Midwest Fertilizer Use Causing Gulf Dead Zone?

  • Commercial shrimpers and fishers in the Gulf of Mexico cannot find anything alive in the 'dead zone.' Research indicates fertilizer runoff from Midwest farms causes the 'dead zone.' (Photo by Lester Graham)

Farmers and lawn care companies in the Midwest use fertilizer to grow better crops and greener lawns. But excess fertilizer is washed downstream by rain, eventually reaching the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists say once in the Gulf, it triggers a process that causes a so-called ‘Dead Zone.’ The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Farmers and lawn care companies in the Midwest use fertilizer to grow better crops and greener
lawns. But excess fertilizer is washed downstream by rain, eventually reaching the Gulf of
Mexico. Scientists say once in the Gulf, it triggers a process that causes a so-called ‘Dead Zone.’
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


To get better crop production farmers use anhydrous ammonia to increase nitrogen levels in the
soil. To get greener lawns, homeowners use fertilizers that also can increase nitrogen and other
nutrient levels. But excess nitrogen gets carried away by rainstorms. For all or parts of 31 states,
that nitrogen is washed into ditches and creeks and rivers that are all part of the Mississippi River
basin. All of that land drains into the Mississippi and the Mississippi drains into the Gulf of
Mexico.


Tracy Mehan was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for
Water. Mehan points out that’s a lot of runoff that ends up in one place…


“It affects most of the inland drainage of the United States from Minnesota, from Ohio, from
Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. So, we’re dealing
with a tremendously broad system here and with tremendous challenges to protect the Gulf of
Mexico.”


Challenges because the nitrogen and other nutrients cause a problem.


Nancy Rabalais is a professor with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. She says the
nitrogen causes a huge bloom of algae…


“Well, the nutrients stimulate the growth of plants just like fertilizers stimulate the growth of a
corn plant. But the plants in the Gulf are microscopic algae.”


Some of the algae is eaten by tiny aquatic animals and fish. But, with a huge algal bloom… some
of it just dies and sinks to the bottom. Those algae cells are consumed by bacteria that also
consume oxygen. Rabalais says that depletes the oxygen in the surrounding water…


“So what basically happens is that the production of algae is just too much for the system to
handle.”


This oxygen starvation is called hypoxia. Marine life can’t live in a hypoxic area. Fish avoid it if
they can by swimming away. Other life that can’t move that fast dies. The size of the hypoxic
zone varies from year to year. Weather across the nation affects the amount of runoff that ends
up in the Gulf, but the trend has been a dead zone that’s gotten bigger over the past twenty
years… and according to Rabalais’ research it has doubled in size since the 1950’s when nitrogen
started being used extensively in agriculture.


(sound of boat engine starting up)


In Louisiana, the commercial fishers and shrimpers are concerned about the ‘dead zone.’ Some of
the smaller operations find it difficult to travel the longer distances to find fish outside the ‘dead
zone.’


Nelwyin McInnis is with the environmental organization, the Nature Conservancy. Walking in a
marsh area in Louisiana, she talked how important it was to that region that farmers and
homeowners in the Midwest do something to try to cut back on the amount of fertilizer that ends
up in the Gulf of Mexico.


“Certainly any ways that you can reduce the fertilizer runoff would certainly be of value. And I
know each farmer can’t imagine their impact hundreds of miles away in the Gulf of Mexico, but
each one adds up and has an effect.”


But powerful agricultural interests say the ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico is not caused by
nitrogen fertilizers in the farm belt. The American Farm Bureau has kept up a steady campaign
of denial of responsibility. Reports and essays published by the Farm Bureau question researcher
Nancy Rabalais’ findings. Rabalais says the Farm Bureau can question her all it wants. Her
published work has been reviewed by other scientists in close to a dozen major scientific journals.


“We don’t believe in collecting data and putting it on a shelf. We get it to the scientific public and
we also try to translate it so that the public, including the agricultural community can understand
what it’s saying.”


Whether the agriculture community wants to hear what those data are saying is another question.
However, the government is taking it seriously and is looking at ways to reduce the amount of
nutrients being washed into the Gulf of Mexico.


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

Related Links

MIDWEST FERTILIZER USE CAUSING GULF DEAD ZONE? (Short Version)

  • Commercial shrimpers and fishers in the Gulf of Mexico cannot find anything alive in the 'dead zone.' Research indicates fertilizer runoff from Midwest farms causes the 'dead zone.' (Photo by Lester Graham)

The commercial fishers in the Gulf of Mexico are hoping the farmers in the Midwest help them solve a problem. The fishers and shrimpers say the farmers could help reduce a so-called ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The commercial fishers in the Gulf of Mexico are hoping the farmers in the Midwest help them
solve a problem. The fishers and shrimpers say the farmers could help reduce a so-called ‘dead
zone’ in the Gulf. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico varies in size from year to year, sometimes getting larger
than the state of New Jersey. Scientists say excess nitrogen and other nutrients used to grow
crops and lawns in the Midwest are drained from the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio river basins
and into the Gulf. Nancy Rabalais is a researcher with the Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium. She says the result is a huge algae bloom in the Gulf…


“The nutrients stimulate the growth of these algae and they’re either eaten by zooplankton or fish
and become part of the marine food web or they die and sink to the bottom. It’s the cells that sink
to the bottom that eventually lead to the consumption of oxygen by bacteria.”


Fish and shrimp can’t live in the oxygen-starved area. The researchers say the only thing that can
reduce the size of the ‘dead zone’ is to reduce the amount of nitrogen from the Midwest that drains
into the Gulf of Mexico.


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

Related Links

Anglers Offered Alternatives to Toxic Lead Sinkers

  • Dave Zentner caught a smallmouth bass using a bismuth sinker. Zentner is active in the Izaak Walton League, and he wants more anglers to switch to non-lead tackle, which can poison eagles, loons and other water birds. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

Anglers around the Great Lakes region are starting to pay more attention to some of the smallest and most humble pieces of gear in their tackle box – lead weights and jigs. Recent research shows lead fishing tackle is killing eagles, loons and other water birds. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

Anglers around the Great Lakes region are starting to pay more attention to some of the smallest
and most humble pieces of gear in their tackle box – lead weights and jigs. Recent research shows
lead fishing tackle is killing eagles, loons and other water birds. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


Outside a Gander Mountain outdoor gear store in Duluth, Minnesota, there’s a steady stream of
people dropping lead tackle into a cardboard box. They bring it in plastic bags, in jars, and in the
original wrappers. They walk away with a small supply of sinkers made of steel, tungsten, or
bismuth.


Jim Simmons says he doesn’t use much lead tackle, but he’s ready to get rid of most of his supply.


“Well, I just brought in one package of split shot,” he says.


“What did they give you in exchange?”


“Some jigs, a couple of weights.”


“What are they made of?”


“They’re made of steel, and one is ceramic.”


“How do you think it will work?”


“I think it’ll work fine. We’ll try it out, give it a shot anyway!”


Inside the store, another angler says he doesn’t want to poison loons, but he isn’t ready to give up
his investment in lead weights.


“I have the tackle so I might as well use it,” he says. “Maybe I’ll switch to the other stuff, as I use
up the old.”


But a lot of anglers simply don’t realize lead tackle could be hurting wildlife.


No one uses lead shot for hunting anymore. It was banned years ago. But loons, eagles, and other
birds are still dying from lead poisoning.


Eagles can be poisoned by eating birds that have eaten lead.


Loons dive to the bottom of lakes and pick up pebbles and eat them. The pebbles go to the bird’s
gizzard, where they help grind up the small fish they eat. If they happen to swallow a lead sinker
or jig that some angler has lost, it only takes a small piece to poison the bird.


Some studies in New England have found as many as half the loons could be dying from lead
poisoning. In the Midwest, the figure is lower, but more research is underway.


Dave Zentner loves to fish. He’s an active member of the Isaac Walton League, a national
conservation organization.


He’s trying out the non-lead jigs for the first time, from a canoe in the St. Louis River near Duluth.
He keeps getting his line caught in the rocks on the bottom.


“There’s nothing that feels differently to me about this tungsten jig. It fishes with that twister-tail
just like any lead jig I would have hooked on before. And it sure as heck has been effective in
getting me snagged up!”


Zentner casts over and over, and loses his jig in the rocks. He reaches for another one, made of
bismuth.


“We left a piece of fishing gear down there,” he says. “And if a loon or a merganser decides to try
to eat it, we haven’t left something that’s going to make it sick.”


Dave Zentner was hoping the Minnesota legislature would ban lead tackle. Small lead sinkers are
banned in New Hampshire, Maine, and national parks in Canada. A New York ban takes effect
next spring. But in Minnesota, fishing groups and tackle manufacturers fought the bill.


So instead, the state is running a voluntary exchange program, and hoping to raise awareness
among anglers.


Zentner says some people won’t want to spend a little extra for the bismuth and tungsten weights
that behave like lead. But he says prices will come down as the demand goes up.


“And let’s make a little sacrifice, even if the price is a little higher,” he says. “We buy RVs and
ATVs and boats and motors, we spend thousands and thousands of dollars. And this is a
proposition that’s miniscule compared to that one.”


So far, a few tackle manufacturers have added non-lead alternatives to their product lines. But
there aren’t nearly as many choices as the lead products offer. Manufacturers are reluctant to re-
tool until they know people will buy the new lead-free products.


It could take years to persuade large numbers of anglers to switch from their tried and true gear.
But Dave Zentner says that’s what he’s going to try to do.


“We don’t want to put the tackle people out of business, we want them to stay in business,” he
says. “But we’re simply saying – it appears there’s a problem; let’s go to work on it, let’s educate,
let’s experiment, let’s work together.”


Finally Zentner proves the non-lead tackle works by catching a small-mouth bass.


“And it is a little guy!”


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

A New Generation of Fishery Managers

People who fish the Great Lakes for a living are getting a chance for some training in fisheries management. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

People who fish the Great Lakes for a living are getting a chance for some training in
fisheries management. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Great Lakes Sea Grant Network has put together a program for commercial fishers,
charter boat captains, tribal fishers, sport-fishing groups and others. The program is
called the Great Lakes Fisheries Leadership Institute. The Institute’s goal is to better
inform those people through science training and leadership training. Brian Miller is with
the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant. He says they hope to train a new generation of people in
the fisheries:


“In a lot of the organizations the leadership is aging and there is a need for new leaders to
emerge that have a good biology and scientific background that helps them understand a
lot of the complex issues they’re dealing with in the lake.”


The Sea Grant Network has found too often individual interests are so wrapped up in
their one issue, they lose sight of the bigger picture – the overall environmental health of
the Great Lakes. It’s hoped that the training will give them a greater perspective.


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

Tracking Long-Term Zebra Mussel Changes

Zebra mussels have been colonizing North American lakes and rivers since 1991. Scientists have looked at many of the ways mussels affect those ecosystems. But a new study underway shows how those effects are moving up the food web…and are having two very different results. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie reports:

Transcript

Zebra mussels have been colonizing North American lakes and rivers since 1991. Scientists have looked at many of the ways mussels affect those ecosystems. But a new study underway shows how those effects are moving up the food web…and are having two very different results. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie reports:


Between 50 and 5-hundred billion zebra mussels now live in New York’s Hudson River. That’s a lot of hungry mouths to feed on the river’s zooplankton and phytoplankton. The problem is the mussels are not the only ones that like to dine on the microscopic plants and animals. A new report suggests the mussels are stealing food from some of the river’s fish.


That’s forcing those fish to look elsewhere for their meals. Sandra Nierzwicki-Bauer is the director of the Darrin Freshwater Institute, and a biology professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. She says the zebra mussels can dramatically alter an ecosystem.


“They’re very rapid filter feeders, and as such, they’re able to remove tremendous amounts of phytoplankton, algae, bacteria in the water column. As such, the phytoplankton serves as food sources for other organisms so you really are impacting the entire food web.”


Nierzwicki-Bauer says those impacts go all the way up to fish. David Strayer is a freshwater ecologist at the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, and a lead author of the report on the Hudson River. He says his team studied fish populations in the Hudson both before and since zebra mussels colonized there.


“In open water fish species, we saw a decline in abundance, we saw declines in growth rates, and we saw that the populations of those fish tended to shift downriver compared to the period before the zebra mussel invasion.”


That means some of the most common and popular fish in the Hudson are no longer where they used to be…among them American shad, herring, and white perch. That’s because the zebra mussels are eating those fish’s food…forcing the fish to go elsewhere.


But Strayer says while some fish have had to move away from the mussels…some species have welcomed their new neighbors.


“In the same period of time, we saw populations of fish that live in the weed beds…we saw those populations increase, we saw growth rates of those fish increase, and we saw the populations of those weed bed fish shift upriver into the area where the zebra mussels lived.”


These forage fish have more to eat because the plants at the river’s bottom are growing more. That’s because the zebra mussels clear up the water, which allows more sunlight to reach the plants. Strayer says the zebra mussels have changed almost everything about the Hudson’s ecology.


But he says some of those changes have been difficult to predict, and the changes may not apply to all bodies of water where the mussels have colonized. This is one of the first studies using long term data that looks at the zebra mussels’ affect on fish populations…but there is some evidence that other bodies of water are dealing with similar situations. There have been reports that zebra mussels may be affecting smelt and chub in Lake Michigan…these smaller fish are food for larger species, such as trout and salmon. But while the results are comparable, David Strayer says the changes in the Hudson River are more pronounced than changes elsewhere.


“This isn’t because we have more zebra mussels in the Hudson than in the other places, but it’s because there are differences in the structure of the ecosystem between the Hudson River and the Great Lakes and other places that have been invaded. So, you have to be a little cautious extrapolating from one body of water to the next.”


That sentiment is shared by Andy Kahnly. He’s a fishery scientist with the Hudson River fishery unit of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. He also worked on the new study. Kahnly warns for now, the results only apply to young fish…and not adults. That’s because fish can live up to 30 years, and the data don’t go that far back.


“Quite often, changes in early lifestages will take some time to translate into changes in fish populations and then to changes in fish communities. So it takes a lot of data, a lot of years of data to see a change.”


Kahnly says that means anglers in the Hudson might begin to notice some changes over the next few years… and he says the study did find a dramatic decrease in many of the species that people catch.


“If these changes in production of young persist into the future, then definitely there will be a decrease in the abundance of the adults which people are fishing for.”


But that depends on what you’re fishing for. The Institute of Ecosystem Studies’ David Strayer says your perspective might change depending on that you’re trying to catch.


“If you’re concerned about shad populations, if you’re a shad fisherman, then you might be concerned with the zebra mussel invasion and think it’s a bad thing. If you like the weed beds, if you’re a duck hunter or a large mouth bass fisherman this might be regarded as a positive thing.”


Strayer says the study shows zebra mussels are capable of having a tremendous impact on an ecosystem. He says it also shows the importance of being careful to prevent the introduction of invasive species…like zebra mussels…into an ecosystem.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brodie.

Reward for Tagged Fish

Great Lakes scientists are using new technology to track certain kinds of fish. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

Great Lakes scientists are using new technology to track certain kinds of fish. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:


Researchers on lakes Huron and Superior are using a new computerized tagging system to track fish including trout and sturgeon. The new tag measures the water depth and temperature of the areas fish prefer to be. Henry Quinlin is a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Ashland, Wisconsin:


“Upon learning the habitat preferences, habitat could be enhanced or created to benefit lake sturgeon or the other species that are being studied.”


Quinlin hopes the data can be used to design better habitat protection and restoration projects. He also says the program’s success is dependent on sport fisherman returning the tagged fish. That’s why his office is paying one hundred dollars a piece for fish with the special tags. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Will Trout Coast to Recovery?

A sport fish native to the Great Lakes region is famous for its looks and its size, but overfishing and habitat loss have driven its numbers down. Now, some fish experts are helping the coaster brook trout make a comeback. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A sport fish native to the Great Lakes region is famous for its looks and its size… but over fishing and habitat loss have driven its numbers down. Now, some fish experts are helping the coaster brook trout make a comeback. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports:


Coaster brook trout, or coasters, cruise the near shore waters of Lake Superior most of their lives, and only swim into rivers to spawn. Male coasters turn vibrant red when they’re spawning. And the trout grow much larger than their inland relatives… an 8 pound fish is a trophy.


But coasters are rare, so Trout Unlimited is working with other scientists to boost their numbers. In the last 2 years, biologists have released baby coasters in 4 rivers in the Upper Peninsula.


Bill Deephouse is president of Trout Unlimited’s Copper Country chapter.


“You can’t protect all of these little creatures. So you put… and this certainly isn’t exact… but you put 10,000 fish in, you hope a few thousand of them make it. Maybe a few hundred make it to adulthood.”


The biologists say it may be some time before fishermen will feel one of the reintroduced coasters on the end of their lines. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Long Road to River Recovery

  • Aerial view of industry along the Fox River. Photo by Great Lakes United.

One of the rivers that flows into Lake Michigan is polluted so badly that it’s being treated much like a Super Fund site…an environmental disaster. It’ll be decades before it’s cleaned up, and some environmentalists think it might never be cleaned up properly. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

One of the rivers that flows into the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan) is
polluted so badly that it’s being treated much like a Super Fund site –an
environmental disaster. It’ll be decades before it’s cleaned up. And some
environmentalists think it might never be cleaned up properly. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


(Sound of fish splash)


It’s late at night. The moon’s out. And the fish are flopping on the Fox
River. In downtown Green Bay, Wisconsin, Robert Hageman and a few of his
friends have been fishing. A couple of the guys are bragging about the big
fish they caught. But they’re not taking any home with them tonight.


LG: “Had any luck?” RH: “Yeah, I caught 23 fish.”
LG: “And wwhat did you do with them? RH: “Let ’em right back.” LG: “why?” RH: “Because it’s dirty. Fox River’s dirty.”
LG: “What have you heard about the Fox River?” RH: “The fish ain’t good for you. They can’t hurt you, but they ain’t good for you.
(friends in background say “PCBs, man.”) “yeah.”
LG: “What do you know about PCBs?
RH: “I don’t know nothing about it. That’s why I ain’t eatin’ them.” (all laugh)


Hageman and his friends are right when they say there are PCBs in the Fox
River. But apparently they haven’t heard that eating fish from the river
probably can hurt you in the long run. There are 60-thousand pounds of
PCBs, or poly chlorinated byphenyls, in the 39 mile run of the Fox
River. Of that, 50-thousand pounds – that’s 25 tons – is in the sediment of
the last seven mile stretch just before the river flows into Green Bay and
on into the rest of Lake Michigan. It’s that final stretch where Hageman
and his friends have been fishing.


The Environmental Protection Agency says seven paper mills along the Fox
River are the likely polluters. The EPA says PCBs were produced as a
by-product of the paper manufacturing process, and from the 1950s to the 1970s
they were dumped into the river. Now, the agency intends to make those
mills pay for cleaning up the contaminants.


Dennis Hultgren works for Appleton Papers, and is a spokesperson for a group
that represents the seven companies. Hultgren says the paper mills want to
clean up the pollution. But they don’t want to pay more than they have to.


“What we want to do is make sure that the money that we do spend
is spent wisely and it does the most environmental good for the region. And
so, we have one chance to do it right and we want to do it right the first
time.”


The paper mills have been working closely with government agencies to try to
determine where the PCBs are concentrated and how best to clean up the
pollution. Some of the companies have spent millions of dollars on tests in
the river. Just recently, Hultgren’s firm offered 40-million dollars… ten-million dollars a year for four years… for data collection and preliminary clean-up tests. The government agencies praised the decision and some environmental groups voiced their approval. But a local grassroots group, the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, does not approve. Rebecca Katers is with the council and says it’s a delay tactic by the paper mill companies.


“It makes the company look generous. But, in fact, they should be doing this anyway. They should have done this ten years ago.”


Giving the money now, Katers says, only manages to delay legal action
against the company for four more years. Besides, she says, while
40-million dollars might seem like a lot of money, the estimated clean-up
could cost as much as 30 times that amount.


The Clean Water Action Council says this money and the government’s
willingness to accept it are representative of the cozy relationship the
companies seem to have with regulators. But Katers says the state and
federal agencies are forgetting about the people who live here. She
bristles when she hears the government agencies talk about how close they
are to the paper mills.


“They talked at the announcement about ongoing discussions they
have on a daily basis with the paper industries on this issue. But, they
haven’t met once face-to-face with the public. They haven’t held a public
discussion or debate on this issue.”


And it appears there won’t be many opportunities in the future. Although
the Fox River is not a Superfund site, the EPA is generally following the
process used for Superfund sites. The EPA says that means the public can
submit comments in writing. But there won’t be a lot of public discussion
until the EPA actually has a proposed plan. Katers thinks the people
should have a voice a lot earlier in the process.


But, the paper mills’ representative, Dennis Hultgren says it’s better to
let the experts work first.


“It’s complicated. For the normal citizen, it’s going to be very difficult to comment on it because they’re going to be looking at the technical merits
of their comments. And a general citizen, not having been involved, it’s going to be very difficult to have germane comments.”


The companies say they’ve been studying and testing and they’ve found
disturbing the sediment by trying to remove it proves that the PCBs should
be left in the sediment, allowed to slowly break down… a process called
natural recovery. And where there’s risk that sediment laden PCBs might
be disturbed by the river’s currents, engineered caps could be put in place.


The Clean Water Action Council says the paper mills tests were designed to
end up with that conclusion because that would be the cheaper way to deal
with the PCBs. The council wants the PCBs removed from the river and
disposed of safely… a much more expensive job.


The acting regional administrator for the USEPA, David Ullrich, says
there’ll likely be some combination of natural recovery, capping, and
removal. But, Ullrich says none of that will happen anytime soon. It’s a
big job, and it looks as though it will take up to ten years to deal with
the PCBs. And Ullrich says that’s just the beginning.


“The actual recovery of the resource, getting fish contaminant
levels down to acceptable levels and getting the PCB loadings to Green Bay
and out to Lake Michigan down, could take a longer period of time than that,
perhaps up to twenty years.”


And over that 20 year period, experts say that contamination will
naturally spread farther and farther into Green Bay and Lake Michigan.


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

State to Force Mercury Reductions?

Mercury emissions from more than 150 coal-burning power plants across the Great Lakes are coming under greater scrutiny this summer. Several states are considering ways to reduce those emissions. Wisconsin could become the first state in the nation to issue rules requiring large mercury reductions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story:

LONG ROAD TO RIVER RECOVERY (Short Version)

The Environmental Protection Agency says it could be a decade before a river that feeds Green Bay and Lake Michigan will have tons of PCBs cleaned up. And a lot longer before the river recovers from the effects of the pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports: