Tag: rules

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

Epa Rules on Meat Processing Waste

  • To go from these chickens... (photo by Romula Zanini)

The largest meat and poultry processing plants in the country must follow new rules regarding how much pollution they release into waterways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:

Transcript

The largest meat and poultry processing plants in the country now must follow new
rules regarding how much pollution they release into waterways. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:


The new rules apply to about 170 plants in the country that turn cows and chickens into
hamburgers or filets. Wastes will have to contain fewer nutrients like ammonia and nitrogen
before it’s released into water. Mary Smith heads a division within the Water Office of the
Environmental Protection Agency. She says the rules are not as strict as when first proposed.
That’s in part because of concerns from the industries that it would cost too much. Smith
says the limits are tougher than what the law was before. But she adds these aren’t the only
industries that release waste into the water.


“So we can’t really kind of single out the meat industry, necessarily. Everyone, in a sense,
needs to do their part. But it’s another piece of the puzzle in terms of getting cleaner water.”


The new rules mark the first time poultry plants will have these kinds of limits. The EPA
estimates meat and poultry plants use 150 billion gallons of water each year. That water needs
to be cleaned of wastes like manure, blood, and feathers before it’s discharged.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tom Weber.

Related Links

Epa to Regulate Airplane De-Icing Fluid?

The Environmental Protection Agency says it might impose new restrictions on airports. Officials with the EPA say de-icing chemicals used on planes and taxiways can contaminate surface water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency says it might impose new restrictions on airports.
Officials with the EPA say de-icing chemicals used on planes and taxiways can
contaminate surface water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee
reports:


Many airlines spray ethylene glycol on planes to melt ice and frost. The EPA says that
chemical can endanger wildlife when it enters nearby water bodies. The agency
estimates that 21 million gallons of de-icing fluid are discharged from airports every year.


The EPA plans to study de-icing chemicals to determine whether any restrictions are
necessary. Claudio Ternieden of the American Association of Airport Executives
acknowledges de-icing chemicals may have an environmental impact, but says the issue
is not as simple as it seems.


“I think it’s important to remember, this is a safety-based industry and what we’re trying
to do is make sure folks are flying safely. That’s the primary goal of our industry.”


Many airports already use strict treatment or recycling programs for de-icing fluid. Last
winter, the Detroit Metro Airport recycled about 850 thousand gallons of the fluid, more
than any other airport in the world.


The EPA predicts it will complete its study of de-icing chemicals in three years.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Related Links

Epa Report: Mercury Contamination Widespread

More and more Americans are being warned that the local fish they eat could be contaminated with mercury and other toxins, according to a new report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

More and more Americans are being warned that the local fish they eat could be
contaminated with mercury and other toxins, according to a new report by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett
reports:


The EPA report reflects the number of state-issued fish consumption advisories. And
according to those advisories, more than a third of the nation’s lakes, and close to a
quarter of its rivers contain fish that could be contaminated. In addition to that, 100
percent of the Great Lakes and its connecting waterways are covered by fish consumption
advisories.


EPA officials say the increased warnings reflect better monitoring by states, and not
increased emissions.


But environmental groups are using the data to attack the Bush administration’s proposed
new mercury emission rules as doing too little, too late. Ed Hopkins is with the Sierra
Club.


“I’m sure that everyone would like to see mercury emissions reduced sharply, so that fish
are safe to eat again.”


The EPA is expected to issue new rules for mercury that would require coal-fired power
plants to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018. By contrast, the Clinton
administration called for a 90 percent reduction by 2008.


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

Related Links

Suburbs Draining Water From Lake Michigan

A new report says metropolitan Milwaukee is pumping so much groundwater, it’s pulling water out of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

A new report says metropolitan Milwaukee is pumping so much groundwater, it’s
pulling water out of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:


Just west of Milwaukee runs a line that divides the Great Lakes basin from
the Mississippi River basin. Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey say
the fast growing-communities that sit along that line are pumping enough
groundwater that it’s actually reversed the underground flow that used to go
into Lake Michigan. Instead, that water is coming out of the lake.


Noah Hall is with the National Wildlife Federation.


“What’s most shocking and disturbing about this, though, is that this
groundwater pumping that’s been going on is having the effect of draining
Lake Michigan of ten million gallons a day, and diverting that water out of
the Great Lakes basin, never to return.”


Hall says that water is going into the Mississippi River basin. He says the
USGS report illustrates the need for Great Lakes governors to regulate
groundwater – not just surface water.


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

Related Links

Using Sewage Sludge on Crops

  • Sludge being spread over a field with a manure spreader. (Photo by D. Seliskar, Halophyte Biotechnology Center, Univ. of Delaware)

The more people inhabit the earth – the more sewage there is. Something has to be done with it. Before chemical fertilizers were invented, farmers used human manure to improve their crops. Some still do. About three million dry tons of treated sewage – called sludge – fertilize sod, pasture land and even food crops every year in the United States. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Amy Tardif looks at what the practice may be doing to the environment:

Transcript

The more people inhabit the earth – the more sewage there is. Something has to be done with it.
Before chemical fertilizers were invented, farmers used human manure to improve their crops.
Some still do. About three million dry tons of treated sewage – called sludge – fertilize sod,
pasture land and even food crops every year in the United States. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Amy Tardif looks at what the practice may be doing to the environment:


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says using treated human waste as fertilizer is the
most environmentally sound way to get rid of it. It used to get dumped in the oceans. The
pollution caused dead zones.


Now, using it on land is becoming controversial. As people move closer to rural areas, they
discover what’s happening. It smells. It might also cause damage. Tommy Drymon insists the
creek near his Florida home has changed because farmers near his house use sludge as fertilizer.


“This was the most beautiful place I’ve ever settled down to. And the creek just looks awful now.
It used to be clear and now it’s just black and mucky all the time.”


Drymon says not only has the color changed – there’s more icky residue on the shore. He rarely
sees otters, deer and other wildlife any more. He definitely stopped swimming in it. Drymon and
his neighbors think the human fertilizer nearby farmers use – known as sewage sludge – is to
blame.


Sludge is made at sewage treatment plants. The water people flush down their toilets gets pretty
clean with today’s methods. That means more of what’s leftover stays pretty dirty. It resembles a
thin pudding or a powder depending on how it’s treated. It can contain viruses, bacteria,
chemicals and cancer-causing heavy metals.


“Now this sewage sludge includes not just human waste, it includes Pine Sol if you clean your
toilet bowl with Pine Sol, or if you do oil painting and you flush the paints down the drain or if
you work in a chemistry lab….”


Eric Giroux is an attorney for Earthjustice. He’s handling a lawsuit for Tommy Drymon and his
neighbors. It claims sewage sludge dumped on farms there is wafting through the air making
them sick and running off into the creek.


There are federal, state and county rules meant to prevent runoff. There are buffer zones from
water bodies and rules to protect groundwater. But sludge is not always applied according to the
rules. And there are things missing from the rules – according to The Cornell Waste
Management Institute. They don’t deal with poisons such as flame retardants, the drugs we take
and toxic chemicals that harm fish and wildlife and inhibit plant growth.


But those who use sludge as fertilizer like it.


“It’s a product that has to have something done with it. And if it’s done properly there are no
problems.”


Dennis Carlton has used the free product on his cow pastures for ten years. He says the calves
raised on those pastures end up weighing more than others. Sludge saves him sixty to 160 dollars
an acre on expensive chemicals.


“It’s cost effective and it does a better job than the commercial fertilizer because it last longer
because of the slow release qualities.”


Sludge contains lots of nitrogen – which is food for plants. It’s organic. Plants absorb it very
slowly. And that’s good.


Since 1997, University of Florida Soil scientist Martin Adjei has compared typical commercial
fertilizer – ammonium nitrate – with sludge. He says his studies show the good stuff in sludge gets
into the plants very nicely, and he says plants don’t seem to absorb the heavy metals.


“We measured lead, barium, cadmium, nickel in the plant. They were all point zero, zero two or
something parts per million in the plant.”


That’s lower than the EPA says it has to be. Adjei says only trace amounts of metals sunk into the
groundwater. He doesn’t know yet whether the metals drift into the soil. But he found too much
of the nutrient phosphorous builds up in the soil when fertilized with sludge year after year. He
admits there are many more tests to be done.


This year the EPA responded to complaints about sludge. It plans to test it for 50 chemicals – far
more than ever before. Geff Grubbs is the EPA’s Director of Science and Technology.


“We’re focusing on a couple of things, one is beginning to ramp up some of the research
investments to strengthen our understanding of some of the processes and nature of the
contaminants that could be present in sludge and what risk they might or might not pose. And we
do have a number of things that are in the works both near and longer term that might lead to
changes in the underlying regulations about what can be in biosolids before they are applied to
land.”


And, the EPA and a few industry groups have created a best practices program for willing
utilities. They pledge to control the odor and dust as well as manage the nutrients in their sludge.
The utilities are then audited by impartial, independent, third parties. There are only 48
municipalities participating nationwide.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Amy Tardif.

Related Links

Turtle Numbers Down; Trapping Banned

  • Joanna Schmidt, a student at Minnesota State University-Moorhead, is part of a long-term turtle research project. She's trying to find out why turtle populations are declining in the Midwest. For her research, she catches turtles and gives them an identifying mark, then weighs and measures them before putting them back in the water. (Photo by Dan Gunderson.)

Many Great Lakes states are taking steps to protect turtles. There’s a big demand for turtles in Asia and Europe. But too much trapping can damage wild turtle populations. As a result, states are placing bans or restrictions on turtle trapping. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Gunderson reports:

Transcript

Many Great Lakes states are taking steps to protect turtles. There’s a big demand for turtles in
Asia and Europe. But too much trapping can damage wild turtle populations. As a result, states
are placing bans or restrictions on turtle trapping. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Dan Gunderson reports:


(sound of paddling)


Joanna Schmidt pushes a canoe into a small slough in northern Minnesota. She paddles toward a
floating rectangle of plastic pipe. The simple device is a turtle trap. It’s about four feet long with
net in the bottom and a board attached to the side.


“We put a plank on the side and they crawl up to sun themselves and they
just fall in. It’s pretty simple. No mechanics to it. They do all the work for us.”


Joanna Schmidt is a student at Minnesota State University Moorhead. She’s
part of a long-term turtle research project. Researchers want to learn
more about turtle habitat, and why there’s been a recent decline in turtle
populations.


This slough is about a quarter mile across. It lies in a hollow surrounded
by farm fields. Chest high grass and reeds line the water’s edge. Along one end, dead,
sunbleached trees stick out of the water. It’s perfect turtle habitat.


“It’s warm, a lot of food for them, not very many predators, so they like it,
especially having the dead trees with a place to hang out and sun themselves. So this is
very typical.”


Gunderson: “Any estimate of how many turtles might live in a slough this size?”


“Not just yet. That’s what we’re hoping to get to. And that’s what the DNR would
like to know.”


There are several turtles in the trap. Most have been caught before.
They’re identified by small notches in their shells. Schmidt weighs and measures
each turtle before gently setting them back in the water.


Minnesota State University Moorhead Biology professor Donna Stockrahm is
directing this research project. She says it takes years of research to get meaningful data about
turtles. They grow very slowly and they live a long time.


Stockrahm is hoping to learn about rates of turtle mortality, growth rates,
and the optimum habitat for turtles.


She’s seen a puzzling decline in turtle numbers.


“We started this in 2001 and they marked over 250 turtles. Then in 2002
the number just dropped drastically. And there seemed to be fewer turtles
around, even turtles that you see out sunning themselves on rocks and limbs and
dead tree trunks and things like that.”


Stockrahm says she doesn’t have an explanation for the decline. She’s
waiting to see if the trend continues this year.


Turtles are in demand in Europe for pets, and in Asia for
traditional medicines. More than seven million turtles are
exported from the United States each year.


Minnesota Department of Natural Resources researcher Rich Baker says
trapping is one reason turtle populations are down.


“What we’ve learned relatively recently is that especially in northern
latitudes commercial harvest really isn’t sustainable. These populations
of slowly maturing species just can’t sustain harvest of adults from the
population.”


Rich Baker says demand for turtles is driven largely by Asian and European
markets. Baker says many Asian turtle species are endangered because of
overharvest.


Those markets are turning to North America which is a particularly turtle-rich
part of the world and the upper Midwest which is a particularly
turtle-rich part of North America. Many of the states in the upper Midwest
have actually closed commercial turtle harvest completely.”


Most Great Lakes states now ban or restrict turtle trapping. Rich Baker
says Minnesota decided to phase out commercial harvest. He says about a dozen
people make a living trapping turtles. They’ll be allowed to continue.


People who like to eat turtle can still get a license to trap for personal
use. But there will be no new commercial turtle trapping licenses.
Minnesota will allow turtle farms as an alternative to harvesting wild turtles.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Gunderson in Moorhead, Minnesota.

Major Water Polluters Rarely Fined

An Environmental Protection Agency internal document indicates that about one-quarter of the largest industrial plants and wastewater treatment facilities are in serious violation of the Clean Water Act at any given moment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

An Environmental Protection Agency internal document indicates that about
one-quarter of the largest industrial plants and wastewater treatment facilities are in
serious violation of the Clean Water Act at any given moment. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The study shows some wastewater treatment plants exceed pollution limits for
toxic substances by more than 100-percent. The EPA document was obtained by The
Washington Post. It further reveals that only a fraction of violators of the Clean Water
Act ever face enforcement actions and fewer than half of those are ever fined for the
violations. The study concentrated on the years 1999 to 2001. But it indicated some
company and municipal wastewater plants have illegally discharged toxic chemicals or
biological waste into rivers and streams for years without getting into trouble with the
government.


Often, state governments are responsible for enforcing EPA rules to meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. The EPA indicates it’s trying to become more
aggressive in monitoring state enforcement by creating “watch lists” of the most
flagrant violators.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Bureaucracy’s Bright Side

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the right of Canadian municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries. The decision marks the end of a 10 year lawsuit between the town of Hudson, Quebec and two companies – Chemlawn and Spraytech. The companies had sued the town, claiming municipalities did not have the power to control pesticide use. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that Canada’s unique political structure has set a challenging precedent:

Transcript

The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the right of Canadian municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries. The decision marks the end of a 10-year lawsuit between the town of Hudson, Quebec and two companies – Chemlawn and Spraytech. The companies had sued the town, claiming municipalities did not have the power to control pesticide use. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that Canada’s unique political structure has set a challenging precedent.


In Canada we have so many different levels of government each with its own area of responsibility. The problem is these areas frequently overlap, causing a bureaucratic nightmare. This particularly Canadian phenomenon has been dubbed jurisdictional gridlock.


Look at how we handle pesticides. They have to be registered federally in order to be manufactured and marketed. Provincial permission is required for companies to sell or apply them. And at the local level, municipalities can enact by-laws concerning their application.


In the U.S., by contrast, the handling, distribution and licensing of pesticides all falls under federal jurisdiction. So at least you only have to deal with one level of government, which should save time and effort.


But a recent victory by the town of Hudson, Quebec has demonstrated that sometimes a lot of red tape can actually be a good thing. The town’s battle to control the use of pesticides within its borders went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court not only upheld their right to protect local health and the environment, it also encouraged other municipalities to follow the Hudson example within the broad domain of Canadian and international law.


This wasn’t just a victory for community activists in Hudson. The Supreme Court decision gave all Canadian communities the power to take action on their own behalf. And believe me, they’re seizing that power. In the wake of the Hudson decision, towns and cities right across the country are in the process of enacting legislation that would severely restrict the use of pesticides within their borders.


This is a remarkable turn of events. And it clearly demonstrates the power that one small community can have. Jurisdictional gridlock may be a pain to wade through, but in light of what happened in Hudson, it can also be a really good thing.