Lake Algae and Lou Gehrig’s

  • Example of cyanobacteria blooms on Bow Lake in Bow, New Hampshire (Photo courtesy New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services)

There’s a kind of blue and green scum that can bloom in lakes and ponds across the nation. This scum is called cyanobacteria. For years, scientists have known that this stuff can produce dangerous toxins. Amy Quinton reports now researchers are studying whether there’s a link between cyanobacteria and Lou Gehrig’s disease:

Transcript

There’s a kind of blue and green scum that can bloom in lakes and ponds across the nation. This scum is called cyanobacteria. For years, scientists have known that this stuff can produce dangerous toxins. Amy Quinton reports now researchers are studying whether there’s a link between cyanobacteria and Lou Gehrig’s disease:

Jody Conner reaches into his refrigerator in his lab.

“This is the cyanobacteria that we’ve collected. This one comes from Harvey Lake. See how green that sample is?”

He’s the Director of New Hampshire’s Limnology Center.

Conner has been collecting samples of cyanobacteria from lakes across New Hampshire.

It looks like green scummy algae on the surface of the water that can be several inches thick.

But it’s actually bacteria.

Conner says cyanobacteria feed on nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen that can come from runoff of lawn fertilizers or sewage.

“They need sunlight, phosphorus, and they seem to like the warmer waters. So, they really grow in mass numbers when they have all three of those.”

Jim Haney is a professor of biological sciences at the University of New Hampshire.

He says, in high enough concentrations, some cyanobacteria blooms can produce more than 70 different kind of liver toxins called microcystins.

“That scum can be toxic enough that it’s been estimated that only about 17 milliliters is enough to kill a small child. 17 milliliters is just a couple of teaspoons.”

Cyanobacteria blooms can also produce neurotoxins.

Haney, and other researchers, have embarked on research to find out if there’s a connection between cyanobacteria and patient’s with Lou Gherig’s disease – also known as ALS.

The research began when Doctor Elijah Stommel began mapping hundreds of ALS patients across New Hampshire.

Stommel is a neurologist at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center.

He noticed the incidence of ALS was 2.5 times greater than the national rate around lakes known to have had significant cyanobacteria blooms.

Stommel says he found a particularly high cluster of patients on one lake in the western part of the state.

“We were able to establish that there appeared to be about a 25 fold increase in what one would expect to see for the ALS incidence.”

But he’s not sure if cyanobacteria are the culprit.

A few scientific studies have shown a particular type of neurotoxin found in cyanobacteria is also found in patients with ALS.

The neurotoxin is known as BMAA.

But it’s not known whether BMAA can trigger ALS.

Jim Haney says more research is needed.

“We know that, in the laboratory, a wide range of different types of cyanobacteria are able to produce BMAA. So, one of our goals this summer is to determine whether there are BMAA molecules in our lakes.”

So far, researchers haven’t found BMAA, and there are still a lot of unknowns about how people could be exposed.

Do you have to drink it or can you breathe it in the air?
How long do you need to be exposed to it before it causes damage?

Again, Doctor Elijah Stommel.

“If there is a link between cyanobacteria blooms and the toxins they make, and a neurodegenerative disease like ALS, then I think we should pursue that with as much vigor as we can. And I think the neurology literature would suggest there is an environmental trigger for ALS.”

But, scientists have not yet found that link.

If they do, Stommel says that link might help find ways to prevent the dangerous toxins, or block their effects.

For The Environment Report, I’m Amy Quinton.

Related Links

Coal Ash Could Cause Cancer

  • Coal ash is sometimes used as an ingredient in concrete blocks (Photo source: Skepticsteve at Wikimedia Commons)

For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:

Transcript

For decades coal burning power plants have dumped coal ash into landfills or ponds next to the plants. Tamara Keith reports environmental groups say that’s more dangerous that previously known:

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice uses data from the US Environmental Protection Agency – including a study that had been kept quiet since 2002.

Among the findings, people who live near coal ash storage ponds that are unlined, and who get their drinking water from a well, have a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from arsenic contamination.

Lisa Evans is an attorney with Earthjustice.

“It by far presents the largest risk to human health and the environment and there’s no reason to manage the waste in this way.”

The groups are calling for these storage ponds to be phased out and cleaned up in the next 5 years.

The EPA says new regulations are coming soon.

Power companies are willing to stop using storage ponds – but don’t want the coal ash classified as toxic. That would make disposal more expensive.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

To Dam or Not to Dam

  • Residents on Boardman Pond are upset about the water level dropping after the pond was drawn down because of safety concerns at a nearby dam. Homeowners here are worried that if the dams are taken out, they'll lose their waterfront property permanently. (Photo courtesy of Jim and Joane McIntyre)

America has been a country that builds
dams. There are more than 75,000 major
dams in the US. But now, a lot of those dams
are getting old and they’re breaking down.
That means people who live near those dams have
some choices to make. Rebecca Williams has
the story of neighbors who are debating what
to do with their river:

Transcript

America has been a country that builds
dams. There are more than 75,000 major
dams in the US. But now, a lot of those dams
are getting old and they’re breaking down.
That means people who live near those dams have
some choices to make. Rebecca Williams has
the story of neighbors who are debating what
to do with their river:

We’ve built dams for good reasons – they can produce electricity and help
control floods. But a lot of the dams in the US are 50 or even a hundred years
old. In dam years, that’s really old.

“Right now we’re sittin’ on an earthen dam, which is Union Street dam.”

Sandra Sroonian lives in Traverse City, Michigan. It’s a touristy town on a
bright blue bay of Lake Michigan. The Boardman River flows into the Great
Lake and it cuts right through town. There are four old dams on the
Boardman.

The utility company that licensed those dams decided they weren’t profitable
anymore. So they gave up the licenses, and now the city and county are trying
to decide what the heck they’re gonna do with the dams.

Sroonian is an engineer who’s turned into a mediator of sorts. She’s helping
people here sort through all the options. Some of the dams could be made to
generate power again, or some of the dams could be taken out to restore the
river to a more natural state. The water would be faster and colder.

“So depending if you’re a fisherman or fisherperson you may feel it’s a benefit
to remove the dams to improve the fishing along the river.”

She says other people want a whitewater park to kayak on.

But the Boardman is a blue ribbon trout stream, it’s one of the best. Biologists
say it’d be even better without the dams.

And then, there are the people who say they have the most to lose if the dams
are taken out.

(sound at Boardman Pond)

Jim and Joane McIntyre live on Boardman Pond.

“When we bought this house 14 years ago it never entered our minds that we
wouldn’t always be on this wonderful little piece of paradise.”

McIntyre says if the dams are taken out, their pond will be drained. They’ve
actually gotten a taste of that already. Because of safety concerns at one of the
dams the water level in the pond was lowered. The McIntyre’s dock is 25 feet
above the water. They can’t even get their boat out on the water.

“We would be having this interview floating around on our electric deck boat
with an adult beverage (laughs). But we’re not able to do that. So from that
standpoint we’ve lost some of the attractiveness of living on water – it’s
beautiful but we want to use it.”

The McIntyres say they want what’s best for the river. But they also want to
keep their waterfront property. And they say it’d make more sense to produce
electricity from the river.

And that’s what this debate is boiling down to: energy versus property rights
versus the environment versus the economy.

Mike Estes is the Mayor of Traverse City. He says boosting the local economy
matters most.

“We’re trying to increase tourism here. Traverse City is already a destination
spot for people to visit – they visit because of our golden sand beaches and the
bay. Adding the river to it is simply going to add to that mix.”

This dam debate has lasted more than three years – there’ve been lots of studies
and dozens of public meetings. Some people here joke they won’t be alive by
the time the whole thing gets resolved.

But a decision on this Michigan river is expected by the end of the year. Most
people think it’ll be a compromise – maybe keep some of the old dams, take
some out.

A lot of towns close to rivers all across the nation will be having these same
debates.

And you can bet that not everyone’s going to be happy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Green Fuel From Green Slime

  • Roger Ruan directs the Center for BioRefining at the University of Minnesota. He's experimenting with algae that grow quickly in the nutrients in wastewater. He says the oil-rich algae are a potential source of biodiesel. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

When people talk about bio-fuels,
they usually mean ethanol from corn or diesel
fuel from soybeans. But there are lots of
possibilities. One of them is algae. Algae
contains a lot of oil. The US Department of
Energy experimented with algae for nearly
twenty years after the oil crisis of the 1970s.
But with fuel prices so high, scientists around
the world are looking at algae again. Stephanie
Hemphill reports one researcher thinks
he’s figured out how to grow lots of algae, fast:

Transcript

When people talk about bio-fuels,
they usually mean ethanol from corn or diesel
fuel from soybeans. But there are lots of
possibilities. One of them is algae. Algae
contains a lot of oil. The US Department of
Energy experimented with algae for nearly
twenty years after the oil crisis of the 1970s.
But with fuel prices so high, scientists around
the world are looking at algae again. Stephanie
Hemphill reports one researcher thinks
he’s figured out how to grow lots of algae, fast:

Roger Ruan has been trying for years to figure out how to turn algae into diesel,
economically. He’s the director of the Center for BioRefining at the University of
Minnesota.

Ruan says there’s no question it can be done; some people are already producing algae
oil. They’re growing it in open ponds. It’s used for pharmaceuticals, food supplements,
and cosmetics.

“Right now, based on an open pond system, per acre per year, you can easily get 5,000
gallons of oil, and soybean would probably give you 50. That’s 100 times difference.”

So algae can be far more efficient at producing diesel fuel than soybeans. But how do
you grow enough algae to make a dent in the nation’s energy demand?

Ruan is turning to an unlikely partner: the local sewage treatment plant.

“Wastewater has lot of nutrients: phosphorus, nitrogen, are all available in wastewater,
and actually you spend lot of money to remove these from wastewater, so if we can kill
two birds with one stone, that would be the best, and that’s what we’re hoping to do.”

(sound of treatment plant)

St. Paul, Minnesota’s sewage treatment plant sits on the bank of the Mississippi River.
The basement of the building where the solids are separated from the liquids is a
brightly lit space. It’s filled with big steel pipes and valves and tanks.

Off to one side, Ruan’s team is setting up a rack of aquariums – the future home of juicy
green algae. When everything is ready, some of the partially-treated waste will be
diverted into the tanks, where it will feed the algae.

The waste is still full of stuff that’s bad for the river, but good for algae.

“It’s got a fair amount of phosphorus, and some ammonia nitrogen that the algae are
going to need.”

Bob Polta is manager of research and development at the treatment plant.

It’s easy to see why he likes this idea: every day the facility has to remove 4 tons of
phosphorus and more than 16 tons of nitrogen from the waste stream.

The algae experiment, if it works, will allow them to do some of that removal in a more
cost-effective way. And this could be the answer to Roger Ruan’s problem of trying to
create enough algae to make enough oil to compete with petroleum diesel.

Polta says there’s a big potential, both for cleaning wastewater and for producing
energy in the same place.

“All the wastewater treatment ponds in the small communities around the state are
essentially using algae to treat wastewater; it’s just that they’re not being harvested. It’s
just that we’re getting two goals together here, and two research groups, one is essentially taking algae and
harvesting the oil and making biodiesel, and the other is using algae as a treatment
scheme, and to see if we can make this thing really fit.”

Polta expects by the end of the year he’ll know more about whether this is a practical
idea.

Roger Ruan says within six-to-ten years someone, somewhere, will be producing diesel
from algae on a commercial scale.

For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

New Wetland Replacement Regs

  • Wetlands in Michigan. (Photo by David Kenyon of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources)

Environmentalists say they don’t like a new
federal rule for replacing wetlands that lie in the
path of a developer’s bulldozer. But federal agencies
say the rule clarifies what developers must do to keep
damage to wetlands at a minimum. Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

Environmentalists say they don’t like a new
federal rule for replacing wetlands that lie in the
path of a developer’s bulldozer. But federal agencies
say the rule clarifies what developers must do to keep
damage to wetlands at a minimum. Tracy Samilton reports:

Developers must try to build around wetlands, but if they can’t,
they can build new wetlands somewhere else.

Federal agencies say the new rule helps clarify what developers must do to
make sure the nation doesn’t lose more of its wetlands.

Jim Murphy is with
the National Wildlife Federation. He doesn’t like the rule.

“If you’re losing a high quality marsh or fen and getting a
golf pond even if you’re counting up acreage, and you’re getting more acreage,
you’re getting a much less valuable resource in return.”

Murphy says some studies show that up to 80% of these man-made
wetlands eventually fail. The new rule also allows developers to create a
new stream if they have to destroy one.

Murphy says there’s very little
evidence that a stream can ever be replaced.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Watching Artificial Wetlands

  • Natural wetlands that are developed are supposed to be replaced by man-made wetlands somewhere else. (Photo by Lester Graham)

More than half of U.S. wetlands have been drained for
development, farmland, and other purposes. That’s 100
million acres now dried up. The Bush administration has
continued “no net loss” policy of any more wetlands.
So, when someone wants to drain a marsh or a swamp for,
say, a new housing development, they’ve got to build a man-
made wetland to replace it. But a new study is finding that
most of those man-made wetlands aren’t doing very well.
Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

More than half of U.S. wetlands have been drained for
development, farmland, and other purposes. That’s 100
million acres now dried up. The Bush Administration has
continued a “no net loss” policy of any more wetlands.
So, when someone wants to drain a marsh or a swamp for,
say, a new housing development, they’ve got to build a man-
made wetland to replace it. But a new study is finding that
most of those man-made wetlands aren’t doing very well.
Julie Grant reports:


(Sound of truck stop)


These 18-wheelers are lined up on a huge black parking lot
behind a truck stop off Interstate 80. Looking at it, this
wouldn’t seem like the ideal place to create a wildlife area.


But wetland ecologist Mick Micacchion has chosen this place
to show that man-made wetlands can be successful.
At the edge of the parking lot, we walk down into some
brush. The ground is mostly even, there’s no big ditches… just
some gentle slopes. The weather’s been dry the past few
weeks. But water starts seeping into my shoes:


(Mike:) “You getting wet?”


It might be bad for our shoes, but saturated soil is a good
sign for a wetland, and so are a lot of the plants we’re seeing.


As we walk, Micacchion stops at plant after plant…
Impatients, monkey flower, and lots of grass-like plants called
sedges. These all grow in wet soil:


“So even in sedge community, we’re seeing some diversity.
Which is unusal in a wetland that’s only been constructed for
a few years. But it tells you some good things are going on
here.”



Checking out what’s going on at wetlands like this one is a
new job for Micacchion. He works for the state government.
Federal officials used to take authority over wetlands as part
of the Clean Water Act. But a U.S. Supreme Court decision
six years ago took away some of that federal authority, and
left responsibility for these kinds of isolated wetlands up to
states.


That’s why Micacchion is studying man-made wetlands for
the Ohio EPA: to assess how well the state program is
working.



Wetlands that work are not only good for wildlife…they
provide a holding area for water when there’s heavy rain.
That helps prevent flooding. It also gives polluted sediments
time to drop out of the water, so it’s filtered, which means
it’s cleaner by the time it drains into streams, rivers and
lakes.


But this story of a successful man-made wetland is the
exception. A study Micacchion’s is conducting is finding that most are in fair
or poor condition.


The loss of functioning wetlands can lead to more flooding
and polluted waterways.


Micacchion says when developers drain natural wetlands,
they often don’t understand how to build artificial wetlands to
replace those original systems.


Our next stop is a good example of that. We pull into a parking lot just behind a busy street
of car dealerships. One company drained a wetland back
here to build an access road. And to replace it, they built a
pond.


Tom Wysocki walks out of the car dealership to see what
we’re up to out on his property:


“Is there someone in your office, who I mean, is this your
Beliwick in the office?”


“It would come to my desk.”


“You’re the wetlands expert at Klaben Ford.”


“I’m the expert on everything.”


Originally, this site might’ve correctly designed for a wetland. But
Wysocki decided it didn’t look right to him because it wasn’t
holding water. So he had it dug again to make a pond.


He and the actual wetlands expert definitely have a different
idea about what a successful wetland looks like. Micacchion
says a pond isn’t a wetland:


“Usually with natural wetland systems, the slopes
are very gentle. And you have to walk out maybe 15-20 feet
before you get a foot deep of water. Here, you could step in
and maybe immediately be in a foot to two feet of water. And then, the deep
water it becomes difficult for certain plants to grow.”



The area is dominated by a couple of kinds of plants. But
Micacchion says they’re both invasives. And they’re
crowding out the native wetland plants. Native plants would
provide habitat for wildlife:


“This is all reed canary grass. The biggest problem with it, it
comes in, and you can see it gets very thick. It’s pretty much
only species you see growing with just a few other things you see
poking their heads up here and there. This eliminates some
of diversity we might see otherwise.”


Micacchion says his study is finding that this is pretty typical.
Even if a developer starts out with right kind of plan,
somebody can make an arbitrary decision that defeats the
original purpose. But Micacchion says it doesn’t have to be
that way. Man-made wetlands can work if they’re designed
by ecologists and engineers who understand the details of
what makes natural wetlands so useful.


His office is creating wetlands guidelines. They want
developers to understand the natural wetlands they’re destroying and what they need to do to replace them.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Defining Protected Wetlands Gets Mucky

Developers are feeling encouraged by last month’s US Supreme
Court ruling on wetlands. The High Court was deciding on which wetlands deserve protection under the Clean Water Act. Some say it’s more likely
they’ll get their building permits now. Defenders of the Clean Water Act
think those high hopes are premature. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton takes
us to the wetland where the fight began:

Transcript

Developers are feeling encouraged by last month’s U.S. Supreme Court
ruling on which wetlands deserve protection from development under the
Clean Water Act. Some say it’s more likely they’ll get their building
permits now. Defenders of the Clean Water Act think those high hopes are
premature. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton takes us to the wetland where the
fight began.


Wetlands are supposed to be wet, right? Certainly wetter than this mucky little forest in
a township in Southeast Michigan, surrounded by subdivisions and strip malls. Tim Stoepker
leads the way through battalions of attacking mosquitoes. He points at a big puddle:


“Basically, you have a forested wetland here, with no diversity of plant life because you have
such a thick canopy of trees and you don’t typically have all your wetland,
typical wetland plants on the interior here because of that and because there’s no standing
water, you don’t have any of your aquatic species.”


Stoepker’s business suit trousers are getting streaked with mud but he keeps going. Next stop
is a drainage ditch at the edge of the property. It’s pretty dry:


“Now, if we were to come out here in August or July, I mean, that ditch would even be, there
would be nothing in that ditch.”


Stoepker has represented landowner Keith Carabell since the mid-1980s. Carabell was denied a permit
to build senior condos on his property. He appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stoker thinks if the nine Supreme Court Justices had seen this ditch in person, last month’s
wetlands decision would have been different. A majority would have ruled that the test for
Clean Water Act protection is permanent surface water flowing into a navigable water. Even so,
he’s optimistic. Five Justices reaffirmed that the Clean Water Act pertains only to wetlands
with a “significant nexus,” or connection, to navigable waters. He says that’s not the case
here:


“It’s hydrologically isolated from receiving and sending waters.”


But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sees it differently. The Corps is the agency that decides
if a wetland falls under the Clean Water Act. If so, it then issues or denies building permits.
The Corps told field officers not to talk to reporters about this or any case pending guidance
from headquarters. But a source familiar with Corps regulations says water from this wetland
does flow into the ditch. From there, it empties into a drain, which dumps into a stream and
then leads to Lake St. Clair a mile away, one of the most polluted bodies of water in the Great
Lakes region. The source says the wetland also connects to the drain on another side of the
property, and it will meet the significant nexus test when the case goes back to the lower
court.


Environmentalists like Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation hope that’s true.
Murphy says small wetlands like this one need to be protected, despite their lack of surface
water and showy aquatic species:


“I think we make a mistake when we just feel that the only thing we need to protect are
charismatic wetlands, for a number of reasons. For one, even wetlands that don’t necessarily look that pretty
that pretty are oftentimes performing enormous functions, whether it be habitat, flood control,
water filtration….”


All functions that Army Corps of Engineers mentioned when it denied a permit in this case.
Murphy says the looming question now is, how will the agency react to the ruling? If they pull
back, he thinks we will lose wetlands at a much quicker pace. Or the Corps could interpret
the ruling as broadly as possible:


“We feel that if the Corps is willing to stand firm and be aggressive, that they can still
maintain protection for a good number of waters.”


Murphy thinks even at best, the Supreme Court ruling will encourage even more developers like
Keith Carabell to challenge permit denials in court. That may be true, but Tom Stoepker, the
attorney for Keith Caraball, says all that most developers want are more thoughtful decisions
from the Corps, and they want the Corps to back off from places it ought not to be. He says
that includes this wetland where anyone can see the water in it isn’t going anywhere.


For the GLRC, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Artist Teaches Kids Environmental Awareness

  • Gijsbert van Frankenhuysen helps kids not only appreciate art, but nature as well. (Photo by Chris McCarus)

A children’s book illustrator is taking his art to schools around the region. Through his illustrations, he’s teaching students about respecting the environment. But they also get excited about learning in general. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus reports:

Transcript

A children’s book illustrator is taking his art to schools
around the region. Through his illustrations, he’s teaching students
about respecting the environment. But they also get excited about
learning in general. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus
reports:


30 children are sitting on the floor with sketch pads in their elementary school classroom. They’re watching artist Gijsbert van Frankenhuysen. He’s standing at an easel, drawing animal shapes.


(Sound of magic marker)


“So we’re gonna make an oval shape right here, with 2 ears on it. And then you can color it black and you give him 4 short black legs. Make sure you make em black. That’s what they have. Look at that. One sheep.”


The children look up at the easel, then back down at their sketch pads, then up at the easel again. They’re comparing drawings to see whose come closest to the artist’s drawing, and they want Van Frankenhuysen to show them how to add body parts to the sheep.


“What do you want me to show?”


“Tails!”


“Hooves!”


Van Frankenhuysen has spent the whole day at this school.


(Sound of applause)


He gets this kind of response everywhere he goes, and he visits about a hundred schools a year. This student, Emily has just seen, step by step, how the artist turned blank pages into the beginnings of a book. He’s already illustrated childrens favorites like Adopted by an Owl, the Legend of Sleeping Bear and 16 other books.


Child: “I learned about aminals.”


McCarus: “What about them?”


Child: “That they’re cool to make.”


McCarus: “Do you ever see any of the animals out in nature outside?”


Child: “I see horses and cows and owls at night. And I hear ’em by my house.”


(Sound of sheep)


Back at his home on a farm in central Michigan, Van Frankenhuysen’s wife Robin walks through the barnyard past the sheep and horse the artist uses for painting. She roams the property trying to call him in to the house for dinner.


(Sound of whistling)


But he doesn’t hear her. Since they bought this farm 25 years ago they planted thousands of trees and made 3 ponds. There are lots of places to hide. But it’s not like the couple is trying to get away from people and be alone in nature. They’re happy putting them into one big mix.


It wasn’t until a couple days later that we finally caught up with van Frankenhuysen. He doesn’t miss the chance to show kids the wonders of nature. He says learning about it can make classroom lessons easy.


“I have boys, young boys, that normally don’t do any journaling, because they thing it’s for girls. And then they see what I do. And I write down the stuff that happens on the land. If I find a birdnest, I make a drawing of it, I put it in my book, I write it in. A deer, a fox, anything that I see. And now those stories are kind of turning in to books that we sell. And I’ve had several kids that now they’re doing it. And I don’t know if in the back of their mind, they’re thinking maybe I can make a book out of this when I grow up. It doesn’t matter! They’re paying attention. They’re writing this stuff down. I think it’s all good stuff.”


Many states are cutting education budgets. Often art is the first program to go. But state education association spokeswoman Margaret Trimer-Hartley says parents demand art. Learning it creates interest in science, literature and even math. She says van Frankenhuysen makes children better students overall. He supplements what regular teachers might not be able to provide.


“His work has given all of us an appreciation for nature and the flora and the fauna around us. Now his lessons can give us all a greater appreciation for the issues of conservation and protection of that environment.”


The warm, playful illustrations in his books touch both children and parents. In person, van Frankenhuysen is just as disarming. He’s modest when he explains why he goes into classrooms to teach kids to draw year after year.


“It’s the only thing I know how to do. I don’t know anything else. It’s painting. It’s fun.”


It really isn’t the only thing he knows how to do. His drawings are just the beginning. The trick he’s mastered is to get kids to start thinking about themselves and their environment.


For the GLRC, I’m Chris McCarus.

Room for Wilderness in the Suburbs?

  • Lilies like these reside in the Reinstein Nature Preserve. Environmentalists worry about natural life in the preserve as the state of New York considers opening it up without restrictions.

Imagine a suburban, backyard wilderness where 200 year-old trees still stand. That’s exactly what you’ll find at the 300 acre Reinstein Nature Preserve. It meanders right through the heart of a bustling suburb. The preserve has been limited to small groups led by a nature guide. But there’s a new plan to give unrestricted access. Some environmentalists worry that would ruin the preserve. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Joyce Kryszak takes us to the woods – and to the debate:

Transcript

Imagine a suburban, backyard wilderness where 200 year-old trees still stand.
That’s exactly what you’ll find at the 300 acre Reinstein Nature preserve.
It meanders right through the heart of a bustling suburb. The preserve has been limited
to small groups led by a nature guide. But there’s a new plan to give unrestricted access.
Some environmentalists worry that would ruin the preserve. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Joyce Kryszak takes us to the woods – and to the debate:


A Great Blue Heron perches lazily in the distance above an expanse of pink water lilies.
At first Bob Reinstein doesn’t see the bird.


“I should’ve brought my field glasses.”


But then its giant wings spread wide, laboring to clear the water in this serene Monet-like setting.


“The lilies were a gift from two different environmental organizations…”


The man and the majestic heron both seem oblivious to the rush of cars and people just
beyond the edge of the woods. This is the Reinstein Nature Preserve. It’s framed on all sides
by a sprawling suburb of houses and shopping plazas in Western New York. Like his parents before
him, Bob Reinstein says he’s risked his life for nearly sixty years defending this scene; he guards it against trespassers – and sometimes trespassers with guns.


“Their lives were threatened several times, in fact, mine was also. I was unarmed at the time,
but he had pointed his shotgun at me and threatened to shoot. Realizing it was pointing at my face,
I stopped following him.”


But Reinstein never stopped trying to protect the nature preserve his father created half a century ago.
By the time he died in 1984, the elder Reinstein had dug nine ponds, planted thousands of trees,
rare ferns and flowers to compliment the ancient scene. The younger Reinstein says it’s like a
living museum.


“Where else can schoolchildren walk back through history a hundred and fifty years and see
samples of what existed then, that are still here today?”


Reinstein says his father bequeathed the preserve to the state to keep it from being trampled.
He stipulated that it must stay forever wild. People could visit, but only for educational
purposes. And only with a trained nature guide. That could all be changing. A proposal by the
State Department of Environmental Conservation would give the public unrestricted access.


Jane Wiercioch lives in the nearby suburb and loves visiting her backyard wilderness. But today
Weirchioch is handing out petitions here. She hopes to stop the DEC from opening the preserve. She
says it would leave the woods vulnerable.


“I know I came in here the other day for a walk around that lily loop with my great granddaughters
and, of course, they were chasing frogs. So, I’m with them, I’m yelling at them, ‘don’t do anything.’ But can you imagine having people just coming in here and doing what they want?”


State conservation officials say bringing in more people is the whole point. Meaghan Boice-Green
is a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. She says all
other department-run properties are open to the public. Boice-Green says unrestricted access would be good for both the public and for the agency.


“We’re not talking about property that hasn’t touched by the hand of man, and in order for us
to obtain the funding to do the habitat maintenance that’s going to be necessary to maintain
this manmade habitat, we have to provide some public access. We’re not going to be able to
access funds to support a property that the public isn’t allowed to access.”


But the state has never had any trouble finding money to maintain the preserve before.
And Boice-Green couldn’t offer specifics about any extra funding.


Terry Boyle has volunteered as a guide at the preserve for eight years. But he agrees the
preserve should be unrestricted. Boyle says visitors can’t have a truly natural experience
if someone’s watching their every move.


“A lot of those people who do want to come in, they want to take photographs, they want to sit
down and reflect for a little bit about what they’re looking at, and that kind of stuff. So,
they can’t go at their own leisurely pace with tour guides, because we have to push them through a little bit
faster.”


But the head of a local environmental group sees it differently. Larry Watson says if the
preserve is opened, there won’t be anything left to look at anyway. He believes the state is
just tired of policing the woods. But Watson says it was Dr. Reinstein’s wish that the
preserve be kept wild. And he should know. As a young boy sixty years ago, Watson spent many
long hours in the woods, helping Reinstein plant the saplings that now tower overhead.


“If they turn this into what they want to, it will be nothing more than a state park.
And we’d rather see it kept as an individual showpiece and a place New York state can be quite
proud of and show the rest of the country what can be done in the way of environmental
conservation.”


The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation says it hasn’t made a final
decision. It will consider the wishes of those who want access to the preserve to remain
restricted. But many people are also demanding it be opened. Ultimately, the state says
it will likely let people come to the preserve whenever they want – and trust them
to be good caretakers.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Joyce Kryszak.

Related Links

New Life for Discarded Christmas Trees

  • Some municipalities have conservation uses for old Christmas trees. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Depending on how your Christmas went, your tree might have been out on the curb the day after the holiday. Or you might be getting around to taking it down now. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Melissa Ingells found that the trees play a useful role even after the decorations are gone:

Transcript

Depending on how your Christmas went, your tree may have
been out on the curb the day after the holiday. Or you may just
be getting around to taking it down now. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Melissa Ingells found that the trees play a
useful role even after the decorations are gone:


Landfills usually don’t accept Christmas trees, so cities and
community groups do their best to recycle them. Most people
take advantage of the service. Over 75-percent nationwide,
says Mel Koelling. He’s a Professor in the Department of
Forestry at Michigan State University. Koelling says the bulk
of the trees are processed into mulch.


“Mulch can go into parks for footpaths, into bicycle trails,
underneath swing sets and other playground equipment. Some
locations have homeowner policies where you bring home your tree and you
can take home a bag of mulch to put under your rose bushes or somewhere else.”


Koelling says some people use the trees for brush piles to
shelter wildlife. And anglers’ groups sometimes sink the trees
into lakes, where they provide a spawning area for fish. So,
that tree that graced your home last month could be improving
your garden, playground, or fishing spot in the months to come.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Melissa Ingells.