change too. Because they bend and don’t break… in hurricanes,
tornadoes and wind storms, whatever… if a forest fire burns it over, they’ll pop back up from the
base there.”

John Munter says hazelnuts could be an important source of food if the climate gets harsher.

Munter’s not the only one in the Great Lakes region trying out hazelnuts. Some researchers say
they’re the crop of the future. They say the bushes are better for the environment than corn and
soybeans.

Hazelnut bushes stay in the ground for years, so the soil isn’t eroded by plowing. And they’re
very good at absorbing fertilizers. That means excess fertilizer doesn’t run into nearby streams.

A few farmers are planting them, and thinking of switching gradually, from corn and soybeans, to
hazelnuts.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Seneca Children Learn to Preserve Culture

Almost forty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a dam in northwestern Pennsylvania. Hundreds of Seneca Indians lost their land, homes and traditions to the dam’s reservoir. Now a new generation of Senecas is trying to preserve a way of life that many believe was nearly inundated by this federal project. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Murray has this story:

Transcript

Almost forty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a dam in northwestern
Pennsylvania. Hundreds of Seneca Indians lost their land, homes and traditions to the dam’s
reservoir. Now a new generation of Senecas is trying to preserve a way of life that many believe
was nearly inundated by this federal project. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Murray
has this story:

(students playing outside school)

It’s a sunny day in Salamanca, New York. Young Seneca students lurch and lunge in a game of
keep away.

(students playing game: “Let go! Let go!”)

Although they look like any group of kids
at recess, they share a big responsibility.

(kids playing ball outside)

“My Indian name is Gayanose. My English name is Brooke Crouse- Kennedy. I’m here because
I’m trying to be one of the ones to preserve our culture and just learn.”

Brooke and 12 other students are here at the Faithkeepers School to learn the Seneca language
and the teachings of the Longhouse religion. The health of these cultural benchmarks declined
after the Kinzua Reservoir flooded one-third of the Alleghany Reservation and scattered tribal
families. The cedar wood school now rests on the upper reaches of the reservation – a narrow strip
of land that follows the Allegheny River from Pennsylvania to New York.

(Dowdy and kids in classroom)

“What kinds of things do you need that’s growing on earth?”

“Food.”

This morning, longtime teacher Sandy Dowdy, works with very young students. In 1998, she and
her husband Dar rallied the community and started the school. They’re two of only 200 Senecas
who can still speak their language.

“Now do you see why Yoedzade is so important? Everything we need is on Yoedzade.”

Thanking Yoedzade, the earth, and its creator for the bounty of nature is the building block for
learning the Seneca language and ceremonies. Today, this handful of students learns a shorter
version of the thanksgiving speech. The speech stresses the interconnection between the natural
world and the well being of individual people.

(Dowdy and kids recite thanksgiving speech in Seneca)

“We cover just the ceremonial part and the giving thanks part in the morning and then in the
afternoon, we study things. We look into erosion and pollution and all of those things
that we can do to protect those things we just gave thanks for.”

These lessons have a real life application in the school’s small gardens. The early Senecas
depended on gardens to survive. Fruits and vegetables were so important to the tribe’s existence
that they appear in many of their stories and ceremonies. Senecas continued to farm until their
fertile bottom land was flooded by the Kinzua reservoir.

Following the traditional cycles of their
ancestors, Landon Sequoyah and the other kids now help with planting and harvesting.

“The corn’s right there. A long time ago they used to have big things of corn and beans and squash. That’s the Three
Sisters. That’s the Three Sisters. Guindioth and the Three Sisters. He was going back
up to the Skyworld and they grabbed onto his legs and they told him not to go or
they could go with them but he was like,’No, you have to stay down
here to feed our people.'”

Murray: “If you hadn’t been in school would you ever had a garden?”

“I don’t think so cause I was going to a public school and I didn’t know hardly anything about our
culture.”

Many Senecas on the Alleghany Reservation believe their culture was nearly lost when the
Kinzua Dam was built. The Senecas and others strongly protested this project. But their
arguments were turned down in the courts and the U.S. Congress. Tyler Heron is an elder and
Seneca historian. He says that the Canandaigua Treaty of 1794 guaranteed that Seneca land
would remain untouched by the United States government.

“But the politics change over 200 years. We weren’t the threat. We weren’t the political power
any more. The threat, I guess, was the river itself to Pittsburgh …the flooding. It was the
threat to the economy.”

Major floods along the lower Allegheny prompted the federal government to act. To make way
for the dam, 600 Senecas were moved from their homes along the riverbanks. In 1964,
contractors burned and bulldozed Seneca houses, trees and public buildings. Churches and
cemeteries were moved. Heron, who was 17 at the time, says life as he knew it has changed.

“Even the ecology of the river itself has changed. My wife, for instance, used to make her extra
money as a teenager by catching soft-shelled crabs and selling them to the bait companies
but I don’t think there’s a soft-shelled crab in the river anymore.”

Aquatic plants were lost as well. The reservoir also inundated hardwoods used for carving
ceremonial masks and many medicinal plants. Heron, whose grandchildren attend the
Faithkeepers School, says these children are learning to identify the remaining plants. They’re
learning to speak the language and lead the ceremonies and carry on for a community that lost its
ancestral home along the Allegheny.

“Our existence is dependent on us …dependent on us only. And we have to keep our identifiers.
How do we keep our identity? Well,language. It starts right here.”

(Kids playing in front of Faithkeepers school. One child speaks in seneca. Fades into traditional
Seneca chant.)

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ann Murray.

Drawing the Line on Beachfront Properties

Some homeowners on Great Lakes coasts are concerned about how state governments decide where the lake ends and private property begins. In one state… landowners are pushing legislation to protect their private property rights. But the bill worries recreation and environmental activists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Some homeowners on Great Lakes coasts are concerned about how state governments decide
where the lake ends and private property begins. In one state, land owners are pushing legislation
to protect their private property rights. But the bill worries recreation and environmental
activists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Dennis Bring is a big, burly guy who looks like he wouldn’t be scared of anything. But he says
he is scared. He’s afraid of the bureaucrats at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
They say the land he once owned is no longer his, simply because of the erosion caused by Lake
Erie’s waves.

It started more than twenty years ago. That’s when high waters on Lake Erie started to batter his
shoreline property and erode the bluff. Bring decided to use concrete and large limestone blocks
to protect it. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources required him to get surveys, pay for
engineering, and construction. It cost thousands of dollars. Then he was told he had to sign a
lease agreement, to lease the land that he thought he already owned.

“They said it wasn’t a big thing. But when we got it, we found out it was 17 to 20 pages long and
basically they had the rights to our property and we had basically no rights and they could come
on our property at any time.”

The cost of the lease isn’t that much, but Bring’s deed says he owns that land. It’s been in the
family for three generations and he pays taxes on it. But the state also wanted him to carry a
million dollars worth of liability insurance on the erosion protection structure.

So he called the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to complain. A state regulator told Bring
that he no longer owns the land because anything up to the high water mark, including the eroded
part that once belonged to Bring, actually belongs to the state.

“And I asked him, I said, ‘You’re telling me the lake is your property, correct?’ And he said ‘Yes,
that’s our property.’ And I said, ‘According to my gist on this, is that your property is damaging
my property. I’m trying to protect this property.’ But I said, ‘In turn you’re making me pay back
what is already mine.’ He said, ‘And we could tear your structure out if we wanted to.’ And then
I hung up the phone, and my wife and I were scared to death.

The state plans to enforce its claim that it owns up to the high water mark. But many lakefront
owners say the state is taking more than its share. They want Ohio’s jurisdiction pushed back
toward the lake – to the low water mark. The difference between the two adds up to thousands of
acres along Ohio’s 262 miles of coast.

Brian Preston grew up fishing in the marshes around Toledo. Speaking at a public meeting on
behalf of the environmental group, the National Wildlife Federation, he argued that the state is
right, anything the lake touches belongs to all the people, not just those who own the adjacent
private land.

“We’re not talking about their land; proximity doesn’t imply ownership. Those 262 miles in the
land going into the water is our land. Just because it’s in front of their house doesn’t make it their
land”.

But property owners disagree. They’ve pushed a bill in the Ohio legislature to move state
ownership back toward the lake. It would also take away much of the state’s authority to regulate
the shoreline. The private land owners say the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers already monitors
the Great Lakes shoreline. Homeowner Jim O’conner says that’s enough regulation.

“For years, shoreline structures have been built along the lake and have been fine. The Army
Corps has kept a pretty close eye on it. But now this program has turned into a radical mess by a
few people that have extreme radical views on what private property owners, shoreline owners,
should relinquish. In order to live on the lake you’ve got to relinquish your property.”

The state says without its additional regulation there would be all kinds of problems. That’s
because in the past houses and other structures have been built too close to the shore and
eventually storms eroded the dirt from underneath them and they fell into the lake. Some
scientists are also concerned that the engineered structures that protect the land from erosion end
up destroying public property. State geologist Don Guy says erosion provides the sand size
material that builds Ohio’s beaches.

“And by armoring the shore, we’re eliminating that source of beach-building material. And as
waves continue through natural processes to carry sediment, at least along this part from east to
west, eventually the sand is eroded from the beach at a given site and there’s nothing to replenish
that beach. So that’s maybe the hidden impact of all the shore protection.”

And that’s one reason the Ohio Department of Natural Resources wants to protect the beach.
State representative Tim Grendell sponsored the bill that would change the boundary from the
high water mark to the low water mark. He says it won’t have any negative impact on the
lakeshore or the environment. He says the state has taken control over more land than it should.
He notes that property deeds often say landownership stretches to the low water mark. Grendell
says state shouldn’t regulate beyond that.

“It recognizes what the Ohio constitution recognizes, that a government agency of the state has no
power to take away people’s property by redefining what they own.”

But most Great Lakes states regulate to the same boundary as Ohio. They say state ownership is
at the high water mark. The state of Ohio says it’s willing to drop some of the things it mandates.
For example, it might drop insurance requirements and help pay engineering costs of shoreline
structures it approves. But Ohio says it will not support turning public ownership over to private
landowners.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Grant.

DRAWING THE LINE ON BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES (Short Version)

Some homeowners on Great Lakes coasts are concerned about how state governments decide where the lake ends and private property begins. In one state… landowners are pushing legislation to protect their private property rights. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Some homeowners on great lakes coasts are concerned about how state governments decide
where the lake ends and private property begins. In one state… land owners are pushing
legislation to protect their private property rights. The great lakes radio consortium’s julie grant
reports:

(sound of lake)

When the water of the Great Lakes batters shoreline property, it erodes the land. Homeowners
want to prevent that erosion. But there are lots of regulations on building shore protection
structures. Too many, according to Ohio homeowner jim o’conner. He says Ohio is regulating
land that he owns…

“They don’t have that right, but they’re doing it. And it’s a shame we have to try to get a bill to
say, ‘Hey, this is our property, don’t take it.'”

A bill in the Ohio legislature would push the state’s jurisdiction back toward the lake, so it would
have less authority over shoreline development. Other states are watching the issue because they
draw the line to same boundary as Ohio. The state says it might drop some regulations, but it will
not support turning public ownership over to private landowners.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Grant.

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.

Tag: erosion

Ten Threats: Concrete Shores

Transcript

Related Links

Ten Threats: Wetlands – Where Life Begins

Transcript

Related Links

Tug-Of-War Over Great Lakes Seawall

Transcript

Related Links

St. Clair Erosion Lowering Lake Levels?

Transcript

Related Links

Companies Push for Forest Certification

Transcript

Related Links

Hazelnuts Crop of the Future?

Transcript

Seneca Children Learn to Preserve Culture

Transcript

Drawing the Line on Beachfront Properties

Transcript

Related Links

DRAWING THE LINE ON BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES (Short Version)

Transcript

Related Links

Farm Buffer Strips a Lasting Solution?

Transcript