A new report on global warming forecasts more uncertainty
for North American wildlife. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
A new report on global warming forecasts more uncertainty for North American wildlife. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The Wildlife Society is a group of biologists, habitat managers and educators. The society has
looked over hundreds of peer-reviewed studies from the last few years on global warming and
wildlife. The report says the one degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperatures over
the past century is already having some effect on species like songbirds.
The Wildlife Society also says a predicted larger increase in global warming will generally push
wildlife and habitats northward. Douglas Inkley of the National Wildlife Federation says this
northward push means migration corridors will need to be expanded.
“Generally on a North-South axis, would be the best direction to put those in, so that the wildlife
are able to move as the climate changes.”
The report also urges more measures to reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to global
warming. The Wildlife Society will take up formal policy recommendations at its meeting in
March.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
In an effort to eliminate invasive species and pollution from the Great Lakes, a summit to organize cleanup initatives will soon be underway. (Photo courtesy of USGS.gov)
State and federal officials will meet soon to take
the next step on organizing clean up projects in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
State and federal officials will meet soon to take the next step on organizing clean-up projects in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
EPA administrator Mike Leavitt is in charge of a task force reviewing spending on about 140 Great Lakes programs. He’s been meeting with key parties and says he’s now ready for a summit with Great Lakes governors, mayors, tribal leaders and members of Congress. The meeting will be in Chicago. In a talk with environmental reporters, Leavitt said one goal will be to set up nine working groups on issues like invasive species, and non-point pollution.
“…and we will begin the process over the course of a year – not to stop or to stall – but to build on what’s already occuring into very concise action plans on the Great Lakes.”
Leavitt says it may be a very complex environmental collaboration. The National Wildlife Federation praises Leavitt for meeting with the various parties. But the environmental group says the EPA should plan on spending more money to clean up the Great Lakes.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consoritum, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
The National Wildlife Federation says that "for the price of one cup of coffee per household per month," mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants could be dramatically reduced. (photo by Kenn Kiser)
According to a report by the National Wildlife Federation, steep reductions in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in the Great Lakes region can be achieved without sharp increases on household utility bills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has more:
Transcript
According to a report by the National Wildlife Federation, steep reductions in mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants in the Midwest/Great Lakes region can be achieved
without sharp increases on household utility bills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett has more:
The report looked at coal-fired plants in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
It says 90 percent of mercury could be stripped from power plant emissions using available
technology, at a minimal cost. Zoe Lipman is with the National Wildlife Federation. She says
the benefits to public health would be quickly realized.
“When you cut mercury emissions, you see reductions in mercury in water and fish in a matter
of years, not decades.”
The National Wildlife Federation report looked at the cost of outfitting power plants with
a technology that uses carbon powder to capture mercury, and catch it in a fabric filter.
Utility companies say there’s no proven technology that strips mercury completely. They say
the technologies they’ve reviewed are more costly than what’s laid out in the report.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
A newly formed coalition to preserve the Great Lakes looks to Congress for support. (Photo by Brandon Bankston)
Philanthropist Peter Wege of the Wege Foundation recently announced a five million dollar grant to build widespread public support to help restore the Great Lakes. The money will be spent to form a group called the Great Lakes Coalition. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Kaomi Goetz reports:
Transcript
Philanthropist Peter Wege and the Wege Foundation recently announced a five million
dollar grant to help build widespread public support to help restore the Great Lakes. The
money will be spent to form a group called the Great Lakes Coalition. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Kaomi Goetz reports:
The Great Lakes Coalition was formed to help set a national agenda and to influence federal
policy. Its members include the National Wildlife Federation and the National Parks Conservation
Association, who are taking a leading role in the group. Coalition consultant Mark Van Putten says
the coalition’s aim is to make restoration of the region a national priority.
“Many of the members of Congress who will vote on Great Lakes restoration don’t come from the
region. Much of the American people don’t know the importance of the Great Lakes and this is a
grant that is designed to have broad public education and outreach to inform people around the
country.”
The coalition is modeled after one formed in the mid-80’s to restore the Florida Everglades.
In 2000, Congress passed a 30-year, eight billion dollar plan to restore the Everglades. The new
coalition hopes to secure similar support.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Kaomi Goetz.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service catch an Asian carp. This invasive species can grow up to four feet long, and the U.S. House and Senate have agreed to supply funds to try to keep them out of the Great Lakes. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildife Service)
The U.S. House and Senate recently passed a bill that will help keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, the federal government will contribute nearly two and a half million dollars to help repel the fish:
Transcript
The U.S. House and Senate recently passed a bill that will help keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium Celeste Headlee reports, the federal government will contribute nearly two and a half million dollars to help repel the fish:
Asian carp are huge, often growing to be four feet long and weighing 80 pounds. They are also extremely prolific and voracious. Most Asian carp consume up to 40 percent of their body weight every day. There is currently an electric fish barrier strung across the bottom of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to keep the fish out of the Great Lakes. The barrier creates an underwater field of electricity that repels the carp.
Andy Buchsbaum is the director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Office. He says the current barrier is temporary and due to fail next year.
“Today the Great Lakes really dodged a bullet. Right now, the carp are poised 20 miles away from the failing barrier, which is just downstream from Lake Michigan. And if that barrier fails, then essentially the Great Lakes as we know them are over.”
The U.S. House and Senate passed a bill that will supply 75 percent of the funds for building a new barrier. The Great Lakes governors have agreed to supply the rest of the money. President Bush has said he will sign the bill when it reaches his desk. Buchsbaum says the new barrier can be completed within 60 to 90 days.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.
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.
A group that generally considers itself to be conservative disagrees with many of the Bush administration’s policies on the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on a survey of hunters and anglers:
Transcript
A group that generally considers itself to be conservative disagrees with many of the Bush
Administration’s policies on the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports on a survey of hunters and anglers:
The National Wildlife Federation commissioned a nationwide survey of people who hold hunting or
fishing licenses. It revealed that hunters and anglers generally liked some of the Bush
conservation programs, but disagreed with the Bush approach to controlling mercury pollution,
drilling for gas on public lands, and changing how wetlands are protected. Brian Preston is with the
National Wildlife Federation. He says the survey shows hunters and anglers want to protect the
environment; not just their hunting and fishing rights.
“They’re not the ‘Bubba’ that just cares about filling a bag limit. They do care about their natural
resources, and based on those values, they’re not happy with some of the current policies put forth
by the White House.
More than two-thirds of the hunters and anglers voted for Bush in the last election, but an even
greater number disagree with some of the Bush policies on the environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Canadian Department of Transportation are studying the navigational system in the Great Lakes and along the Saint Lawrence River. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, the groups are holding public hearings on the issue this summer:
Transcript
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Canadian Department of
Transportation are studying the navigational system in the Great Lakes and along the
Saint Lawrence River. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports,
the groups are holding public hearings on the issue this summer:
The study will evaluate current conditions in the Great Lakes and determine what is
required to maintain the navigational routes at the existing size and capacity.
Tim Eder is the director of Water Resources for National Wildlife
Federation. He says any plans for Great Lakes navigation must address current problems
of invasive species and habitat destruction, not make them worse. Eder says only a
handful of ships come in from foreign ports on a daily basis…
“But each ship brings with it the risk of another invasive species and right now, our
fishery in the Great Lakes region is teetering on the brink of collapse because of zebra
mussels, because of sea lampreys, because of Asian carp that are knocking on the door
trying to get into the Great Lakes… most of which, not all, but most of which come in the
ballast tanks of ships from foreign ports.”
The public hearings are being held at various locations through July 14th.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.
The Bush Administration has been under a lot of pressure from environmentalists, hunting groups, and state agencies to do something about wetlands protection. On Earth Day, President Bush responded by announcing a new initiative that he says will take wetlands protection to a higher level. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush takes a closer look at the President’s latest proposal:
Transcript
The Bush Administration has been under a lot of pressure from
environmentalists, hunting groups, and state agencies to do something about
wetlands protection. On Earth Day, President Bush responded by announcing a
new initiative that he says will take wetlands protection to a higher level.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush takes a closer look at the
President’s latest proposal:
In the last thirty years, urban sprawl and farming have destroyed millions of
acres of wetlands. Because of that, the past two Presidents called for a
policy of “no net loss of wetlands.” The current Bush administration says it also
supports that goal. And says it wants to go a step further.
On Earth Day, the President unveiled his latest plan to protect and restore
wetlands.
“The old policy of wetlands was to limit the loss of wetlands. Today, I’m going to
announce a new policy and a new goal for our country: instead of just
limiting our losses, we will expand the wetlands of America.”
(Applause – fade under)
The Bush administration says its policy will restore, improve, and protect a
total of three million acres of wetlands in the next five years. In his speech, the
President gave a general outline of the plan, saying he’s going to increase support for a
number of programs already in place.
Ben Grumbles is an Assistant Administrator at the Environmental Protection
Agency. He heads up the water and wetlands programs for the EPA. He says
the President has called on many agencies to implement the new plan:
“The heart of the President’s new goal and commitment is to use
collaborative conservation-based programs to gain three million acres of
wetlands and to do so through USDA, Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation programs and
partnerships with the private sector.”
While environmentalists approve parts of President Bush’s new plan, many of
them say it’s the wrong first step to take. Julie Sibbing is a wetlands
policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation.
“Although it’s a great thing that they’re going to get a million acres of
wetlands restored, and a million acres enhanced, and a million acres
protected, it’s only a drop in the bucket compared to what’s currently at
risk due to their policies on protecting wetlands under the Clean Water
Act.”
And that’s the main criticism – environmentalists and some hunters say the
Administration is not doing its job in enforcing current federal laws. Laws that protect
rivers, lakes, and wetlands – and worse – they say the administration has
actively weakened laws that protect millions of acres of smaller, isolated
wetlands. These critics see this latest announcement by the Bush Administration
as an attempt to shore up its dismal record on the environment in general…
and on wetlands in particular.
The National Wildlife Federation’s Julie Sibbing says the Administration
would make better use of taxpayers’ money by reviewing some of its policies
and protecting wetlands that already exist:
“It’s just too hard to build new wetlands for us to ignore protecting what’s
there right now. We love the programs that restore former wetlands, but the
most important thing is to try to protect those wetlands that we still
have.”
Officials in the Bush Administration say they are serious about enforcing
the law. And they say they are protecting wetlands. They say they’re just
taking a different approach.
In his speech, President Bush said good conservation will
happen when people don’t just rely on the government to be the solution to
the problem, saying more people should look to private sector land trusts
and voluntary efforts by landowners to get the job done.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
Federal protections for isolated wetlands like this one are in question after a 2001 Supreme Court ruling. Experts say it's not just wetlands that are at risk. They say lakes or streams that have been deemed "isolated" are losing protections as well. (Photo by Mark Brush)
David Brakhage is the Director of Conservation Programs for the Great Lakes region for Ducks Unlimited. He works with people throughout the region who want to restore wetland habitats. (Photo by Mark Brush)
A 1997 U.S. Fish and Wildlife report found that the rate of loss of wetlands decreased in the 1990's. Experts fear the rate has been increasing since the 2001 Supreme Court ruling and subsequent guidance to federal agencies. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Around the country, there are small, isolated swampy areas that are home to a lot of plants and animals. You can often hear frogs singing, or see ducks dabbling for food in these murky waters. Some experts say the government has weakened regulations that once protected these smaller wetlands. Now, they say, many of these wetlands are being drained, filled in and lost. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Around the country there are small, isolated swampy areas that are home
to a lot of plants and animals. You can often hear frogs singing, or
see ducks dabbling for food in these murky waters. Some experts say
the government has weakened regulations that once protected these
smaller wetlands. Now, they say, many of these wetlands are being
drained, filled in and lost. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark
Brush has more:
This small wetland is nestled in the middle of a woodlot. Mud is
squishing under our feet as we walk around it. The water is still, and
dark… filled with last year’s rotting leaves.
This is no place for humans to live. But for wildlife, this is home.
(sound of chorus and wood frogs)
“That looks like what was left of a whirligig beetle – that’s a real
common insect in these types of habitats.”
We’re out here with Dave Brakhage. He’s a conservationist with Ducks
Unlimited. He says these small wetlands are where ducks take their
ducklings for food.
Brakhage brought us here to show us an example of a wetland that was
once protected by federal regulations:
“These wetlands are isolated because there’s not a direct water
connection from them to a lake or stream or other water body in the
area. They’re geographically isolated.”
Being isolated puts these wetlands into a sort of regulatory limbo. To
dredge or fill a wetland like this 4 years ago – you needed to apply
for a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Now – in many parts of the country – you don’t need that permit.
That’s because in 2001 the Supreme Court ruled on a case from the
Chicago area that changed everything. The court’s decision opened up a
lot debate about whether isolated wetlands should be protected by the
federal government.
Dave Brakhage says the ruling gave the Bush Administration an
opportunity to issue a guidance to government agencies.
“The Supreme Court ruling certainly threw into question a lot of the
protections that were in place there. And that opened the door to the
guidance. And depending on how the guidance came down and the
interpretations associated with it. It could certainly make things a
whole lot worse.”
The Bush administration issued these instructions to the federal
agencies in January of 2003.
But conservation officials and environmentalists believe the
administration went too far with these instructions, going beyond what
the Supreme Court ruling required.
The instructions were issued prior to drafting a final, formal rule.
But before it finalized the rule – the Bush Administration got an
earful.
“There was a lot of concern expressed on the part of a pretty broad
swath of the American Public.”
Scott Yaich is the Director of Conservation Programs with Ducks
Unlimited. He says the Administration heard protests from those they
considered friendly:
“We were talking about people who were concerned about the environment,
and in this case there were a lot of hunters and a other sporting
groups and angling groups that went into him, and those are a pretty
core part of the Republican and the President’s base.”
So President Bush stopped the rule-making process that would lift the
protections.
But… the original instructions to the agencies still stand.
And the Administration has no plans to change them.
Julie Sibbing is wetlands policy specialist with the National Wildlife
Federation. She says getting the President to back away from finalizing
the rule was a small victory, but there’s still a lot to be done:
“It was a right decision at we do recognize that and we praise the
administration for taking the right step, but they’ve got a long way to
go yet. We still have a long way to go – and there’s a lot at risk.
In fact the EPA’s own estimates are that the guidance has put about 20
million acres, or about 20% of what we have left in the lower 48 states
of wetlands at risk.”
But the risk is not the same for wetlands in different areas of the
country. So today, when developers and landowners go to the Army Corps
of Engineers to apply for a permit, they get different responses
depending on where they are.
Some Corps districts have turned their back on the isolated wetlands,
telling developers no permits are needed.
Other Corps districts are waiting for clearer direction.
Mitch Isoe is the Chief of the Regulatory Branch for the Corps’ Chicago
District. He says he just wants to know what he’s supposed to do.
“We would like to have revised rules on the definitions for our
jurisdiction. We’d just like to have the critical terms that are
causing all of these difficulties defined in a way that two people in
two parts of the country can read the same sentence, go out on the
ground and end up at the same point. And, you know, right now the
field is helpless to do that, because the decision on not to pursue
rulemaking was made in Washington.”
With mixed messages coming from the White House, the Corps of Engineers
and the Environmental Protection Agency are struggling with how and
whether to regulate these wetlands.
In the meantime, it’s generally left up to the states to pass laws to
protect these areas.
Some states have laws that do that, others don’t.
(sound of frogs)
Ducks Unlimited and other conservation and environmental groups are
working with the Administration to protect these wetlands. Dave
Brakhage says doing so will benefit more than just ducks:
“And it’s not just the wildlife – you know wetlands are important in
terms of storing floodwaters, an important site for restoring ground
water recharge, and also have a big role to play in improving our water
quality.”
The Bush Administration says it’s committed to preserving wetlands, and
it even says it plans to increase the amount of wetlands in the U.S.
Environmentalists and hunting groups say they don’t see that happening
right now. But they’re pushing the Administration to make good on that
promise.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
