State officials say the federal government is failing to do enough to stop invasive species of plants and animals from damaging the environment and the economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
State officials say the federal government is failing to do enough to stop invasive species of plants
and animals from damaging the environment and the economy. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, surveyed state officials about
invasive species, the non-native plants and animals that sometimes stow away in shipments to the
U.S.
Many of the pests get loose in the wild and do a lot of damage, such as the zebra mussels that are
harming the ecosystems of lakes and rivers and emerald ash borers that are killing ash trees.
State officials say there are gaps in federal legislation, leaving no money or no requirements to
control the invasive species that have been here for a long time. State officials also say that
international trade agreements can make it difficult to regulate products that might harbor
invasive species because the trade agreements don’t address the problem.
The end result is often cheap imported goods that don’t consider or factor in the cost of the pest
that can be brought in with the cheap goods. Some state officials also noted that it would be more
effective to prevent the species from getting here in the first place instead of fighting them later.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
In response to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers say they will remove Federal Clean Water Act protection for small wetlands that are considered “isolated” from larger waterways. That leaves it up to the states to decide whether or not to protect them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Corie Wright has more:
Transcript
In response to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers say they will remove Federal Clean Water Act protection for small wetlands that are considered “isolated” from larger waterways. That leaves it up to the states to decide whether or not to protect them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Corie Wright has more:
Environmentalists say small, isolated wetlands are crucial to local ecosystems. They filter soil
pollutants, prevent erosion, and provide a habitat for fish and wildlife. But the Bush
administration’s plan to redefine wetlands protection could leave twenty percent of the nation’s
wetlands unguarded.
Critics say the move would benefit homebuilders and other developers, who have long
complained that federal agencies have over-extended the Clean Water Act.
Julie Sibbing is a wetlands policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation. She says if
states try to protect these wetlands themselves, they’ll meet opposition from the same interests
that lobbied to limit federal wetlands protection.
“Even if state wetlands were protected all along for the last 30 years under the Clean Water Act, it’s still
very politically difficult for states to change their own laws – that will bring a lot of opponents of
regulation out of the woodwork.”
Despite those difficulties, legislators in Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Minnesota have all
pushed for tighter wetlands protection. So far, Wisconsin is the only Great Lakes state to pass a
bill protecting areas no longer covered by the Clean Water Act.
Michigan is one Great Lakes state in the process of trying to preserve wetlands that fall through
the regulatory gap. Under Michigan law, isolated wetlands smaller than five acres don’t qualify for state
protection.
State Senator Paul Condino is championing a bill to preserve those areas. He says it’s
up to the state to protect Michigan’s public wetlands.
“I don’t think President Bush and the folks in office on the federal level have any sense that
they’re going to go out to create further safeguards. Michigan has lost an estimated 5.5 million acres
of wetlands, or almost 50% of its original wetland heritage. That’s significant.”
But the National Wildlife Federation’s Julie Sibbing says it will be an uphill battle for any state to
pass regulation.
“They’re being left with pretty large gaping holes in their own state water quality statutes, and at
a time that couldn’t be worse. Many state governments are really reeling from budget deficits, so
right now is just a really hard time for them to step into that breach.”
Sibbing says her group is pushing for a congressional bill that would slightly modify the Clean
Water Act so the EPA can once again protect smaller isolated waterways.
But she says the bill is certain to meet stiff opposition from House Republicans. Sibbing says if
the bill doesn’t pass, it’s unlikely states can shoulder wetlands protection on their own.
And that means that small, isolated wetlands could be left out to dry.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Corie Wright.
Every summer, lakes become inundated with algae. As the slimy, green muck dies, it chokes out oxygen, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. One cause of all that algae – phosphorus in the water. The phosphorus comes from natural sources such as decaying leaves, and it comes in farm and lawn fertilizer, which runs off into the water. But there’s also phosphorus in a product many of us use every day – dishwasher soap – which goes directly into the water and down the drain. One state might be the first in the nation to ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap, and as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports, other states might follow:
Transcript
Every summer, lakes become inundated with algae. As the slimy, green muck dies, it chokes out
oxygen, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. One cause of all that algae – phosphorus in the
water. The phosphorus comes from natural sources such as decaying leaves, and it comes in farm
and lawn fertilizer, which runs off into the water. But there’s also phosphorus in a product many
of us use every day – dishwasher soap – which goes directly into the water and down the drain.
One state might be the first in the nation to ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap, and as the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports, other states might follow:
(ambient sound of lapping water)
Lakes are a source of natural beauty, recreation, tourist dollars, even food. And in Minnesota
people take their lakes seriously. But when the algae takes over, no one wants to swim in the
scum, fish die for a lack of oxygen and the lake’s ecosystem is endangered.
(natural sound break)
Phosphorus occurs naturally. Some of it comes from decaying vegetation, grass clippings and
dead leaves. But because too much phosphorus is harmful, lawmakers have banned it from
certain commercial products. Last year Minnesota banned it from lawn fertilizer. And decades
ago, many states outlawed laundry detergent containing phosphorus. But they didn’t ban it in
dishwasher soap.
“There were not near the number in 1970 of automatic dishwashers in the households. It’s an
everyday thing now. ”
Ray Cox Is a Republican representative in the Minnesota legislature. He is sponsoring the bill,
banning phosphorus in dishwasher soap. There are phosphorus free dishwasher soaps, but they’re
a tiny fraction of the market. Still, Cox says phosphorus free soaps work better than they used to
because of the improvements that have been made in dishwashers.
“There are many, many products around here available right now and they work great. We’ve
used it for many years at home and there’s no problem. I mean, our dishes are clean.”
(ambient sound of dishwasher running)
Unlike other products containing phosphorus, detergent is flushed directly down the drain. For
each box of dishwasher detergent, it costs your local sewer treatment plant at least two dollars
and fifty cents to remove the phosphorus. But most cities don’t have state of the art water
treatment, so a lot of phosphorus makes its way into lakes, rivers and streams. Just how much, no
one knows exactly. One study estimates that 6 percent of the phosphorus in water comes from
dishwasher detergent, according to Don Arnosti of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, a
coalition of 80 environmental groups.
“Removing this phosphorus will improve our waterways. How much, that’s what’s in debate. Is
it 6 percent as we suggest? Is it 8 percent? Is it 4 percent? And we say that’s not important.
Nobody is saying it’s not gonna be an improvement.”
But will the improvement be worth the cost? Tony Kwilas is a lobbyist for the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce, which has taken the lead in attacking the ban. He says consumers won’t
stand for it because it doesn’t help that much and the replacement products are inferior.
“Why ban a product that we’re not quite sure the cost benefit of it. In Europe they went
phosphorus-free and they turned around and went back due to consumer complaints. Mainly it
sounds like there’s spotting and scratching on some of the glasses, and it doesn’t get all the food
off.”
Tony Kwilas says a ban on phosphorus in dishwasher detergent won’t really help much since
there are so many sources of phosphorus in the water.
“I’m not going to dispute that phosphorus is a problem, but if you look at what phosphorus is
contained in, it’s contained in antifreeze, it’s contained in chicken tenders, it’s contained in
bath beads, frozen fish, fire extinguishers, instant pudding, pet food, toothpaste, cake mixes. I
mean, so phosphorus is everywhere.”
To ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap would raise the cost about 70 cents a box. But most
consumers seem unaware of the issue, even those shopping at this food co-op in St Paul.
“I was not made aware that this was really harming our environment badly.” “I thought
phosphorus was already gone.” “You know, I just became aware of it, so I will start paying
attention to it right now.” “We don’t pay attention regularly.” “I had no idea that was in there
either.”
There doesn’t seem to be a consumer demand for phosphorus-free dishwasher detergent, just yet.
Don Arnosti of the Environmental Partnership says just as they did with dolphin-safe tuna and
phosphorus-free laundry soap, consumers need to make their voices heard.
“It’s time for the people of Minnesota to speak up and say clean water is more important than the
soap industry’s contribution to certain politicians.”
But if Minnesota passes the ban, what would happen? Would major detergent manufacturers
make special dishwasher soap just to sell in one state? Minnesota lawmaker Ray Cox says look
at what happened as states started to ban phosphorus in laundry detergent.
“As soon as the scale tipped to where we had about 20 states that were banning it all the
manufacturers gave up the fight and they reformulated and nobody makes anything that has that
significant content anymore. So while you can say a state by state basis doesn’t make any sense,
on many things I think that’s the way we have to go.”
Cox says if Minnesota starts the ball rolling, it’ll just be a matter of time before phosphorus is
removed from dishwasher soap everywhere, which is why both sides are paying so much
attention to what happens in Minnesota.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky in St Paul.
An Illinois Natural History Survey intern shows off her catch (a bighead carp). Officials are concerned that human behavior may help the invasive fish get around the barrier on the Chicago River. (Photo by Mark Pegg, INHS)
From the backwater of the Illinois River near Havana, IL. Three asian carp species
on a measuring board. From top to bottom - Silver carp, Grass carp, and Bighead carp. (Photo by Kevin Irons, INHS)
Over time, invasive species have upset the natural balance of the Great Lakes. Now, officials are working frantically to stop a new threat, the Asian carp. The carp lives in tributaries connected to the Great Lakes. But there may be another route into the water system – through Asian food stores. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, live carp can be purchased in many cities throughout the region:
Transcript
Over time, invasive species have upset the natural balance of the Great Lakes. Now, officials are
working frantically to stop a new threat, the Asian carp. The carp lives in tributaries connected to
the Great Lakes. But there may be another route into the water system – through Asian food
stores. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, live carp can be purchased
in many cities throughout the region:
“This one in Chinese, layoo. This one in Chinese…”
York Alooah stands in front of a crowded fish tank at the 168 Market in Ottawa, Canada’s capital.
He points to the fat, foot and a half-long bighead carp swimming behind the glass.
The fish are brought to his store by truck from Toronto. They originate at farms in the southern
U.S.
Speaking through an interpreter, Alooah says it’s unlikely that a carp could escape during
delivery.
“They use a big truck and have the fish tank inside.”
Alooah says the fish can’t jump out because the tanks are covered. Still, the live sale of these fish
has many people worried. That’s why states like Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio have
banned the possession of live Asian carp.
Several states are also asking the federal government to add these carp to a list of invasive species
considered harmful. That listing would make it illegal to possess them alive.
In Canada, there aren’t laws like that on the looks. But officials say they’re considering action.
Nick Mandrack is a research scientist with the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. He
says Canadian researchers are keeping an eye on an Asian carp population that’s moving north up
the Mississippi River. They worry that the fish will migrate through a manmade canal into the
Great Lakes.
“If they were to become established, either through dispersal up from the Mississippi or
unauthorized release as a result of the live food trade, they could have enormous impacts on the
Great Lakes ecosystem, which would likely result in a dramatic decline in the biomass of game
fishes.”
That’s because two species of Asian carp eat the same food as small forage fishes. And those
forage fishes are what the larger gamefish rely on. The Asian carp are too big for the gamefish to
eat.
Researchers are also worried about two other species. The black carp could wipe out endangered
mussels that live in the lakes. And the grass carp destroys aquatic plants where native fishes live.
Mandrack has seen both the bighead and the grass carp sold live in Asian food stores. He and
others say that poses one of the greatest threats to the Great Lakes fish population.
(sound of fish scaling)
Back at the 168 market in Ottawa, York Alooah uses a long knife to butcher and scale a fish he’s
pulled out of a tank. He laughs when an interpreter asks if people ever leave his store with live
carp.
“When people buy, it’s not alive. He clean and kill and clean everything.” Is it never alive?”
“Never.”
In fact, the city of Chicago is hoping to guarantee that doesn’t happen. Officials want stores that
sell live carp to operate under permits. And the fish would have to be killed before it left the
store.
But not all fish is bought for consumption. There’s also concern about a Buddhist practice in
which captive animals are released into the wild.
Tookdun Chudrin is a nun with the MidAmerica Buddhist Association. She says the carp sold in
food stores are not likely candidates for release.
“I think that people would not buy such a large fish for liberation because they tend to get very
small animals and very often will put them in a pond at a temple.
And Chudrin says, Buddhists would want to know if the religious practice was harming other
animals.
“I think definitely if there were a sign saying that said putting these fish in the lakes could be
detrimental to other species, I think people for sure would heed that if this was going to endanger
others and the people knew it, I don’t think they’d do that.”
So far, only two Asian carp have been found – in the Canadian waters of the Great Lakes.
Another was released in a fountain in Toronto, just a few blocks from Lake Ontario.
Whether from pranks, or acts of kindness, some fear it’s only a matter of time before more carp
get into the water. They say the Great Lakes could become a giant carp pond, and many of the
species we’ve come to know would disappear.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
Most of us think of earthworms as beneficial creatures. Gardeners are always happy to spot a worm in the flowerbed because they add fertilizer to the soil. Many anglers say they’re the best thing for catching fish. But scientists are beginning to learn worms aren’t so friendly to Great Lakes forests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:
Transcript
Most of us think of earthworms as beneficial creatures. Gardeners are always happy to spot a
worm in the flowerbed because they add fertilizer to the soil. And many anglers say they’re the
best thing for catching fish. But scientists are beginning to learn worms aren’t so friendly to
Great Lakes forests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports.
(fade up Girl Scouts)
This Girl Scout troop is learning about worms. Judy Gibbs is a naturalist at the Hartley Nature
Center in Duluth. She shows the girls how to coax worms out of the soil. They pour water laced
with powdered mustard into the worms’ burrows.
It irritates the worms and they come squiggling up by the hundreds.
“Pour it in. Wait a minute. Here it comes. It doesn’t like the mustard and it comes right up.
Look at this one (laughter). oh, there’s another one. Look at it go!” (shrieks)
On their walk through the woods, the girls look for dead leaves. There aren’t many. Judy Gibbs
explains why.
“Here’s a leaf stem that’s being pulled into this hole. Who’s doing this? Ants! No. Worms.
There’s big night crawlers. You know what a night crawler is? They grow straight down into the
ground, and they come up at night and pull leaves down into their burrows. And they eat the leaf
right off. That’s why we’re not finding any leaves.”
Worms eating leaves might seem natural, but it turns out these worms aren’t native to these
woods. The last glacier buried most of what is now the Great Lakes region. When it melted,
plants and animals returned to create a community of maples, pines, songbirds, and tender plants
growing on the forest floor, like trillium…but not earthworms.
Cindy Hale is a biologist who studies the native wildflowers that grow in northern hardwood
forests. She loves the spring bloomers that take root in the spongy layer of decaying leaves on
the forest floor. Trillium, bloodroot, solomon’s seal.
Hale says many of these plants are disappearing.
“Sites that forty years ago were carpets of trillium have been slowly over the last two decades
declining to almost nothing, and people were scratching their heads, trying to figure out just
what’s going on.”
Earthworm populations are thickest close to cities. But Hale says people bring worms with them
when they come to the woods.
At first, settlers carried them in, along with the animals and plants they brought from Europe or
the east coast. These days, worms are spread by people who drive in the woods – loggers, ATV
riders…
“But in particular, fishing bait is a huge way that worms get moved around in our region.
Because there’s so many lakes and so much fishing.”
Hale and her colleagues set up test plots along an advancing line of worms in the Chippewa
National Forest in central Minnesota. The worms crawl about three yards further into the forest
each year. Hale is studying how the soil and the plants have changed as the worms advance.
Worms eat the decaying leaves on the forest floor. They mix that organic matter into the mineral
soil beneath it. And in time, they can use up all the organic matter and leave only mineral soil
behind.
That means the plants that have evolved to take root in the leaves on top of the soil have lost their
home.
Hale says these changes could affect every plant and animal that lives in the woods. She says,
for instance, even birds have declined by nearly 50% in the last fourteen years.
“Because ovenbirds nest in that forest floor, so if you lose the forest floor, then you may well
affect ground-nesting birds such as that. So when you start thinking about it, the potential
ramifications across the ecosystem get really wild.”
Hale says one of the big challenges in studying this problem is that there’s been very little basic
research – like how many worms are there are and where.
To gather more information and to get more people involved, Hale created a web-based learning
program. She’s asking teachers from around the country to have their classes do worm counts
and other research. Hale plans to add their data to the web page.
In Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources is working with interest groups to try to slow
the spread of worms. Next year’s fishing regulations will include instructions not to dump your
worms at the end of a day of fishing.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill in Duluth.
A lot of things found in and around the Great Lakes can be bought and sold – from drinking water to lakefront property. Still, some features of the lakes – like its ecosystem – are not for sale. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jim Meadows reports… a new study tries to measure the value of something many consider priceless:
Transcript
A lot of things found in and around the Great Lakes can be bought and sold, from drinking water to lakefront property. Still, some features of the lakes — like its ecosystem — are not for sale. The Great Lakes Consortium’s Jim Meadows reports a new study tries to measure the value of something many consider priceless.
The Lake Michigan Federation says there’s no commodity price for healthy fish and birds living around Lake Michigan — but that people are willing to pay to preserve them. A study prepared for the Federation at the University of Illinois at Chicago estimates how much people would pay — the so-called “natural capital” value of the southern Lake Michigan shoreline. Anna Cooper, who worked on the study, says their numbers could play a role in future decisions about the lake. Just one example she gives is the decision in Chicago to close a small airport along the lakeshore. Meigs would be closed, and the land used for other purposes.
“You know, if it could be shown that having that area as a natural preserve or changing it back into a wetland or something like that, if that could be shown to be basically cost-effective, that people … would value those species and that habitat more than they would value that land put to another use.”
The study estimates Chicago area residents are willing to pay 117 to 197 dollars per household to preserve the lakeshore ecosystem – for a total natural capital value of roughly three to five billion dollars per year, but it’s only an estimate. The Lake Michigan Federation’s Joel Brammeier says they couldn’t afford to do an actual survey of residents — so they extrapolated.
“In this study, we employed a technique called benefits transfer, which is the transferring of data from one study with a similar species and situation to a new region, in this case the Chicago region.”
Still, Brammeier says their study is a good conservative estimate of how much Chicagoans value the lakeshore ecosystem, and he believes other parts of the Great Lakes would also benefit from a valuation of their natural capital. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jim Meadows.
The Mississippi River is changing. Some fish and wildlife that once
lived in or around the river are gone and other plants and animals are
moving in. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports
researchers are finding that the flood of 1993 has accelerated those
changes:
Like many other trees that produce food for wildlife, this pecan tree died after the '93 flood.
It’s been more than five years since the great flood of ’93 hit the
upper Mississippi River and its tributaries. Since then towns have been
moved to higher ground. New levees have been built. And… people —for
the most part— have recovered from the damage. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that researchers are finding the
long-term damage has been to the environment:
A study to be published this month shows mercury, deposited in riversas long as forty years ago, is still getting into the food chain andcausing environmental and human health problems. The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Stephanie Hemphill explains:
