Tag: soil

Where Nothing Can Survive

  • Shrimpers have seen their catches dwindle down from thousands of pounds of shrimp a day to very little due to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo by Samara Freemark)

Every summer, thousands of
square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico die. The Dead Zone is
caused by pollution that flows
down the Mississippi River. It’s
runoff from factories, sewer
plants, and farms. And it causes
a lot of problems for fishermen
in the area. This year, the Dead
Zone is projected to be huge –
maybe the largest ever. Samara Freemark explains:

Transcript

Every summer, thousands of
square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico die. The Dead Zone is
caused by pollution that flows
down the Mississippi River. It’s
runoff from factories, sewer
plants, and farms. And it causes
a lot of problems for fishermen
in the area. This year, the Dead
Zone is projected to be huge –
maybe the largest ever. Samara Freemark explains:

Imagine for a moment you’re a shrimp fisherman. Every day you send out your fleet to the same waters you’ve fished for decades. And your boats pull in a lot of shrimp- thousands of pounds a day, millions a year. And then one day, a normal summer day, you send the boats out, and they come back empty.

“You go from about 5000 pounds to nothing. It’s dead. That’s why they call it the dead zone.”

That’s Dean Blanchard. He runs the largest shrimp company in America- Dean Blanchard Seafood. 


Blanchard started seeing the dead zone about five years ago, but it’s not a new phenomenon. For a long time, nutrient fertilizer from upstream has run into the Mississippi River and from there, into the Gulf. It fertilizes big algae blooms– and when the algae decays, it sucks oxygen out of the water, making it impossible for fish to live there.

What’s new is how much fertilizer there is now.

“It’s not natural.”

Nancy Rabalais is a marine biologist at LUMCON. That’s Louisiana’s center for marine research. She says that over the past several decades there’s been a surge in fertilizer use in the Corn Belt states. That eventually ends up in the Gulf.

“We’re having 300 times more than we did in the 1950s. And it’s just over loaded the system.”

Rabalais predicts this year’s dead zone will be almost three times as big as it was twenty years ago – more than 8000 square miles.

Of course, the bigger the zone, the further out shrimpers like Dean Blanchard have to send their boats. That means a lot of wasted time, fuel, and wages.

And the zones might mean even bigger problems. Don Scavia is a professor at the School of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan.

“There’s a half a billion dollar shrimp industry in the gulf. And the shrimp depend on that habitat. And what we’re concerned about is that if the dead zone continues or even grows, that fishery may collapse.”

Congress is taking some measures to address the problem. Conservation programs in the Farm Bill work to reduce how much fertilizer farmers use, and how they apply it.

But there’s something else in the Farm Bill too – a lot of subsidy programs. Those pay for ethanol production. Which means more corn. Which means a lot more fertilizer.

“And what is debated every 5 years is how much funding will go into those conservation programs, relative to funding going into subsidy programs. And, by far, the subsidies win.” (laughs)

Scavia says for every $1 spent on conservation programs in the Corn Belt, $500 go to subsidizing crops.


Shrimper Dean Blanchard says he’s not sure how long he can live with that balance, especially as he watches the dead zone grow.

“How big is this thing going to get? If we kill the oceans we have problems. We have serious problems.”

But Don Scavia is hopeful. He says we know exactly how to reduce nutrient runoff – in fact, the basic programs are already in place. It’s just a matter of Congress choosing the right funding priorities.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

A New Way to Grow Your Breakfast

  • Brook Wilke and his son, Charlie, visit a test farm at The Kellogg Biological Research Station. Wilke and other researchers are testing how well perennial versions of popular grain crops, such as wheat, will grow in Michigan. The test farm isn't too far from Battle Creek, the home of the commercial breakfast cereal industry. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:

Transcript

If you had a bowl of cereal or maybe a muffin this morning, you ate flour from an annual crop. They grow one season, they die, then get re-planted again the next year. Sounds as natural as could be, but repetitive planting can wear out farmland. It can cause soil erosion and cause more water pollution. Now, some scientists are trying to coax grain crops into growing for years at a time. Shawn Allee visited researchers who are testing perennial wheat in the heart of cereal country:

I’ve headed to a test farm run by Michigan State University. It’s not that
far from Battle Creek,
Michigan where cereal companies like Kelloggs got started.

Dr. Sieg Snapp shows me grain that might make into our cereal bowls
someday.

Allee: “What are we looking at on this side?”

Snapp: “We have 6 varieties of perennial wheat.”

Right now, they kinda look like spindly blades of grass. But in some ways,
this is miraculous; regular
wheat dies after harvest. These have been harvested, and now they’re
popping back up.

“We’ll harvest these this summer, and then in the fall, they’ll re-grow.
They build a deep root
system, and they’re able to come back. So, at first, they start off very
similar, but they keep
growing longer, and they re-grow after harvest. That’s the real
difference.”

Actually, that’s just the start of the difference between annual grains
like wheat and perennial
varieties.

Dr. Snapp says when farmers plant most annual grain crops, soil gets torn
up again and again from
planting and replanting. Rain can wash away exposed top-soil.

Perennial crops get planted once every few years, so they might hold soil
and they might need less
fertilizer that runs off into streams and rivers.

Snapp: “So, the roots of traditional crops including annual wheat are
usually 1-2 feet. These
root systems might be down 6 feet. They can use fertilizers more
efficiently, so they can pick
it up from deep and then move it up where we want it, into the grain.”

Allee: “And if the roots are deep enough, you might need less herbicide
to kill weeds, right?
If that perennial wheat comes up strong enough, it’s already out-competing
the weeds that
are next to it?”

Snapp: “Right, and each year it should do it better for a couple years at
least, we don’t know
how long.”

Dr. Snapp and her colleagues use the word “maybe” a lot when they talk
about perennial grains. It’s
mostly because testing these crops is slow work. That’s one reason they’re
letting some farmers run
their own small tests.

She introduces me to one farmer.

“Hi John! Come on over!”

Part-time farmer and teacher John Edgerton says he checked his test batches
recently.

“I didn’t know what to expect and I went out there and low and behold,
it’s greening up
beautifully. In fact, now, it may be a little too thick. We’ll see.”

Edgerton wants to know whether sheep can get cheap feed from leftover wheat
grass, or whether
farmers could save on tractor fuel.

“One farmer said to me, you know, if I could get three or four years of a
decent crop of
perennial wheat without having to plow, there’d be enormous savings.”

Pretty soon, another perennial wheat researcher joins us in the test field.
He’s Brook Wilke.

He tells me, all this work on perennial wheat and other grains will work
best if the final product, the
grain, tastes like what we’re used to.

Allee: “I hear you baked some chocolate chip cookies with perennial
wheat.”

Wilke: “Yeah. A big component of this work is, “’will people eat the
perennial wheat?’”

Dr. Snapp tasted Wilke’s cookies. She says the wheat tasted kinda nutty,
but good.

Dr. Snapp says maybe one day, she and other researchers will prove
perennial grain plants can thrive.
After that, maybe bread or cereal companies, like Kellogs, will run
taste-tests of their own.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Using Trees as Cleaning Tools

  • Argonne researchers and technicians are tracking how well poplar trees are containing and removing toxic solvents (such as Trichloroethane, 1,1-Dichloroethane, and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, Trichloroethylene) from underground water. Pictured here are Cristina Negri, Lawrence Moss, John Quinn, Rob Piorkowski. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:

Transcript

When you think of cleaning up toxic waste, you might think of technicians digging huge holes
and carting off contaminated soil. It’s expensive, and they’re often just putting the soil and the
problem, somewhere else – say, to a hazardous waste landfill. Shawn Allee met researchers
who hope trees can clean some toxic waste, and leave the landscape in place:

Argonne National Laboratory is a Big Science kinda place.

It’s a federal lab southwest of Chicago where they study particle physics, nuclear energy, and
advanced environmental clean-up.

The irony is, the place has been around so long, it’s now cleaning up its own environmental
messes.

In fact, it’s Larry Moss’s job. He takes me to a toxic waste site where trees help clean the soil.

More on those trees in a sec – first, here’s why Larry Moss needs them.

“This site was a very busy site back in the 50s and 60s. We had a large manufacturing process
for reactor components – did a lot of testing of reactor assemblies and different fuel mixtures. And to
do that you had to clean all that equipment and a lot of that solvent came down here.
There was a unit that was called a French drain, which basically was a trench filled with gravel. They would come down here and dump chemicals into this trench, and their theory was it would dissolve into the ground. They
thought it would just go away.”

Those solvents did not go away. They leeched into underground water.

The solvents potentially cause cancer and other problems, so the government said Argonne
needed to do something about the mess.

Researcher Christina Negri lays out what the options were.

“Put a parking lot on top of the pollution area
and basically leave it there forever. The other extreme, it would have been: dig out the soil, take it
somewhere – where you haven’t changed much. You’ve moved it from here to a landfill. That’s not the solution as
well.”

Those options – covering it up or carting it off – are also expensive.

So, Argonne researchers figured they’d try something new.

Negri says they hope to eliminate pollution on site – with the help of poplar trees.

Negri: “We’re taking advantage of a trait that these trees have to
go about finding water.”

Allee: “Let me get a closer look at a tree, here.”

Negri: “What you have to picture in your mind – See the height of the tree?”

Allee: “I’m looking at one that’s as tall as a three story walk-up building I live in.”

Negri: “You have to flip it 180 degrees and imagine the roots are going down that deep.”

Negri says they coaxed the roots into going straight down instead of spreading out. It seems to
work; the poplar trees are sucking water out of the ground and taking up solvent.

“Part of it is degraded within the plant. Part of it goes out into the air, which sounds like an
ominous thing to say, right? But if you do your calculations right, there’s much less risk when
these compounds are in the air than there is when they’re down 30 feet below.”

Negri’s team hopes the poplar trees will be more sustainable and cheaper than alternatives, but
they’re likely to be slower.

After all, it took years for the trees to grow. That’s fine for Argonne, because no one’s at risk – but that’s
not the case everywhere.

“Arguably, this is not the remedy you would adopt if you had, like, a tank spill or something that
you really need to go in right away, clean up and be done very quickly. It’s not a remedy if there’s
anybody’s at risk.”

This isn’t the only attempt to use plants to clean up toxic waste. The science behind it is called
‘phytoremediation.’

In other examples, scientists tried alpine pennycress to clean up zinc, and pigweed to suck up
radioactive cesium.

Negri says the trick is to use the right plant for the right toxin and know whether the plants stays
toxic, too.

Still, she says, toxic waste is such a big problem, it’s good to have lots of tools in your clean-up
toolbox.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Lead Soil in Urban Gardens

  • The veggies in your garden could have lead in them (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

More Americans have started
planting their own gardens in recent
years. But it turns out a lot of
urban gardens are contaminated with
lead. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

More Americans have started
planting their own gardens in recent
years. But it turns out a lot of
urban gardens are contaminated with
lead. Julie Grant reports:

Last year 22% of Americans planted a garden.

Wendy Heiger-Bernays is professor of environmental health
at Boston University.

She says if you have an urban garden, she would expect to find heavy metals, especially lead, in the soil. It comes from old garbage, dripping oil, and peeling paint.

“Older homes have been demonstrated to leach lead from the home through the drip line and into the soil.”

Even small amounts of lead in the blood can cause learning disabilities in children.

Heiger-Bernays says you don’t have to throw away this year’s veggies. Just wash them well. And peel root vegetables.

And to get ready for next year, Heiger-Bernays says have your
soil tested. If there’s lead, add a foot of clean compost to the top of the garden bed. Next Spring plant only in that top layer.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Soil Exhibit Not Treated Like Dirt

  • The 'Secrets of Soil' exhibit at the Smithsonian (Photo credit: Smithsonian Institution, John Steiner and Joseph Talman)

Soil gets treated like dirt sometimes.
But soil is being displayed as a valuable
resource at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Soil gets treated like dirt sometimes.
But soil is being displayed as a valuable
resource at the Smithsonian in Washington D.C.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:

The Secrets of Soil exhibition includes samples from every US state and territory. It highlights
threats to soil.

The Soil Science Society of America is a main sponsor. Ellen Bergfeld is the CEO of the
Society.

She says major floods this year show erosion is still a big problem. Bergfeld also says some
farmers are plowing under land that was once put aside for conservation. Higher crop prices
have lowered enrollment in a government program called Conservation Reserve.

“And a lot of the contracts are coming up over the next few years so we’re going to see just a
tremendous number of acres coming out. And that does not bode well for the use of those soils.”

The soil exhibit will be at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History for about two
years, then travel around the US.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Green Side of Floods

  • Flooded corn in southern Illinois (Photo by Robert Kaufmann, courtesy of FEMA)

The flooding in the Midwest has destroyed
people’s homes and businesses. It’s also caused
some environmental problems. But reporter Alex
Heuer finds flooding can also benefit the
environment:

Transcript

The flooding in the Midwest has destroyed
people’s homes and businesses. It’s also caused
some environmental problems. But reporter Alex
Heuer finds flooding can also benefit the
environment:

When rivers flood, they can wash pesticides and fertilizers from farm fields
into backyards, homes, and even into drinking water supplies. Floods also
destroy crops on the low-lying farm fields.


But, those lowlands are fertile soil because of flooding.

Sean Jenkins is the Director of the Western Illinois University Kibbe Life Sciences
Station. He says flood waters carry soil and nutrients that benefit crops and wild plants.

“A lot of areas you get sediment build-up, which gives more
nutrients for the plants, so you can actually have more vigorous growth in certain areas the next year after
a flood.”

Some of the trees in the river bottomlands along the Mississippi have
adapted to frequent flooding. Jenkins says silver maples and Eastern
cottonwoods can survive in flood waters for months and then do even better
the following years.

That’s good, because trees can help slow the rush of
the flood waters when they come again.

For The Environment Report, I’m Alex Heuer.

Related Links

Construction Sites Mucking Up Rivers

  • The EPA says sediment runoff rates from construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than from farmland. (Photo courtesy of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction)

Some home builders say the housing market
is tough enough. They don’t need environmental
regulations that make it tougher on them. But
some “green” builders say the housing industry
can improve the environment, do the right thing
for communities, and still make money. Julie Grant
reports:

Transcript

Some home builders say the housing market
is tough enough. They don’t need environmental
regulations that make it tougher on them. But
some “green” builders say the housing industry
can improve the environment, do the right thing
for communities, and still make money. Julie Grant
reports:

Have you ever driven by a construction site and seen all that dirt? A lot of that dirt is washed off the site by
rainstorms and ends up in local creeks and rivers.

Russ Gibson is with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
He says that dirt kills aquatic bugs and fish.

The dirt covers up gravel bottom streams – that fills holes
where bugs want to live. If bugs can’t live it mucks up the
food chain. Gibson says fishermen know when this
happens.

“You’ll have some of the smaller fish and the bait fish, like
minnows and darters, will feed on the small bugs that live
there. If you don’t have bugs to feed the bait fish you don’t
have bait fish to feed the big fish.”

Beyond that, the silt from construction sites can also muddy
up where fish lay their eggs.

And enough construction dirt can fill a stream so much that it
can make flooding more of a problem.

So, how much dirt are we talking about?

The EPA estimates that 20 to 150 tons of soil per acre is lost
to storm water runoff from construction sites.

That means every time a new house is built, truckloads of
soil can wind up in local streams.

If a homebuilder pulled a truck up to a bridge and dumped a
load of dirt into a creek, people would scream. But because
construction site runoff is gradual and not as obvious,
builders get away with it.

Lance Schmidt is a builder. But he’s not your typical builder.
They used to call him a “tree-hugger builder.” These days
he’s seen as a trend setter.

Schmidt says nobody in the building industry is talking much
about construction silt.

“Believe me, stormwater’s not a fun issue to talk about. (laughs)”

But it’s one of the biggest pollution problems in creeks and
rivers.

Schmidt’s crew just dug a hole for the foundation of a small
house. He’s climbs up on one of four mounds of dirt. He
knows when it rains, some dirt can get washed away, and
end up in a nearby river. That’s why he puts up sediment
barriers. But most of the time no one checks to see if he
does.

“There aren’t any regulations as far as I know. I mean other
than if somebody was to complain.”

The Environmental Protection Agency in Ohio says it does
regulate construction sites. But, usually just the larger ones,
where there might be problems. The homebuilding industry
doesn’t really think it’s the problem.

Vince Squallice is director of the Ohio Homebuilders
Association.

“Construction and earth disturbing activities in construction is
not causing the siltation problem in Ohio.”

Squallice says farmers are mostly to blame for dirt runoff in
the rivers. It’s true that sediment runoff from farms is a huge
problem. But the EPA says sediment runoff rates from
construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than
from farmland.

Squallice says builders already have to deal with too many
regulations such as setbacks from streams.

“Some of the regulations recommended to protect streams go
overboard in terms of environmental protection.”

Squallice says because of the housing bust, it’s a time to
help homebuilders, not enforce more environmental
regulations.

Builder Lance Schmidt says homebuilders need to look at it
a little differently. They can help solve a problem, keep
streams clean, and help cities with flooding problems.

“And that’s the avenue that I’ve decided to attack at. Rather
than attack the regulations, let’s sit back and find ways that
we can actually do this.”

Schmidt says there are lots of creative building ideas that
can reduce flooding, and improve the rivers for fish and other
wildlife. But in this competitive market, builders won’t do it
until everyone has to play by the same rules. And he
doesn’t expect that to happen without better enforcement by
regulators.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Farmers Work to Conserve Water

Some experts say water will be the “oil” of the next generation. As it become
more scarce, prices are going to go up. For farmers, that’s serious business.
Kyle Norris recently spent time with several farmers who say they think
about water constantly:

Transcript

Some experts say water will be the “oil” of the next generation. As it become
more scarce, prices are going to go up. For farmers, that’s serious business.
Kyle Norris recently spent time with several farmers who say they think
about water constantly:


Anne Elder and Paul Bantle are farmers, and they’re pretty hard-core about
water. They keep a hollowed-out rock — it’s like a natural bowl — next to
the barn, and every morning they fill it with fresh water for the farm’s
smaller animals:


“And this amazing thing the cat comes and drinks, the chipmunks come and
drink, the birds come and drink and the bees all drink from the same stone.”


These folks consider water to be a valuable resource. They use it to grow a
variety of fruits and vegetables on their eleven and a half acres. The farm is
a biodynamic farm. Which means it’s organic, but it kind of goes a few steps
further. Anne Elder says biodynamic farming emphasizes healthy soil, and
how to make soil benefit the most from water:


“Healthy soil means it’s alive, it’s active, it’s not compressed but fluffy. It
will have a lot organic matter which will make it more sponge-like rather
than compacted hard tight soil. So when it does rain or when moisture does come,
fluffy soil can take that in and it can just drain through and the roots can
absorb it.”


They till an organic compost into the soil. It’s made of manure, vegetable
matter, hay, and straw. And as biodynamic farmers, they spread herbal teas
on their fields. They do this to feed the plants, and to fight-off problems like
fungus. Their farm is in southeastern Michigan and they get plenty of rain
storms. Paul Bantle says they try to take as much advantage from the rain as
possible:


“Rainwater is way better than any kind of water you’re going to pull from
earth. Irrigation water is cold when it comes from 65 feet down, it’s cold.
Whereas rainwater is warm, in the summer, obviously. And in the late spring
and early fall.”


The thing about cold water is that it shocks plants that have been sitting in
the warm sun all day. And that’s no good. When they need to water the
fields, they pump water from a 65-foot well.


Bantle says he thinks long and hard before using this water for irrigation. He
doesn’t want to dig down further to tap deeper aquifers, even if that means
that the crops will go through a hard time:


“It’s an issue. I mean it’s a huge problem. So definitely I try to be very
conservative about pulling water for irrigation.”


Basically, there are two main irrigation techniques typically used in farming. The first is
drip or trickle irrigation, and this is what Bantle and Elder use. It’s a slow,
easy method that takes time for the water to soak deep into the soil. It’s kind
of like a light, slow rain.


The other technique is overhead irrigation. Picture your garden hose on
spray, with overhead irrigation the water sprays all over. The downside is
that it wastes water because it evaporates and runs-off from the fields.


Lyndon Kelley is an irrigation educator with Michigan State University and
Perdue Extensions. He says drip irrigation is like a mini-van and overhead
irrigation is like a school bus:


“It’s sort of like are you going to take three or four kids to the baseball game
after school each day, well then you’re going to take the mini-van. But if
you’re going to take fifty kids to the baseball game after school every day
then you’re going to want a school bus.”


So, drip is typically used on smaller operations and overhead is usually
used on the larger ones. But Kelley says drip irrigation can be used on larger
farms. It depends on how the roots of the plant take-in water. Grape
vineyards, tomato plants, and some other vegetables respond well to drip
irrigation.


The farm that Anne Elder and Paul Bantle run is a relatively small operation.
They pay a lot of attention to their crops and they water them accordingly,
and all that effort takes a thought and labor:


“It’s almost like a holding-back mentality. How can I let these plants do
what they need to do, until which time the rains will come.”


Farmers are going to have to reevaluate the ways in which they use
water. Some scientists believe climate change will make some places much
drier, and a growing population is already putting heavier demands on the
existing water sources.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Watching Artificial Wetlands

  • Natural wetlands that are developed are supposed to be replaced by man-made wetlands somewhere else. (Photo by Lester Graham)

More than half of U.S. wetlands have been drained for
development, farmland, and other purposes. That’s 100
million acres now dried up. The Bush administration has
continued “no net loss” policy of any more wetlands.
So, when someone wants to drain a marsh or a swamp for,
say, a new housing development, they’ve got to build a man-
made wetland to replace it. But a new study is finding that
most of those man-made wetlands aren’t doing very well.
Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

More than half of U.S. wetlands have been drained for
development, farmland, and other purposes. That’s 100
million acres now dried up. The Bush Administration has
continued a “no net loss” policy of any more wetlands.
So, when someone wants to drain a marsh or a swamp for,
say, a new housing development, they’ve got to build a man-
made wetland to replace it. But a new study is finding that
most of those man-made wetlands aren’t doing very well.
Julie Grant reports:


(Sound of truck stop)


These 18-wheelers are lined up on a huge black parking lot
behind a truck stop off Interstate 80. Looking at it, this
wouldn’t seem like the ideal place to create a wildlife area.


But wetland ecologist Mick Micacchion has chosen this place
to show that man-made wetlands can be successful.
At the edge of the parking lot, we walk down into some
brush. The ground is mostly even, there’s no big ditches… just
some gentle slopes. The weather’s been dry the past few
weeks. But water starts seeping into my shoes:


(Mike:) “You getting wet?”


It might be bad for our shoes, but saturated soil is a good
sign for a wetland, and so are a lot of the plants we’re seeing.


As we walk, Micacchion stops at plant after plant…
Impatients, monkey flower, and lots of grass-like plants called
sedges. These all grow in wet soil:


“So even in sedge community, we’re seeing some diversity.
Which is unusal in a wetland that’s only been constructed for
a few years. But it tells you some good things are going on
here.”



Checking out what’s going on at wetlands like this one is a
new job for Micacchion. He works for the state government.
Federal officials used to take authority over wetlands as part
of the Clean Water Act. But a U.S. Supreme Court decision
six years ago took away some of that federal authority, and
left responsibility for these kinds of isolated wetlands up to
states.


That’s why Micacchion is studying man-made wetlands for
the Ohio EPA: to assess how well the state program is
working.



Wetlands that work are not only good for wildlife…they
provide a holding area for water when there’s heavy rain.
That helps prevent flooding. It also gives polluted sediments
time to drop out of the water, so it’s filtered, which means
it’s cleaner by the time it drains into streams, rivers and
lakes.


But this story of a successful man-made wetland is the
exception. A study Micacchion’s is conducting is finding that most are in fair
or poor condition.


The loss of functioning wetlands can lead to more flooding
and polluted waterways.


Micacchion says when developers drain natural wetlands,
they often don’t understand how to build artificial wetlands to
replace those original systems.


Our next stop is a good example of that. We pull into a parking lot just behind a busy street
of car dealerships. One company drained a wetland back
here to build an access road. And to replace it, they built a
pond.


Tom Wysocki walks out of the car dealership to see what
we’re up to out on his property:


“Is there someone in your office, who I mean, is this your
Beliwick in the office?”


“It would come to my desk.”


“You’re the wetlands expert at Klaben Ford.”


“I’m the expert on everything.”


Originally, this site might’ve correctly designed for a wetland. But
Wysocki decided it didn’t look right to him because it wasn’t
holding water. So he had it dug again to make a pond.


He and the actual wetlands expert definitely have a different
idea about what a successful wetland looks like. Micacchion
says a pond isn’t a wetland:


“Usually with natural wetland systems, the slopes
are very gentle. And you have to walk out maybe 15-20 feet
before you get a foot deep of water. Here, you could step in
and maybe immediately be in a foot to two feet of water. And then, the deep
water it becomes difficult for certain plants to grow.”



The area is dominated by a couple of kinds of plants. But
Micacchion says they’re both invasives. And they’re
crowding out the native wetland plants. Native plants would
provide habitat for wildlife:


“This is all reed canary grass. The biggest problem with it, it
comes in, and you can see it gets very thick. It’s pretty much
only species you see growing with just a few other things you see
poking their heads up here and there. This eliminates some
of diversity we might see otherwise.”


Micacchion says his study is finding that this is pretty typical.
Even if a developer starts out with right kind of plan,
somebody can make an arbitrary decision that defeats the
original purpose. But Micacchion says it doesn’t have to be
that way. Man-made wetlands can work if they’re designed
by ecologists and engineers who understand the details of
what makes natural wetlands so useful.


His office is creating wetlands guidelines. They want
developers to understand the natural wetlands they’re destroying and what they need to do to replace them.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

New Concerns Over Wastewater Sludge

  • Triclosan is an active ingredient in many products claiming antibacterial properties. (Photo by Kinna Ohman)

After sewage is cleaned at a wastewater treatment plant, sludge is left behind. This
sludge is often used on farms as fertilizer. But the wastewater treatment doesn’t get
rid of all the drugs and chemicals we flush down the drain. Kinna Ohman reports
researchers are finding some of these chemicals are affecting wildlife and could be
getting into our food:

Transcript

After sewage is cleaned at a wastewater treatment plant, sludge is left behind. This
sludge is often used on farms as fertilizer. But the wastewater treatment doesn’t get
rid of all the drugs and chemicals we flush down the drain. Kinna Ohman reports
researchers are finding some of these chemicals are affecting wildlife and could be
getting into our food:


Take a tour of any wastewater treatment plant and you’ll soon understand the main
objective: to separate the liquids from the solids. Until the mid 90s, most of these solids,
or sludge, used to go into landfills or were dumped in the ocean. But in 1994 the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency started a program to promote the use of sludge on farm
fields as fertilizer. The EPA thought this was the perfect solution… turning waste into a
useful product.


But scientists have found something which could turn the EPA program on its head.
Rolf Halden is an assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Water
and Health. He says sludge contains most of the chemicals we use:


“If you look at municipal sludge, it really is a matrix that reflects the chemical footprint
of our society.”


Halden’s focused on one chemical he’s found in sludge called Triclosan – and
there’s a lot of it out there. It’s in antibacterial soaps, and can even be in our toothpastes,
deodorants, and shampoos. Until recently, most if it was thought to break down. Now,
Halden says they found something different:


“In the work that we have done at Johns Hopkins, we have demonstrated for example that
Triclosan when it enters a wastewater treatment plant is not effectively being degraded
and half of the mass is left over.”


Halden and his colleagues found this leftover mass in sludge. And since half the sludge
produced each year in the US goes to fertilize farm fields, Halden says we might want to
think about our food supply:


“We really create a pipeline of contaminants that are first discharged into the water and
then accumulated in sludge and then applied in agriculture which opens a pathway for the
contamination of the food supply and the further distribution of these chemicals in the
environment.”


At this point, scientists are still studying levels of this chemical. They haven’t even
begun to understand Triclosan’s effects in agriculture. But there’s something they do
know about it.


Researchers found Triclosan can mimic a thyroid hormone in the North American
bullfrog and disrupt its growth. When its tadpoles were exposed to low levels of
this chemical for a short amount of time, their growth into a juvenile frog was impaired.


But this doesn’t sound like that big of a deal… the frog doesn’t die, it just doesn’t grow
properly, right? Keep in mind that this study tracked exposure to Triclosan over four
hours. Halden says by spreading wastewater sludge in agriculture, we could be exposing
wildlife to chemicals like Triclosan for their entire lives.


“When these chemicals are transported into the environment with the agricultural
fertilizer, which is the municipal sludge, then they sit there for in the soil, not only for
seconds but for days and weeks and for months and to even years and in some situations
in sediments, in aquatic sediments, they can sit there for decades and this implies that
organisms are, for their lifespan, exposed to very high levels of these contaminants.
What the outcome of that is really not fully understood right now and requires more research.”


The U.S. Geological Survey has also been looking for chemicals in sludge – or biosolids –
and they’ve found steroids, antihistamines, and antidepressants. Ed Furlong, a research chemist
with the USGS in Denver, Colorado, says they are now studying how these chemicals react in agricultural
fields:


“We’ve identified that many of the compounds are consistently present in biosolids from
across the country. We’re now trying to understand what happens after those biosolids
are applied to the soil.”


The USGS is not the only agency looking at this issue. The Environmental Protection Agency has been conducting its own survey of chemicals like Triclosan in sludge. They say the results of the survey won’t be released until next
summer. Then comes the complicated process of deciding what to do with the survey
results. A decision about whether to stop using sludge with hormone disrupting
chemicals to fertilize farm fields could be years away.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kinna Ohman.

Related Links