Report: Automakers Should Use Safer Plastics

A new report by an environmental group says car companies could be using environmentally safer plastics in their automobiles. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

A new report by an environmental group says car companies could be using
environmentally safer plastics in their automobiles. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:


The Michigan based Ecology Center finds that five out of the six top automakers
in the world get below average grades when it comes to the kinds of plastics
they use in their vehicles. The group says many the plastics in today’s cars
release toxic chemicals.


Charles Griffith helped author the report. He says there is one plastic the
car companies should work to phase out now.


“A good starting point for the car companies would be to commit to phasing
out PVC by the end of this decade. That would be a great place to start and
would send a strong signal that they intend to move in the right direction.”


Griffith says of all the plastics used in today’s cars, PVC plastics pose the
biggest threats to environmental and human health. A spokesperson
representing the automakers says the report is too negative.


He says it
fails to recognize the significant progress car companies have made in
moving toward environmentally friendly plastics.


For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Asian Carp Barrier Not Enough?

  • A new electric barrier is being built, but some worry that flooding might help Asian carp to sneak past it into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (photo courtesy of USGS)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is building a nine million dollar electric barrier to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. But now the Corps is warning the fence in Romeoville, Illinois, might not be enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is building a nine million dollar electric barrier to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. But now the Corps is warning the fence in Romeoville, Illinois, might not be enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes reports:


The Army Corps is building the electric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal. But the Des Plaines River runs near the canal, and it often floods in the spring. Chuck Shea is the project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers. He says they might need to build a flood wall or levee so high waters can’t sweep fish past the new barrier.


“It’s possible that water from the Des Plaines River could run into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. And if it was a large enough flood and there were fish in the right place, they might be able to use that as a pathway to enter the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.”


Shea says while this possibility is unlikely, it still will be an important issue to study down the road. He says the more pressing concern is that an existing temporary barrier could wear out before construction on the permanent barrier is finished.


Asian carp have been spotted about twenty miles downstream from the electric fence. The giant fish are considered a threat to sport and commercial fishing. Shea says state officials are working to find money for the last phase of the electric barrier project.


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

Related Links

New Gmo Grass to Get Federal Approval?

  • The quest for a perfectly manIcured lawn has driven some lawn care companies to create a grass resistant to weed killer. Some worry, however, that they've created an invasive species. (Photo by Philipp Pilz)

An environmental watchdog group is hoping to block federal approval of a new genetically modified type of grass. The group says the grass poses a threat to natural areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

An environmental watchdog group is hoping to block fedral approval of a new genetically
modified type of grass. The group says the grass poses a threat to natural areas. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:


Two companies – Scotts and Monsanto – want the government’s approval to commercialize a type of
creeping bentgrass. The grass would mainly be planted on lawns and golf courses because it’s
resistant to Roundup, a popular weed killer. But critics of the bio-engineered grass say it
needs more testing. For one thing, they say, genes from the grass can spread and strengthen
non-native plants.


Joe Mendelson is with the International Center for Technology Assessment.


“The end result is you’re going to create a grass that is invasive, that will take over natural
areas like our grasslands and or forest areas, and we won’t be able to control it. That’s going
to have a very negative impact on a number of sensitive ecosystems.”


The U.S. Forest Service has also weighed in, saying the grass has the potential to have a
negative effect on all of the country’s grasslands and natural forests. Scotts has said the
bio-engineered grass poses no threat to natural areas.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

States Ready for Wolf Delisting?

  • Once hunted nearly to extinction, the gray wolf has recently rebounded under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to take the wolf off of the Endangered Species List and hand wolf management back to the states. (Photo by Katherine Glover)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:

Transcript

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population
of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management
to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:


(sound of wolves howling)


The image of the wolf has always had a powerful effect on people. Wolves seem dangerous,
mysterious, romantic. They are a symbol of the untamed wilderness. Before Europeans came
to America, wolves roamed freely on every part of the continent. In 1630, the colony of
Massachussetts Bay started paying bounties to settlers for killing wolves. Over the next
300 years, wolf killing spread across the country, until all that was left was a few small
pockets of surviving wolf packs.


When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, the only wolves left to protect in the
Midwest were in Northern Minnesota. By some estimates, there were as few as 350 of them.


Today, Minnesota has a healthy wolf population of around 2400 animals, and smaller populations
are growing in Wisconsin and Michigan. Becaue of this success, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has proposed removing the animals from the Endangered Species List. This would mean wolves would
no longer be federally protected – it would be up to the states.


(sound of gate opening)


Peggy Callagan works with captive wolves at the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. She’s the
Center’s co-founder and executive director. She and her staff research ways to minimize
conflicts between wolves and people. Callahan is looking forward to seeing the wolf taken off
the Endangered Species List.


“It’s a good thing for the Endangered Species Act, to take a wolf off or an eagle off or a
peregrine off when it has recovered. The act was not established to provide a permanent
hiding place. It was established to protect a species until such time that they could be
managed in a different way.”


Wisconsin and Michigan have wolves because young born in Minnesota have migrated east to start
their own packs. Callahan says how Minnesota manages its wolves will affect wolf numbers in the
Midwest. And she isn’t crazy about Minnesota’s current wolf management plan, which has different
rules for different parts of the state.


“Now, there’s a boundary; there’s a boundary called a wolf zone, and there’s a boundary that’s
called the ag zone. And nobody likes it. We went backward.”


In Northeastern Minnesota, where the majority of wolves are, landowners can only kill wolves
if they can demonstrate an immediate threat to pets or livestock. In the rest of the state, where
there is more agriculture and more people, the rules are more lenient. On their own property,
landowners can kill any wolf they feel is a danger, without having to prove anything to the state.


The Sierra Club is opposed to taking the wolf off the Endangered Species list, largely because
of Minnesota’s management plan. Ginny Yinling is the chair of the Wolf Task Force of the Sierra
Club in Minnesota.


“They’ve pretty much given carte blanche to landowners, or their agents, to kill wolves
pretty much at any time in the southern and western two thirds of the state; they don’t even
have to have an excuse, if a wolf’s on their property they can kill it. Instead of this being
what should have been a victory in terms of wolf recovery and the success of the Endangered
Species Act, instead we’re afraid it’s going to turn into something of a disaster.”


Yinling is also concerned with the protection of wolf habitat, such as den sites, rendezvous
sites, and migration corridors.


“The current management plan protects none of those areas; it leaves it entirely up to the
discretion of the land managers.”


But wildlife managers say these are not critical for a large wolf population
like Minnesota’s. Mike DonCarlos is the wildlife program manager for the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.


“As you look at the range of species that are threatened by habitat change, ironically the wolf
in Minnesota is not one of them. As long as there’s a prey base that continues, wolves should
do just fine. The key is mortality rates and availability of food.”


In Wisconsin and Michigan, where there are fewer wolves, state laws will continue to protect
wolf habitat. Peggy Callahan says she has faith that the wolves will be fine, even if the
Minnesota state plan is not perfect. But at the Sierra Club, Ginny Yinling says they have
plans to challenge wolf delisting in court.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Katherine Glover.

Related Links

Ijc Report: Mixed Prognosis for Great Lakes

The latest report on the overall health of the Great Lakes shows mixed progress in cleaning up the lakes. The International Joint Commission says there have been some improvements, but there are still many areas that need to be worked on. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

The latest report on the overall health of the Great Lakes shows
mixed progress in cleaning up the lakes. The International Joint
Commission says there have been some improvements, but there are
still many areas that need to be worked on. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


The IJC is an agency made up of Canadian and U.S. officials who
monitor the overall health of the Great Lakes. Every two years, the
agency issues a report.


This year’s report says the two governments have made progress in
cutting releases of many toxic chemicals. And scientists are closer to
understanding how global climate change is likely to affect the Great
Lakes.


But the report says other issues require urgent attention. It calls for
government action to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired
power plants. Mercury can cause nerve and developmental damage
when it’s eaten in fish.


And U.S. Co-Chair Dennis Schornack says the governments should
do more to stop invasive alien species from getting into the Great
Lakes.


“We still don’t have measures in place that would stop ballast water
mediated transfers of species from abroad; we’ve still got a threat
with the Asian carp coming up the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal
and incomplete funding for the barrier to stop that invasion there.”


The report also urges scientists to figure out why Lake Erie’s water
quality is degrading again, after years of improvement.


And there are always new challenges, according to Canadian Co-Chair Herb Gray.


“There are new families of chemicals getting into the water. The fire
retardants, which are great for your furniture, but not great in drinking
water.”


This was the 12th biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. The
report says it’s now time for a comprehensive review of the
agreement between the U.S. and Canada to clean up and protect the
Great Lakes.


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

Related Links

Candidates Play on Water Diversion Issue

Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states, and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:

Transcript

Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as
both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the
major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states,
and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:


President Bush says he favors keeping Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes.
He said so this summer during a campaign stop in Traverse City, Michigan.


“My position is clear. We’re never going to allow diversion of Great
Lakes water.”


And John Kerry says he is against diverting Great Lakes water. It’s one of six
points included in his recently-released plan to clean up and preserve the lakes.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm discussed that plan in a conference call
with reporters.


“They are adamantly opposed to diverting water from the Great Lakes
basin. They will institute a no diversions policy for the Great Lakes.
They will block any water diversion.”


And while both the Bush and Kerry campaigns are promising not to let other
states tap into the Great Lakes, they’re accusing each other of going back and
forth on the issue. Bush says back in February, Kerry referred to the diversion
issue as a “delicate balancing act.” The next day, Kerry’s campaign said the
Democrat was “absolutely opposed” to diversions. The Kerry campaign
says back in 2001, President Bush expressed support for diverting Great Lakes
water to the Southwestern United States. The president wasn’t that specific
about it, though he did say he’d be open to discussions about water with
Canada’s prime minister.


Michigan’s Governor Granholm says there’s no immediate threat that Great
Lakes water would be diverted, though she says it has to be a concern as the
dry, Southwestern part of the United States continues to add people, and
members of Congress who might one day vote on such an issue.


But some experts say diversion of Great Lakes water is much more likely to happen
in areas closer to the Lakes. They say diverting water to the arid Southwest
would cost too much.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links

Proposals to Limit Great Lakes Water Diversion

  • The Great Lakes from space (Color satellite photo courtesy of NOAA).

Leaders of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes have released two draft agreements to manage the region’s water supply. The proposals’ aim is to block any attempt to divert water from the lakes to drier parts of the world. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

Leaders of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes have released a draft agreement to
manage the region’s water supply. The proposal’s aim is to block any attempt to divert water
from the lakes to drier parts of the world. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett
reports:


There’s no immediate threat by outside interests to ship or pump large amounts of Great Lakes
water to the arid Southwest, or to any other part of the world that needs freshwater. And the
draft agreements aim to keep it that way.


There are two documents up for consideration by the public and policy makers. One would be a
binding compact between the states. The other would be a voluntary agreement between the
states and provinces.


Ohio Governor Bob Taft co-chairs the Council of Great Lakes Governors – which released the
plans.


“The whole effort is premised out of our concern that we have a legally enforceable framework,
and a clear standard.”


There’s already a federal law on the books that allows any one Great Lakes governor to veto a
diversion of water from the lakes. But there are concerns about challenges under the U.S.
Constitution, or free trade agreements.


The Great Lakes Charter Annex would require the approval of all eight states for any proposal to
divert more than a million gallons a day out of the basin. Even if a diversion is approved, there’s
a catch: whatever’s taken out of the basin would have to be returned once it’s used.


Noah Hall of the National Wildlife Federation says the practical effect of those requirements
would be a guarantee that the lakes don’t get pilfered by drier parts of the U.S….


“…Where they have growing populations and dwindling supplies of water, and they’ve been
looking at using the Great Lakes to meet their water needs for some time. I think they’ll
obviously see this agreement for what it is, which is a pretty large barrier – perhaps an
insurmountable barrier – to accessing Great Lakes water down the road.”


The agreement would also allow any three states to block withdrawals from within the basin of
more than five million gallons a day. Existing users would be grandfathered in, so only the most
mammoth project would likely come up for consideration – a new power plant, for example.
Hall says that means at most one project a year that would come up for review.


“But what it guards against is the threat of the absolute largest diversions. The massive
withdrawals. The ones that could by themselves harm or impact the Great Lakes, and lower lake
levels.”


Eventually, states would be required to put rules in place for managing smaller withdrawals
within the basin. Even under a best-case scenario, that wouldn’t happen for at least a dozen
years. But Ohio Governor Taft says the end result will be preservation of the lakes for future
generations.


“We have a responsibility as stewards of this precious resource – 20 percent of the world’s fresh
water supply – to protect and preserve it for the benefit of the people within the region, and that
is what the draft agreement is intended to accomplish.”


The plan is up for public review over the next three months. Each Great Lakes state would have
to sign off on the interstate compact. It would also require the approval of Congress. And the
fast-growing arid southwest has more representation in Congress every term.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Anglers Competing With Cormorants

  • The cormorant population is booming in the region, and some anglers say they're competing too hard with the birds for fish. (Photo courtesy of Steve Mortensen, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe)

Anglers around the Great Lakes are eager for a summer of fishing. Everyone wants to catch the big one. But they’re getting some competition. It comes in the form of the double-crested cormorant. The big black birds with long necks are fish eaters. Cormorants were nearly wiped out by the now-banned pesticide, DDT, in the 1970’s. But now cormorants are back in big numbers. Some anglers feel there are too many cormorants now. And they say the birds are eating too many fish. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports on one experimental effort to control cormorants:

Transcript

Anglers around the Great Lakes are eager for a summer of fishing. Everyone wants to
catch the big one, but they’re getting some competition. It comes in the form of the
double-crested cormorant. The big black birds with long necks are fish eaters.
Cormorants were nearly wiped out by the now-banned pesticide, DDT, in the 1970’s. But
now cormorants are back in big numbers. Some anglers feel there are too many
cormorants now, and they say the birds are eating too many fish. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports on one experimental effort to control
cormorants:


(sound of waves)


Robin Whaley often fishes here on Knife River. It’s the biggest spawning ground for
rainbow trout on the north shore of Lake Superior. But today she’s watching the
cormorants on Knife Island, a quarter-mile offshore.


The cormorant population is booming. About a hundred cormorants lived on the island
last year.


“I guess they’re just coming up into this area in the last few years and becoming a
problem, for degrading habitat and for eating little fish.”


Cormorants are native to this area, but they haven’t been around much in the last few
decades, because of poisoning from the pesticide DDT.


The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stocks rainbow trout here. This year
they put 40,000 young fish into the river. Anglers like Robin Whaley hope the little fish
will grow big enough for them to catch someday.


The little fish face a lot of predators and hazards and the cormorants are one more threat.
Some people would like to reduce that threat. It’s illegal to kill cormorants. They’re
protected by law because they’re a migratory bird.


But a new federal rule says if they’re threatening a resource, people can fight back in a
different way.


Bill Paul runs the Agriculture Department’s Wildlife Services Program in Minnesota. He
sent workers onto Knife Island to try to keep the cormorants from nesting. Their methods
are experimental – but they’re pretty basic.


“We put up some flapping tarps in wind, a couple of yellow raincoat scarecrows, we also
put up ten flashing highway barricade lights, we also have a light siren device out there
that goes during the night.”


The workers also used special firecrackers shot by guns at passing birds to scare them
away.


They did this for two weeks during the cormorants’ nesting season. Bill Paul says even
with all that noise and commotion it wasn’t easy to scare them away.


“They seem to be fairly smart birds and real persistent at coming back to Knife Island.
So we’re uncertain yet whether our activities are actually going to keep them off there
long-term.”


As part of their study, researchers had permission to kill 25 cormorants to find out what
they’d been eating. They wanted to see how much of a threat the birds were to game fish
like the rainbow trout.


They found fish in the cormorants’ stomachs all right. But not the kind most people like
to catch and eat.


Don Schreiner supervises the Lake Superior fishery for the Minnesota DNR. He says
he’d need more than just a few samples to really know what the birds are eating.


“My guess is that cormorants are opportunists and if there’s a small silver fish out there
and he’s just hanging out and the cormorant has that available to eat, he’ll eat it. The
question becomes, is this a significant part of the population that they’re consuming, or
isn’t it?”


Despite the concerns of some anglers, researchers have been studying cormorants for
years, and so far they haven’t been able to prove the birds are harming wild fish
populations.


John Pastor is an ecologist at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He says the study at
Knife River won’t prove anything useful either.


He says it ignores the bigger picture. Pastor says you can’t just look at one predator and
come to any firm conclusions. There could be lots of reasons why there aren’t many
steelhead, or rainbow trout.


“Changes in land use. All the adult steelhead out there eating the young of the year
steelhead. Maybe it’s some pollutant in the lake. You never know. But it’s easy to fix on
the predator as the problem, because people see a cormorant dive down and come up with
a fish, and they say to themselves, I could have caught that fish.”


Pastor says even if the cormorants are eating lots of young rainbow trout, it doesn’t
necessarily mean the birds are hurting the overall trout population.


And even for an angler like Robin Whaley, the concern about the trout is mixed with a
feeling of respect for the cormorant.


“I admire the bird very much, but human beings, we’re in the business of controlling
habitats and populations, and this is just another case of that.”


For many anglers, the ultimate question in this competition between predators is simple.
It’s about who gets the trout – cormorants or humans.


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

Related Links

Tubenose Goby Extends Its Reach

An exotic fish species called the tubenose goby made its way into the St. Clair River after it was flushed from a ship’s ballast water 11 years ago. The tubenose hasn’t spread as fast as its cousin, the round goby, but researchers were recently surprised to find the tubenose spreading further into Lake Erie. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer reports:

Transcript

An exotic fish species called the tubenose goby made its way into the St. Clair River after it was flushed from a ship’s ballast water 11 years ago. The tubenose hasn’t spread as fast as its cousin, the round goby, but researchers were recently surprised to find the tubenose spreading further into Lake Erie. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer reports:


The invader was captured this July. The tubenose is related to the round goby, whose population explosion across the Great Lakes has scientists concerned. Round gobies eat contaminant-laden zebra mussels, and then pass those toxins on to sport fish favored by humans. But Jeff Ruetter, director of Stone Lab, says the tubenose goby actually first appeared in the Great Lakes two years before its cousin and so far, isn’t widespread.


“And the concern will be with its competition with other species in the ecosystem. Is it going to force them out?”


Ruetter says the appearance of the new invader underscores the need for tighter controls on exotic species. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Schaefer.