A new report says true wilderness is vanishing. The authors say we
might need to rethink conservation. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A new report says true wilderness is vanishing. The authors say we
might need to rethink conservation. Rebecca Williams reports:
The report in the journal Science says we might need to think
differently about how we protect wild areas. There are very few places
left on Earth that haven’t been touched by people.
The authors say that as of 1995, only 17% of the planet’s land area had
remained untouched. They’re defining true wilderness as places without
any people, roads, crops or lights detectable at night by satellite.
They say there’s some land set aside in wilderness preserves…
but it’s just 1% of Earth’s land area.
The authors of the report include two Nature Conservancy scientists.
They say population growth might make traditional views of conservation
unsustainable.
They argue we might have to focus more on managing nature and the
services it provides… instead of trying to keep people out of
wilderness areas.
Two sea lampreys attached to a large fish. This predatory parasite is wiping out freshwater salmon and trout in Lake Champlain. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
Scientists are experimenting with other methods of controlling the lamprey, including nest destruction, release of sterilized males, and trapping. (Photo by Lee Emory, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service)
Government biologists working on Lake
Champlain, between New York and Vermont, say
they’re losing the fight against the sea
lamprey, a parasite that targets freshwater
salmon and trout. The lamprey population has
surged in recent years. Brian Mann reports
scientists say the best solution might be to
turn the fight over to federal biologists
who have had greater success fighting
lamprey on the Great Lakes:
Transcript
Government biologists working on Lake
Champlain, between New York and Vermont, say
they’re losing the fight against the sea
lamprey, a parasite that targets freshwater
salmon and trout. The lamprey population has
surged in recent years. Brian Mann reports
scientists say the best solution might be to
turn the fight over to federal biologists
who have had greater success fighting
lamprey on the Great Lakes:
On a gorgeous April morning, charter boat captain Richard
Greenough went fishing. He didn’t like what he found on his line:
“I went out this morning, I got one fish. Looked like it had been
sitting in front of a machine gun. It was skinny. It looked sick.
And that was a good one, because it’s alive.”
Lake Champlain’s freshwater salmon and trout are being wiped out by a
predator called the sea lamprey. The parasites are awful creatures – long and slimy
with circular suckers used to clamp onto the side of fish.
Back in the early 90s, New York and Vermont partnered with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service on an experimental project to kill lamprey, but
since 1998, the parasites have come roaring back. Speaking at a sea lamprey summit
in Burlington, Vermont, Captain Greenough says his customers regularly catch fish
that are half-eaten and scarred:
“It’s almost an embarrassment right now. Two years ago, I thought it
was bad with a 13-inch lake trout with three lampreys on it. Well, it’s
got so good we got a 12-inch with five on it last year.”
State biologists in Vermont and New York concede that the lamprey
response here simply isn’t working. Doug Stang is chief of fisheries
for New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation:
“You see in our current effort, even though substantial and
significant, just isn’t cutting it. We need to put forth more effort. Or
we need to pick up our toys so to speak and go home.”
Government biologists say abandoning an intensive lamprey program
would mean a complete crash of lake salmon and trout populations.
The fish are in danger of being wiped out by the lamprey. Biologists also say the parasites would likely begin feeding on other
species. One possible solution, Stang says, is turning the lamprey battle over
to the federal government, modeling the effort here after a much larger
lamprey program on the Great Lakes:
“This would provide us with a more centralized approach and this would provide us with a more a coordination for funding
and sea lamprey control efforts.”
The sea lamprey program on the Great Lakes isn’t a complete success.
The program is struggling with proposed funding cuts… and some
critics say the lamprey population in the Great Lakes is still too high.
Despite those concerns, Dale Burkett says the feds are ready to do more on Lake Champlain.
He heads sea lamprey control operations for the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission and works for the US Fish and Wildlife Service:
“The expansion in dollar amount would be somewhere around $310,000 more than is
currently being spent by the collective. I think the Fish and Wildlife
Service has indicated that they are willing, if tasked with that
responsibility, to step up to the plate.”
Federal scientists say that new investment would help to save a $250 million sport fishery.
Even so, the Federal takeover would be controversial. The main weapon
in this fight is a kind of poison called TFM that’s used to kill sea
lamprey larva in rivers.
On the Great Lakes, the use of TFM has a long track record, dating back
to the 1950s, but in New York and Vermont the practice is still
controversial. Joanne Calvi is with a group called the Poultney River
Committee. She says the toxins could affect other native species, including
several varieties of freshwater mussels that are considered endangered or threatened by state biologists:
“I’m opposed to chemical treatment with TFM to control native sea
lamprey in the Poultney River. I feel it should be prohibited.”
A new wrinkle here is the growing scientific consensus that the lamprey are a native species
and might not be invasive at all. Green groups say the parasite’s growing numbers reflect a larger problem with Lake Champlain’s eco-system.
Rose Paul is with the Vermont Chapter of the Nature Conservancy:
“We need to manage the lake’s species and habitats in a more holistic
way, that would help us identify root causes of problems.”
Scientists are experimenting with other methods of controlling lamprey including nest destruction, the release of
sterilized males, and trapping. But in the short term, government resdearchers say lampricide poison is
the only cost-efficient way to prevent the parasite from destroying Lake Champlain’s fishery.
For the Environment Report, I’m Brian Mann in Burlington.
One hundred years ago, people were draining swamps and other wetlands as quickly as possible. In many places, farmers wanted the land to grow crops. But biologists and others have come to realize the value of wetlands as habitat for wildlife and as a filter to clean the water. Now, one group is opening up a swamp to the public so that more people understand why wetlands are important. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
One hundred years ago people were draining swamps and other wetlands as quickly as possible. In many places, farmers wanted the land to grow crops. But biologists and others have come to realize the value of wetlands as habitat for wildlife and as a filter to clean the water. Now, one group is opening up a swamp to the public so that more people understand why wetlands are important. Julie Grant reports:
You really get the feeling you’re in rural America on these roads. The streets signs around here, if there are any, are often painted by hand. The land is flat as a pancake, and in many low-lying areas the ground is wet. But there used to be a lot more water.
More than half of the nation’s wetlands have been drained, much of that happened in the mid 1800s. These lowlands were no exception. Biological historians say the land around here was once a swampy forest. But people chopped down the trees, they drained swamps and marshes, and they started farming this river valley in Ohio.
Randy Edwards is spokesman for the Nature Conservancy. He says draining the wetlands back then changed the way the river flowed.
“We have made an effort to restore them and bring back the natural water flow to the area. We’ve had a lot of help from the beavers.”
That’s right, he said they’ve restored wetlands with the help of the beavers.
“I’m serious. They may not know it, but the beavers are an important partner of ours in the restoration of wetlands in Ohio.”
The Nature Conservancy has been buying and preserving wetlands in the lowlands of the Grand River Valley in northeast Ohio for more than twenty years. Now, it’s opening 1000 acres of this area, called Morgan Swamp, to the public.
It’s only a short walk from the new parking lot, through the forest, and onto a wood deck that overlooks the swamp, to see what all this beaver business is about.
“So from the overlook here, you can see what was at one point, a multi-tiered set of beaver dams. There’s the one that’s right in front of us, and you can see that the dam has been here a long time. There’s lots of vegetation growing on it.
If it weren’t for these beaver dams, Edwards says this wouldn’t be a life-giving pond and wetland area; it would just be a stream running through the woods. This past spring a flood burst through part of the dam. Edwards says the Nature Conservancy was worried the whole pond would drain.
“But instead, the beavers have been working at it little by little, and have blocked it up with small saplings and mud, whatever they could find to block up the whole. There’s still water running through there, but it’s not enough to drain the pond.”
And the beavers’ work benefits the entire area. A rare type of forest has come back to life. Hemlock conifers, with their flat, delicate needles grow here, and so do many rare species of wildflowers, such as the endangered painted trillium: a small white flower with a splash of red in the center.
Jim Bissell is the director of Conservation at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. He says the swamp makes a home for spotted turtles, rare rattlesnakes, salamanders, and lots of birds. And he credits those busy beavers for creating the ponds at Morgan Swamp.
“Morgan Swamp, it was the biggest hemlock swamp in the state before it was drained, and then caught on fire, and the peats burned. But it started to recover when the beavers returned.”
Beavers disappeared because they were trapped for fur, and then their habitat was destroyed. Bissell says so much water had been drained and so many trees cut, that in the 1920s this area looked like a flat barren prairie, instead of a wetland forest.
But, people began to realize the lowlands really weren’t all that good for growing hay and other crops. Many just abandoned their farms. Within 20 years, the forests were regrowing and the beaver returned.
The Nature Conservancy normally doesn’t open its properties to the public because they’re too fragile, but Randy Edwards says the Conservancy made an exception with this swamp.
“We believe that the more you provide people with the opportunity to witness firsthand and experience firsthand the natural settings in Ohio, really especially the unusual natural settings, the more willing they’ll be to protect it.”
And instead of seeing swamps as something to be drained, Edwards hopes people will see wetlands as valuable habitat for all kinds of animals, and a necessary part of the environment that helps keep the water clean.
A male prairie chicken showing off for the hens. (Photo by Dan Gunderson)
Two prairie chicken cocks making a drumming sound as part of the dance to challenge each other and attract hens. (Photo by Dan Gunderson)
A male prairie chicken inflates the orange sacks on its neck and makes a echoing sound called booming. (Photo by Dan Gunderson)
Most of the native prairie east of the Mississippi is now farmland, but there are still a few isolated spots where remnants of prairie survive… and with them a prairie icon… the greater prairie chicken, but prairie chickens need a lot of habitat… and in places such as Illinois, Wisconsin and other states, only a few hundred birds survive. One state is having better luck, and some of its birds are being moved to help revive other prairie chicken populations. The GLRC’s Dan Gunderson reports:
Transcript
Most of the native prairie east of the Mississippi is
now farmland, but there are still a few isolated spots
where remnants of prairie survive; and with them a
prairie icon: the greater prairie chicken. But prairie
chickens need a lot of habitat, and in places such as
Illinois, Wisconsin and other states, only a few
hundred birds survive. One state is having better
luck, and some of its birds are being moved to help
revive other prairie chicken populations. The GLRC’s
Dan Gunderson reports:
The prairie chickens are ghostly shapes in the grey
predawn light of this spring morning.
(sound of prairie chickens in)
The cocks cackle as they fight off other males. They
inflate the orange sacks on their necks and make a
mournful echoing sound. Tail feathers erect they strut
about trying to impress the hens, who sit quietly
watching.
This 5,000 acre chunk of native prairie in Minnesota
has never been plowed. The prairie chickens have
always lived here. Today it’s owned by the Nature
Conservancy and known as the Bluestem Prairie.
Brian Winter manages the land. This morning he’s in a
small plywood blind counting prairie chickens on their
booming ground. About 40 males are strutting their
stuff.
“In Minnesota it’s a success story and we hope it gets
to be an even more successful success story than what it is
right now.”
Genetic diversity is one of the keys to a species
survival. In many states, prairie chickens are so
isolated the gene pool becomes weak. In Minnesota
there are flocks of prairie chickens along the western
edge of the state. Brian Winter says those flocks are
close enough to keep the gene pool from getting
stagnant.
“So there’s interbreeding as birds disperse in the fall.”
(sound of chickens tussling)
“Nice fight just took place right there. The research that’s been done looking at the genetics shows the
Minnesota population is one of the best in terms of
genetic diversity.”
Brian Winter says 20 years ago there were an
estimated 2,000 prairie chickens in Minnesota.
Today the population is approaching 10,000. The
prairie chicken is stable enough in Minnesota that
there’s been a limited hunting season the past two
years. In the past few years, several hundred
Minnesota chickens have helped rebuild populations
in North Dakota, Illinois and Wisconsin. Later this
summer, Minnesota prairie chickens will be captured
and moved by the Wisconsin Prairie Chicken Society,
in an effort to save a population declining in size and
genetic diversity.
Dave Sample with the Wisconsin DNR says the state
hopes to set aside 15,000 acres of grassland for
prairie chicken habitat in the next ten years. But he
says the birds won’t survive without a genetic infusion.
“In order to increase genetics in a compromised
population you do need to bring an infusion in from
outside. You pretty much have to go where genetics
are good and bring those birds in to mix with ours.”
Sample says there’s no guarantee the Wisconsin
prairie chicken population will survive, but he thinks
expanding the genetic pool will be a big step in the
right direction.
Earl Johnson is Regional Wildlife Manager for the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. He
says the prairie chicken success reflects a
conservation success. Johnson says the federal
Conservation Reserve Program has turned thousands
of acres of marginal farmland back into grassland.
That makes good prairie chicken habitat. Johnson
says Minnesota is very fortunate to have a healthy
prairie chicken population.
“What’s the long term future for the prairie chicken? I’d hate to guess, but we are happy to help any states
that want our assistance by transplanting birds.”
Johnson calls the prairie chicken the prairie poster
child. Hundreds of people come from across the
country every spring to sit in blinds and watch the
mating dance. Johnson says interest is growing every
year. At the Bluestem Prairie, the Nature
Conservancy blinds are full almost every day during
the spring. Brian Winter says people from every state
have traveled here to see the spring spectacle unique
to the prairie grassland.
Despite its success, the prairie chicken population is
only as stable as its habitat. Winter says the prairie
chicken may be the most visible prairie resident, but
what’s good for the prairie chicken is good for many
other species as well.
“It’s going to be meadowlarks and bobolinks and
mallard ducks and a whole variety of grassland birds
that just require grassland habitat to survive, and
without it they’re just not going to be there.”
And that’s going to require larger grassland areas.
Too much of the prairie has disappeared in many
states to support healthy numbers of prairie chickens.
That means if the prairie chicken is to survive more of
the marginal farmland, the poorer quality farmland,
needs to be returned to prairie.
Researchers have studied where a very rare bird spends the summer, but now they’re learning they might need to pay more attention to where it spends the winter. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
Researchers have studied where a very rare bird spends the summer, but
now they’re learning they might need to pay more attention to where it
spends the winter. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports:
The Kirtland’s warbler is one of the rarest songbirds in North America.
It spends the summer near the Great Lakes, mostly in Michigan, and the
winter in the Bahamas. The bird’s been on the endangered species list
since 1966. Efforts to control predators and manage habitat in
Michigan have helped the warbler recover, but scientists haven’t known
much about what the warbler needs in winter.
Dave Ewert is the director of conservation science for the Nature
Conservancy’s Great Lakes program. He says his team’s research
indicates that warblers are fattening up on fruit right before they
leave the Bahamas in the spring.
“So if we can identify these sites that produce a lot of food just
before migration, we think that may be a really important key for
conservation implementation in the Bahamas in the future.”
Ewert says the team will need a few more years of research before
recommending specific sites to preserve in the Bahamas.
Although government programs offer incentives for farmers to plant grassy buffers between farm fields and waterways, many farmers don't bother with the voluntary efforts to reduce nitrogen. A new push to reduce nitrogen runoff is in the works in an effort to reduce the size of a 'Dead Zone' in the Gulf of Mexico believed to be caused by excess nitrogen runoff from Midwest farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)
The government is looking at programs to reduce the amount of fertilizer runoff from farms that ends up in streams and rivers. It’s necessary because 41 percent of the continental U.S. drains into the Mississippi River and all that runoff is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. There, it’s causing a ‘dead zone’ where fish and other aquatic life can’t live. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The government is looking at programs to reduce the amount of fertilizer runoff from farms that
ends up in streams and rivers. It’s necessary because 41-percent of the continental U.S. drains
into the Mississippi River and all that runoff is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. There it’s
causing a ‘dead zone’ where fish and other aquatic life can’t live. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Each year about one-and-a-half million metric tons of nitrogen is dumped into the Gulf of
Mexico. Plants feed on nitrogen, so there are huge algae blooms, far more than the tiny aquatic
animals that feed on algae can eat. The algae eventually dies and begins to decompose. That process
depletes oxygen from the water. Fish and other marine life need oxygen to live. So they leave
the oxygen-depleted area or die. It’s called a ‘dead zone.’ In recent years that ‘dead zone’ in the
Gulf of Mexico has been as large as the state of New Jersey.
Don Scavia is Chief Scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Ocean Service. He says it looks as though much of that nitrogen comes from farms in
the Mississippi basin.
“The most significant change in the nitrogen load into the basin is actually coming from
agricultural application of fertilizer. That application rate has more than tripled since the 1950’s,
corresponding to almost a tripling of nitrogen loss from that system into the Gulf.”
Farms that are hundreds of miles from the Mississippi River drain into the Mississippi River
basin. The basin stretches from Montana to the southwest tip of New York. It includes all or
parts of 31 states.
Nitrogen exists naturally in the environment. But growing corn and some other crops on the
same land year after year depletes nitrogen. So farmers fertilize the land to bolster nitrogen
levels. Sometimes they use animal manure, but often they use man-made fertilizers such as
anhydrous ammonia.
David Salmonsen is with the American Farm Bureau.
“Well, for several crops, especially out into the upper parts of the Mississippi River basin, the
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, southern Minnesota, the great Corn Belt, you need nitrogen as a basic
additive and basic element to grow, to grow these crops.”
But often farmers use more nitrogen than they really need to use. It’s called an “insurance”
application. Farmers gamble that using an extra 10 to 20 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre
will pay off in better crop yields – more corn. A lot of times, that gamble doesn’t pay off because
rain washes the extra nitrogen off the field. Salmonsen says slowly farmers are moving toward
more precise nitrogen application.
“Try and get away from what, you know, for years has been a practice among some people, they
say ‘Well, we’ll do what they call insurance fertilization. We got to have the crop. It may be a
little more than what we need, but we’ll know we have enough,’ because they just didn’t have the
management tools there to get this so precisely refined down to have just the right amount of
fertilizer.”
Salmonsen says with global satellite positioning tools, computers, and better monitoring farmers
will soon just be using the nitrogen they need. But, it’s not clear that farmers will give up the
insurance applications of nitrogen even with better measurements.
The government is getting involved in the nitrogen-loading problem. A task force has been
meeting to determine ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Gulf of Mexico.
Among the strategies being considered are applying nitrogen fertilizer at lower rates, getting
farmers to switch from row crops to perennial crops so they don’t have to fertilize every year,
planting cover crops during fall and winter to absorb nitrogen, establishing artificial wetlands in drainage areas to absorb nitrogen and getting
farmers to plant buffer strips of grass between farm fields and nearby waterways to filter out nitrogen.
Tom Christiansen is with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He says while the government task
force is considering recommending some specific basin-wide reductions in nitrogen use the
USDA is only looking at the problem farm-by-farm.
“We get good conservation on the land, good water quality in the local streams and that will
benefit the Gulf. So, we’re working on a site-specific basis. We haven’t established any kind of
nation-wide goal for nutrient reduction.”
Unlike other industries, the government is reluctant to mandate pollution reduction. Instead of
regulations and fines used to enforce pollutions restrictions with manufacturing, agriculture is
most often encouraged to volunteer to clean up and offered financial incentives to do that. But in
the past farmers have complained that there wasn’t enough money in the programs. Christiansen
says the new farm bill has more money for conservation efforts and that should make it more
appealing for farmers to reduce nitrogen pollution.
“It falls back to good conservation planning, using the correct programs and then providing the
right kind of incentives and benefits to producers because they are taking land out of production
in many cases.”
The government is assuming the voluntary programs will be enough to reduce the nitrogen flow
into the Gulf of Mexico. No one expects the ‘dead zone’ will be eliminated. The best that
they’re hoping for is that it will be significantly reduced.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Although government programs offer incentives for farmers to plant grassy buffers between farm fields and waterways, many farmers don't bother with the voluntary efforts to reduce nitrogen. A new push to reduce nitrogen runoff is in the works in an effort to reduce the size of a 'Dead Zone' in the Gulf of Mexico believed to be caused by excess nitrogen runoff from Midwest farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)
A government task force is trying to find ways to reduce fertilizer pollution from Midwest farms because it’s causing environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A government task force is trying to find ways to reduce fertilizer pollution from Midwest farms
because it’s causing environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The task force is looking at ways to stop excess nitrogen from getting into waterways. It hopes to
persuade farmers to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use or plant grassy buffer strips or
artificial wetlands to take up the nitrogen. The idea is to stop so much nitrogen getting into the
Gulf of Mexico. Once there it causes an algae bloom that then dies and depletes the water of
oxygen, causing a ‘dead zone.’
Don Scavia is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean
Service. He says offering farmers money to sign up for conservation programs is likely the best
route.
“The idea is to try to make the social benefit of reducing the nitrogen load work in favor of the
farmers.”
Right now, many row crop farmers pay the cost of applying more nitrogen than needed in hopes
of getting a better crop. Experts say it’s a gamble that rarely pays off and ultimately adds to the
problem in the Gulf.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
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.
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.
A large wetland restoration project in the Midwest is expected to bring back a variety of native plants and animals. But in addition to the environmental benefits, the project is helping out an unexpected group – archeologists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Transcript
A large wetland restoration project in the Midwest is expected to bring back a variety of native
plants and animals. But in addition to the environmental benefits, the project is helping out an
unexpected group – archeologists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:
Alan Harn is standing on the top of a ridge overlooking a seven thousand-acre farm in Central
Illinois. Harn is the assistant curator of Archeology at the Dickson Mounds Museum in nearby
Lewistown. While he has surveyed just about all of the land in the region for archeological sites
over his forty-year career, he only recently was able to get into these bottomlands next to the
Illinois River:
“Even though I’ve walked over that land for most of my lifetime I was never forced to know it.
But we found 55 new archeological sites. And these sites have been found in areas that, had I not
been forced to look at them, I would have overlooked them.”
Harn says during his short window of opportunity to search the land, he found temporary
campsites of the Mississippian and Oneota Indians from about 900 to 1200 A-D. The discoveries
are part of a unique partnership between environmentalists and archeologists. The Nature
Conservancy purchased this land to convert it to a wetland. But before they bring back native
plants and animals to the region, they are letting archeologists survey the property. Larry Conrad
is director emeritus of the Western Illinois University Archeological Research Lab. He says
farming has done significant damage to many Native American sites in the Midwest:
“They were plowing a lot of the sites, particularly those in the bottoms, and this gradually
deteriorated the sites. And there was collecting by at least workmen. They used to bring axes
and spearheads off those sites without any documentation.”
Conrad says environmentalists may be the best hope archeologists have to protect important
pieces of land that have not yet been surveyed. He says conservation groups are one of the few
private property owners that do not abuse the land they own:
“Unfortunately, a lot of people view it as the property belongs to them and they can do whatever
they want, and if there are archeological resources, some people are irresponsible or destructive
toward the resources. We look forward to the Nature Conservancy as being an excellent steward
and they own a very large tract of land there now. So it’s a tract of land we don’t have to worry
about.”
Conrad says even after the survey of the land is over, any sites not found will be underneath water
and vegetation –not at risk of being plowed and damaged. The Nature Conservancy is happy
another group of people is benefiting from their plans to restore this piece of land. Doug Blodgett
is with the Nature Conservancy and is heading up the restoration effort. He says in this project,
the archeological element is a natural fit:
“The archeology is such an important issue here. It’s important to us because it fits right in with
our mission. It’s almost a part of our mission. It helps better explain and justify our mission.
The reason native Americans were here for twelve thousand years is because of the abundant
natural resources that were there in the flood plain. So it just enhances our story.”
But Blodgett says the Nature Conservancy’s mission is to create bio-diversity, and not protect
archeological sites. He says if digging for artifacts ever gets in the way of protecting plants and
animals, they will not hesitate to call off the archeologists. Alan Harn realizes that could be a
possibility. He says that’s why they will continue to survey this land while they have the chance
before the restoration begins:
“We have no idea what lies out there. I think that’s the fun thing about archeology is that every
time you answer a set of questions, it opens a door, and in that door is a room full of new
questions that you didn’t even know existed. We will be continuing the search for the record.”
Harn still has some time to continue his search. The Nature Conservancy is planning to begin its
restoration plan in earnest at the end of next year.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
