(Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
(Photo courtesy of the US Geological Survey)
Zebra Mussels removed from the
Mississippi River in September 2001.
(Photo courtesy of Paul Machajewski, US Army Corp of Engineers)
A researcher shovels Quagga mussels into a bucket. They're finding Quagga mussels on the lakebed throughout the lower Great Lakes. (Photo by David Jude)
The invasive zebra mussel has disrupted food chains and
caused billions of dollars in damage across the country. This
year marks the twentieth anniversary of the discovery of zebra
mussels. Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
The invasive zebra mussel has disrupted food chains and
caused billions of dollars in damage across the country. This
year marks the twentieth anniversary of the discovery of zebra
mussels. Mark Brush reports:
The invasive mussels first arrived here in the ballast water of foreign ships. The mussels
are really good at filtering food out of the water column – such as algae and zooplankton –
food that would eventually go to fish.
David Jude is a research scientist at the University of Michigan. He says, 20 years later,
researchers are still fighting a perception that zebra mussels are good for the
environment. That’s because the mussels do make the water clearer.
“Well if you get clear water that means that some of the algae and some of the
zooplankton that are in that water, that are part of the food chain, that are fueling our fish are going to be destroyed, degraded and
damaged.”
The Great Lakes have been hit hard by the invasive zebra mussels – and by their close
cousins – known as quagga mussels. Jude says in many places popular sport fish such as
salmon and yellow perch are having a tough time finding enough food to survive.
A group of private landowners recently asked for help from the federal government to stop what they say is a threat to a rare fish in the region. The GLRC’s Gretchen Millich reports:
Transcript
A group of private landowners recently asked for help from the federal
government to stop what they say is a threat to a rare fish in the region.
The GLRC’s Gretchen Millich reports:
The Huron Mountain Club, along with the Sierra Club, claims a
proposed mine in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula would pollute the only
remaining spawning grounds of the Coaster Brook Trout. They’ve asked
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to declare the Coaster Brook Trout
endangered.
Peter Dykema is a spokesperson for the Huron Mountain Club. He says
the fish was once abundant, but now spawns in only one stream.
“150 years ago, it was one of the most celebrated game fish in America.
It is one of the most beautiful animals you’d ever see and we believe it
will be possible to restore that fish, if not to its original abundance to
considerably greater abundance than we now have.”
Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company wants to dig for nickel and copper
underneath the Coaster Brook Trout’s spawning grounds. Dykema says
an endangered listing would require the company to make sure their
mining activities don’t harm the fish.
A new bill aims to prevent new invasive species from entering our country. (Photo courtesy of USGS)
Many states are asking the federal government to take a new approach in fighting aquatic invasive species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has more:
Transcript
Many states are asking the federal government to take a new approach in fighting aquatic invasive species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has more.
Currently, federal agencies try to control invasive species after they start disrupting ecosystems in U.S. waterways.
But now the U.S. Senate is considering a measure that calls for testing species for potential harm before they’re allowed into the country. Allegra Cangelosi is with the Northeast Midwest Institute, a regional advocacy group.
“Believe it or not, the door’s been wide open. So anybody in any state, unless the state has a law, can make a decision to bring a new organism to our waters, cultivate it, let it get loose and do whatever.”
If passed, the law would put new restrictions on the pet industry. Federal agencies would decide whether it’s too risky to import a specific fish or other aquativ species. The act would also beef up inspections of ships that might carry invasive pests.
Shelley Miller stands by one of the markers in her backyard that shows where a pipeline is located. Miller has two pipelines in her backyard and two others just beyond her property line in the neighbor's yard. (Photo by Tom Weber)
A pipeline marker in Miller’s backyard. (Photo by Tom Weber)
Shelley Miller’s backyard in St. Peters, Missouri. Miller has been told she'll need to remove her shed to make way for emergency access to the fuel pipeline running underneath her yard. (Photo by Tom Weber)
There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. constantly shuttling gas, oil, and other fuels from state to state. And although you might not realize the pipes might be under your property, the companies that own them have to keep the land above the pipes clear in case of an emergency. And over the past year, residents in some communities have been told they need to dig up trees and remove sheds to keep the path clear. In some cases, it’s more than just an inconvenience. It’s costly. But the homeowners aren’t all mad at the pipeline companies. They’re mad at the people who built their houses. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:
Transcript
There are thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S., constantly shuttling gas, oil, and other fuels
from state to state. And although you might not realize the pipes might be under your property,
the companies that own them have to keep the land above the pipes clear in case of an
emergency. And over the past year, residents in some communities have been told they need to
dig up trees and remove sheds to keep the path clear. In some cases, it’s more than just an
inconvenience. It’s costly. But the homeowners aren’t all mad at the pipeline companies. They’re
mad at the people who built their houses. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber
reports:
Pipelines are a crucial link in the trip gasoline makes from the refinery to your car. They
crisscross the country, but most people don’t notice them.
Shelley Miller didn’t notice for years, even though she sleeps less than 30 feet from four of them
under her and her neighbors’ yard.
They carry gasoline, natural gas, heating oil and jet fuel.
In fact, more than 20-thousand gallons of fuel will race under Miller’s yard in St. Louis suburb of
St. Peters, Missouri by the time this story is over. She and her husband knew the pipes were there
when they bought the house… but they thought they were used for water or sewage.
The Millers didn’t realize they were wrong until last year… when Explorer Pipeline Company
came to make sure the land above its pipe was easily accessible.
For Miller, that meant two trees had to be removed, along with a shed that had become her
backyard’s equivalent of a kitchen junk drawer.
“We had planned to re-side our home. So we have siding we purchased one bit at a time to get to
that point. We don’t know where we’re going to put that. The lawn tractors, where we going to
put that? Where you going to move all this stuff?”
But that’s a small price to pay to make sure pipeline crews can get in fast if there’s an emergency.
Fred Low is a lawyer for Explorer Pipeline. He says companies like his have made an extra effort
in recent years to clear more urban or developed areas that have pipelines…
“In our industry, there have been some accidents in the past. There’s been national attention and
we want to do a better job. And to do a better job of running our pipeline we have to do a better
job maintaining our pipeline.”
And Miller understands that. She’s not mad at the companies because the pipelines were there
first. What upsets her is that 35 years ago, the city allowed the homes to be built so close to the
pipes.
More than 160 homes in St. Peters, Missouri have at least one pipeline in their backyard. But
Alderman Jerry Hollingsworth says it’s hard to blame the city.
“There were no guidelines for a city on how close to build a home next to a pipeline 35 years
ago. So somebody came in and said, ‘I’m going to build some houses in here’ and the city said
‘okay!'”
And many towns across the country did the same thing. Todd Swanstrom teaches Public Policy
at Saint Louis University. He says more and more suburbs might have to deal with pipelines as
they keep growing. Adding a subdivision or even a strip mall sounds nice if it adds to tax
revenue. But there’s also safety to think about…
“If there were an explosion and people lost their lives from a pipeline, I think it would be a very
different situation. As it is, it seems to be one of those issues that has largely gone under the
radar.”
But even if every growing suburb in the U.S. had rules for building on pipelines, there could still
be accidents… or deaths.
Ivel, Kentucky, San Jose, California and Whitehall, Pennsylvania are among communities where
pipelines have exploded in the past few years.
But Explorer Pipelines’ Fred Low says overall, pipeline companies have had an impressive safety
record.
“Being next to a pipeline isn’t necessarily that bad. There are literally millions of people who live
by pipelines. And we will not let structures be built on our easements, so that’s why we want to
keep them visible so we can find out if we’re being encroached upon.”
Since the St. Peters pipelines were laid in 1971, the city’s population has exploded and expanded
along the pipelines.
For Shelley Miller… her efforts now focus on raising awareness for others. She and her neighbors
have organized a group that pushes cities and towns to enact better rules for how land around the
pipes is developed, and how people are told of the lines before they buy a house.
St. Peters now has a law restricting development around pipelines. But that only does so much
for Miller as she goes to bed every night just a few feet from all that gasoline.
“When we hear a loud boom, yeah, we sit up in bed. We think about it. There’s a risk with
everything you do in life, but when you have to live with it on a 24/7 basis and you don’t know
what the next minute’s gonna bring, it stays on your mind.”
The EPA has rescinded some safety constraints on rodenticides. Some fear this may harm children, because they might now be more likely to ingest rat poison. (Photo by Geovani Arruda)
Plaintiffs in a case before a New York Federal Court accuse the
Environmental Protection Agency of being too soft on protecting children
from poisonous rat pellets. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny
Lawton reports:
Transcript
Plaintiffs in a case before a New York Federal Court accuse the Environmental Protection
Agency of being too soft on protecting children from poisonous rat pellets. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny Lawton reports:
The poisonous pellets aren’t just tough on rats. Some environmentalists say they’re
injuring young children as well. The Natural Resources Defense Council says more than
fifty-thousand children in the U.S. below the age of six have been sickened by rat poison
this year. In 1998, the EPA made a rule that required manufactuers to put a bitter taste
and a special dye in the pellets to keep children from eating them.
But three years later, the agency rescinded that mandate.
It said it had come to a “mutual agreement” with the rodenticide industry that those precautions
might be making the pellets less effective. But critics say that has put kids back in harm’s way.
Especially those living in low-income areas where rat infestation is a common problem.
Although the EPA won’t comment directly on the case, an agency report from 2001 argued that
when rodenticides are used correctly, and children are supervised around them, fewer accidental
ingestions happen.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jenny Lawton.
Groups like the Pembina Institute worry about water sustainability as the Great Lakes receive little new water and government officials both in Canada and in the U.S. discuss Annex 2001. (photo by Jenn Borton)
Canadian environmental groups are concerned that a new plan to regulate water withdrawals from the Great Lakes basin would allow too much water to be removed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
A Toronto researcher says most communities are underestimating a potential source
of cheap electricity – raw sewage. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
University of Toronto professor David Bagley collected waste water at a North
Toronto water treatment plant. He took the sewage into his lab, dried it and
then burned the solids to see how much energy they produced. He estimates the
energy produced from sewage at three treatment plants could produce more than
100 megawatts of electricity. That could be enough to keep a small town going
for a year. But Bagley says few take advantage of this resource.
“Our measurements show that there’s enough energy that we should be able to
completely offset the electricity needed to run the plant, and have extra
left over the send back to to the grid.”
Bagley finds communities are reluctant to invest in the equipment they’d
need to convert sewage into power. But he’s hoping to to design a cheaper
and more efficient system so more people can get the most out of their sewage.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in the Midwest. Environmentalists say in some states the rules aren’t strong enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has approved rules to
reduce nitrogen oxide emissions in the Midwest. Environmentalists say in
some states the rules aren’t strong enough. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports:
Ohio is one of the last of the states in the Midwest to submit rules that
would curb nitrogen oxide emissions. The state’s plan would cut harmful NOx
emissions from power plants and other coal-burning boilers by 120-thousand tons
annually starting in 2004. NOx is blamed for causing smog on hot days.
Environmentalists say the new rules are a positive step… but Ohio should be
one of the first states to cut back emissions year-round, not just during summer
months, as the Ohio plan proposes.
Michael Shore is with the New York-based group Environmental Defense.
“The federal government is really failing to protect our air quality.
So the responsibility is really falling to our states at this point.”
Shore says if Ohio takes action to control NOx emissions year-round,
a domino effect will be created, encouraging other states to follow its example.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Natalie Walston.
(Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
