Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations 3031284380, 9783031284380

Table of contents :
Preface: The Politics of Cleaning Our Rivers, Watersheds, and Bays
Our Age of Environmental Reaction
The Roles of Local Environmental Organizations
The Motivation for This Book
Poking About the Poisons
Contents
About the Author
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Habitat Restoration: An Introduction
1 Introduction: Restoring Habitats
2 Habitats and Species
2.1 Silent Spring and Its Noisy Opponents
2.2 Impacts of Silent Spring
3 Species Endangerment, Proliferation, and Habitat Preservation
4 Of Rivers and Their Restorations
4.1 My Personal Observations of River Restorations
4.2 Charismatic Leadership in Restoration
4.3 The Willamette River
4.4 Willamette River Superfund Sites
4.5 Some Other Restorations Along the Willamette
4.6 Some Characteristics of the Willamette Restoration
5 The Great Lakes and Their Restorations
5.1 The Binational “Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement”
6 Lake-Wide Ecosystem Management Plans
7 The Great Lakes Restoration and Robust Extensions
8 The Organization of Latter Chapters
References
2 A Reasoned Process for Restorations
1 Introduction
1.1 Our Moral Process of Environmental Restoration
2 Environmental Duty and Restorations
3 Some Maxims for Reasoned Environmental Discourse
4 The Nature of Reasoned Environmental Discourse
4.1 The Attempted Disseminations of Information and the Obfuscations to Be Avoided
4.2 Fairness or Obfuscations
5 Considered Moral Environmental Judgments
6 Collective Imperfect Duty
6.1 Considerations of “Fair and Reasoned”
6.2 The Collective Imperfect Duties of Restoration Efforts
7 The EPA as Political Institution
7.1 The Advent of the EPA
7.2 The Control of Toxic Chemical Manufacturing and Sale
7.3 The “Superfund” or National Priorities List
7.4 States’ Rights and State Pollution Responsibilities
7.5 Hydraulic Fracturing and Emissions Control
8 A Reasoned Process for Great Lakes Restoration
References
3 Restoring Areas of Concern
1 The Binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Restoration of the Great Lakes
2 The Detroit Area’s AOCs
2.1 The Detroit River AOC
2.1.1 Sugar Island Restoration
2.1.2 Lake Okonoka
2.1.3 Celeron Island
2.1.4 The Detroit Riverwalk
2.1.5 The Black Lagoon
2.2 The FDR as a Critical Element
2.3 Other Essential Restoration Issues
2.4 The “Beneficial Use Impairments”
3 River Rouge AOC
4 Saint Clair River AOC
5 Clinton River AOC
6 Some Lessons from the Detroit Area AOCs
Appendix: “Lee” Botts
References
4 The St. Louis River Area of Concern
1 Introduction: The Twin-Port Cities
2 The St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC)
3 Remedial Action Plans
4 Public Engagement
5 The St. Louis River’s Superfund Sites
6 Conclusion
References
5 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin’s Areas of Concern
1 Introduction: Another “Twin Cities”
1.1 This AOC’s Sources of Impairment
1.2 Environmental Leadership for the Lower Menominee River
2 Introduction to the Milwaukee Estuary AOC
2.1 Milwaukee Estuary AOC
2.2 EPA’s Milwaukee Cleanups Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
2.3 The AOC’s Restorations
2.4 Environmental Leadership for the Milwaukee Estuary
3 Introduction to the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC
3.1 Sediments, Impairments, and Restorations
3.2 An Activist Community Advising Committee
3.3 Remediations
4 Introduction to the Sheboygan River AOC
4.1 Restorations
4.2 Advisory Committees
5 Conclusion Concerning the WDNR and Its Activist Leadership
References
6 The “Most Polluted River”: The Grand Calumet
1 Introduction to the Grand Calumet and Its History
2 Citizen Advisors
3 EPA Directed Cleanups
4 The “Grand Cal” and the Politics of EPA Cleanups
4.1 The Pesticide Site of Calumet City
4.2 USS Lead in East Chicago, Indiana
4.3 US Steel’s Gary Works
5 The Politics of Restoring the Severely Degraded and Economically Depressed
References
7 Restoration Sites in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula: Saginaw and Muskegon
1 Introduction: Michigan’s Coastal AOCs
2 Saginaw River and Bay
2.1 The Partnership
3 Muskegon Lake
3.1 Muskegon Lake’s RAP
3.2 The Ecosystem Action Plan and Commercial Interests
4 Conclusion
References
8 Ohio’s Areas of Concern and Citizen Involvement
1 Introduction to Ohio’s AOCs
2 The Ashtabula River AOC
2.1 Fields Brook Superfund Site
2.2 Other Ashtabula River Restoration Projects
2.3 Removal of Ashtabula’s BUIs
2.4 Post Delisting Monitoring
3 Ohio’s Paths to Delisting
4 Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River AOC
4.1 The Cuyahoga AOC
5 Toledo and the Maumee River AOC
5.1 Maumee River AOC
5.2 Restorations Within the AOC
5.3 Representative Management for the Maumee AOC
6 The Black River of Lorain, Ohio
6.1 The Black River AOC
6.2 Additional Restoration Projects for Black River AOC
6.3 Removal of BUIs
6.4 The Public’s Input to the Restoration Effort
7 The Politics of Delisting in Ohio
Appendix
References
9 Some Other Important Areas of Concern and Their Analyses
1 Introduction: Four Northeastern AOCs and Their Contributions
2 Erie Pennsylvania and its Presque Isle AOC
2.1 The Presque Isle Bay AOC and Its Restoration Projects
2.2 Delisting BUIs: Fish Tumors, Control Sites, and Statistical Analysis
2.3 Other BUIs
2.4 The Role of the Public Advisory Committee in the Presque Isle AOC’s Management
3 The Buffalo River and Its AOC
3.1 Buffalo River AOC
3.2 Restorations in the AOC
4 The Niagara River AOC
4.1 Reducing Toxic Contaminations in the Niagara River
4.2 Niagara River’s BUIs
4.3 Delisting BUIs: Fish Tumors, Control Sites, and Statistical Analysis
5 Toronto and Its Area of Concern
5.1 Toronto’s AOC
5.2 Land Use in the AOC
5.3 The Aquatic Health of the AOC
6 Analyzing the Four AOCs
10 Some New England Rivers and Their Advocacy Organizations
1 Introduction to Three New England Restorations
2 The Mystic River and Its Old and Active Advocacy Organization
2.1 The Mystic River Watershed Association
2.2 The Water Quality of the Mystic River
2.3 The Greenways of the Mystic Watershed
3 The Penobscot River and Its Restoration
3.1 The Dams of the Penobscot
3.2 Penobscot Nation’s Involvement in the Restoration
3.3 The Penobscot is Now Restored?
4 The Housatonic River Watershed and Its Advocacy
4.1 The Housatonic’s PCB Problem
4.2 The Housatonic as a “Wild and Scenic River”
4.3 The Four Segments of the Housatonic
4.4 The “Wild and Scenic” Management Plan
4.5 Some Non-Governmental Programs and Partners
4.6 Conclusion Concerning Restoration of the Housatonic River
5 Conclusion Concerning Three New England Restorations
Reference
11 Conclusion: Some Lessons from Local Restorations
1 Introduction
2 Lessons from the Areas of Concern Program: Wisconsin’s Leadership
2.1 The Menominee AOC
2.2 The Milwaukee Estuary AOC
2.3 The Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC
2.4 The Sheboygan River AOC
2.5 The WDNR and Its Activist Leadership
3 Some Lessons from Ohio’s AOCs
3.1 Ohio’s Paths to Delisting and Boundary Problems
4 Michigan’s Two Coastal AOCs
4.1 Saginaw River and Bay
4.2 Muskegon Lake AOC
4.3 Leadership in Michigan’s AOCs
5 Significant Lessons from the St. Louis River AOC
5.1 Restorations of the Habitats of Locally Endangered Species
5.2 Public Engagement
5.3 Relevance of the St. Louis River Restoration
6 The Essential Organizations
7 A Final Restoration Examination: The Hudson River Estuary
8 The Envisioning Problem
Reference
Appendix A: Invasive Aquatic Species
Introduction
Zebra Mussels
The Quagga Mussel
The Round Goby
Asian Carp
Eurasian Ruffe
Alewife
Sea Lamprey
Spiny Water Flea
Invasive Species and the Future of the Great Lakes
Appendix B: Invasive Vegetation
Introduction
Purple Loosestrife
Phragmites Australis
Reed Canary Grass
Common Frogbit
Common Cattail
Curly Pondweed
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Appendix C: Toxic Contaminants
Introduction to the Toxic Contaminants Found at the Restorations Reviewed
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Their Sources and Effects
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Their Sources and Effects
Mercury Poisoning
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Dioxins
Arsenic
Index

Citation preview

ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS AND THEORY

Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations

Richard M. Robinson

Environmental Politics and Theory

Series Editors Joel Jay Kassiola, Department of Political Science, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA Anthony Burke, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, UNSW, Canberra, Australia

The premise of this series is that the current environmental crisis cannot be solved by technological innovation alone. The environmental challenges we face today are, at their root, political crises involving political values, institutions and struggles for power. Therefore, environmental politics and theory are of the utmost social significance. Growing public consciousness of the environmental crisis and its human and more-than-human impacts, exemplified by the worldwide urgency and political activity associated with the problem and consequences of climate and earth system change make it imperative to design and achieve a sustainable and socially just society. The series publishes inter- and multi-disciplinary scholarship that extends the theoretical dimensions of green political theory, international relations, philosophy, and earth system governance. It addresses the need for social change away from the hegemonic consumer capitalist society to realize environmental sustainability and social justice.

Richard M. Robinson

Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations

Richard M. Robinson Business Administration SUNY Fredonia North East, PA, USA

ISSN 2731-670X ISSN 2731-6718 (electronic) Environmental Politics and Theory ISBN 978-3-031-28438-0 ISBN 978-3-031-28439-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Evandro Maroni/Stockimo/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to Dr. MaryAnn Robinson and The Nature Conservancy, an organization of leadership in local restorations.

Preface: The Politics of Cleaning Our Rivers, Watersheds, and Bays

Our Age of Environmental Reaction In North America, we are now fully in an era of environmental reaction, one of cleaning up our legacy of more than a century of industrial pollution. In the upper mid-west and northeast sections of North America, local environmental restorations largely involve cleanups of the remnants of these old and abandoned industries. These include our rust-belt brownfields, the derelict abandoned industrial buildings, the dumps of toxic wastes and their associated severe contaminations of our rivers, watersheds, and bays. But these restorations also require the interruption of our current generators of industrial pollution and also the disruption and prevention of our point and non-point sources of agricultural and suburban-urban toxic runoffs still flowing into our public waters, e.g. road chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, oils, plastics, and the like. In other sections of North America, the environmentally destructive pollutions are not typically from the era of rusting and abandoned industry, but are from current industrial productions, such as the metal foundries located along the Grand Calumet River south of Chicago, or the textile mills along Georgia’s Chattahoochee River. Counteracting these currently generated pollutions involves political challenges that are not present in restoring the poisonous remnants of abandoned industry, but eventually these currently generated problems will necessitate their

vii

viii

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

own remedies. Lessons now learned from our brownfield cleanups indicate why our current pollution generators must be regulated and stopped. These cleanups are expensive; they require marshalling scientific expertise. They also require that our environmental advocacy efforts counteract political resistance. Our political environmental emotions that once lurked below the surface are now erupting. The politics of cleanup now engulf us and act through our local environmental NGOs and governmental advocacy organizations. The totalities of our political emotions are likely to favor environmental concerns. Perhaps during this age of global climate change, it might appear that local restorations should be of secondary importance. But this notion is contradicted by the emotions and involvements of our local citizen organizations who are ignited by the environmental causes of their locales, and who are devoted to “their” rivers, watersheds and bays. A national-level observer must now wonder if every waterbody in North America doesn’t have a citizen advocacy organization that is devoted to its protection, one that lobbies local governments and organizes cleanup efforts. These organizations investigate the sources of their waterbody’s pollution; they ponder how to stop those negative externalities. Our local waterbodies are immediately close by, and we know they affect our lives. We are outraged by their cavalier destruction by those who just don’t pay attention to their adverse actions, or even worse, by those who profit from that destruction. Perhaps global climate change should be the top issue in all our minds, but that poses a more remote problem compared to the degradation of the immediate waterbodies that we interact with, that we grew up with, that we have fond memories of experiencing. For this reason, our local advocacy groups “will be heard from!” They manifest the emotional energy of the environmental movement. My childhood occurred twenty miles north of Boston. My family gatherings were mostly at the rivers, bays and beaches of northeastern Massachusetts and immediate areas. We considered these public waters our family assets, not to the exclusion of other people, but just the opposite. It was along those sites that we and our friends gathered, but all were welcomed and invited. We recommended these public assets to others. When some of these assets were managed poorly by our “responsible” regional government agencies, that is by the organizations who were created explicitly for their protection, we and our blue-collar society could not be more outraged. Our political force was properly directed, and the required changes occurred. The political message was also clear. We

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

ix

might not enjoy the so-called “outstanding cultural assets” of “Symphony Hall,” or the outstanding “Museum of Fine Arts,” but we did enjoy our family and friends fishing for “stripers” on the Merrimack. We organized clam bakes at Wingaersheek or Nahant Beach, and we watched the “young ones” catch their first bluegills at Lake Quannapowitt. We gathered to cook hamburgers at one of the “by-permit-only” cookout sites in Squannacook Brook State Forest, or we just enjoyed a warm summer afternoon of group-walking along Crane’s Beach. We had strong reservation demands for all such activities. We believed that one aspect of our political processes must be to keep those public assets clean because they represented a considerable portion of our societal wealth.1 Such are the motivations behind our local environmental restorations and the advocacy organizations that lead these efforts.

The Roles of Local Environmental Organizations Many of our local restorations are not led by local environmental groups, but this is not necessarily a negative trait to be avoided. As examples, we have many restorations along the Great Lakes that are largely led by the efforts of state government agencies, but nevertheless they have local advocacy groups joining in to promote those efforts. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) of 1972 is the pact between Canada and the US intended to manage the Great Lakes Basin and to initiate through federal, state or provincial funding, the cleanups of those local sites that suffer from environmental degradation. These tend to be old industrial sites that require removal of massive amounts of toxic sediment, and that also need their current sources of new pollution to be disrupted in order for local habitats to be restored. These local sites are termed areas of concern (AOCs) under the GLWQA. Citizens prefer that their governments establish and maintain environmental quality. Some become outraged and active when they observe severe degradation, especially when it affects them directly. It should be normal, therefore, that state (or provincial) and local government agencies should be the lead institutions in our local restoration efforts, but non-government advocacy organizations can also provide special motive 1 By “reservation demand,” we mean that we want these waterbody resources to exist

even when we have no immediate intention to use them. We are willing to expend our tax revenues to maintain them until we do arrange to use them if ever.

x

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

force.2 This “special motive force” is an important component in our society’s model of local environmental restoration, one that should be kept in mind in order to fully understand a particularly interesting genre of the environmental movement. This essential component provides the “vision of what could be,” as introduced and explored previously in Robinson (2021).3 Envisioning what can be accomplished through collective action is the necessary initial ingredient to the restoration process. This “new vision” poses a significant challenge for the environmental experts of our various federal and state agencies, but perhaps it is even a more important challenge for our local environmental advocacy organizations. It is one thing to clean a river or bay of toxic pollution that makes local residents sick; it is another thing to pose a “new vision” for their local river and port facilities, one that alters their economic future, or is radically opposite their past modality of industry and transportation. The “new vision,” if it can be accomplished, can be frightening to some. This environmental problem is entirely political in its substance. It is the environmental advocacy organization (EAO) that can bring this new vision to the greater public, and by articulating the knowledge of the experts found in our government agencies—such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US EPA, or the various state environmental agencies—EAOs can lower the fright level. By accomplishing this, the difference between the old modality and the new can be explained to the public so as to bring the visioned restoration to fruition. The “grassroots” political force, therefore, need not offer a spontaneous and temporary mirage, but it can have a scientifically sound focus that sets in motion an organized lasting political impetus. Within the AOC Program, what roles have local environmental organizations played? In some of these AOC polluted areas, local environmental groups formed to lobby government to initiate their cleanups. In other areas, the local organizations formed after the methods established by the GLWQA identified the locality as in need of specific remediations. In some of these AOCs, local environmental organizations were engaged by federal government agencies to play roles in the citizen advisory committees (CAC) who then organized to develop and monitor the area’s 2 Excellent examples of this advocacy include the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Friends of the Columbia River Gorge as reviewed in Robinson (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan. 3 Ibid.

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

xi

remedial action plan (RAP). CACs would then communicate these plans and actions to the broader public. In some other AOCs, these citizen committees served merely as sounding boards for the efforts of technical advisory committees (TACs), which consisted of state, federal and academic scientists and experts who organized the RAPs, and who also set in motion the remediations that followed. (These RAPs specified the actions required for the cleanups of the AOCs.) These advisory committees sometimes included the local citizen activists, but they tended to be dominated by state, local, and federal government experts who helped organize and fulfill these effective plans. Each of these differing structures of organization has manifested some degree of success; they provided the expertise, the funding, and in some cases, the local energy and dedication of activists, all of which are necessary to accomplish the restoration’s tasks. This has been especially true after the passage of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) of 2009, which finally injected adequate funding to accomplish the task of restoring these sites. The GLRI reignited some dormant local advocacy organizations since with new funding, they believed that their plans would now succeed. When the areas of concern (AOC) program was initiated in 1987, forty-two locales along the Great Lakes were identified as in need of significant environmental remediation. Identification was made by objective criteria, i.e. the recognition of particular environmental impairments such as degraded benthos or fish deformities or bacteria in the water.4 The four AOCs identified in the Detroit area and the two AOCs in the Cleveland area represent urban-suburban restorations (as are most of the other AOCs). They involve rivers that in the late 1960s had the industrial effluents floating on their surface catch fire. These areas once represented the old-style heavy industrialization at its worst, i.e. an industry model that used our waterways as sewers in order to dissipate industrial wastes, thereby imposing the social costs of those externalities onto the populations of the Great Lakes Basin. Now, the old industrialization has been abandoned. Now, the abandoned toxic sediments of these rivers have been removed, and their poisonous discharges halted. All occurred because of the vociferous efforts of their area’s environmental

4 Benthos refers to the living organisms in riverbeds and soils at the bottom of other water bodies.

xii

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

advocates. These advocates were organized, and by design, their organizations were used by the AOC’s programs to help plan and direct their areas’ restorations. But government experts from federal agencies, state agencies, local government representatives, and also academic experts led the planning and implementation processes along with representatives of environmental NGOs. As suggested above, this can be a significant advantage of the areas of concern program, that is, the utilization of local environmental advocacy organizations to combine with the federal and state expertise to manage the restoration efforts. Why is such a combination important? Because by this combination, the politics of resistance can be overcome by the energy and soundness manifested by various scientific experts. This environmental scientific expertise is now present in the federal and state agencies, but the energy necessary to marshal these resources is often present in the local citizens and advocates. This is the phenomena visibly demonstrated by the AOCs of Cleveland and Detroit and illustrated by their stories. The same is also true of Duluth, Green Bay, Buffalo, and Toledo—all urban areas. But this phenomenon is also demonstrated by the “preserve-after-restoring” motivation of the rural wonderfulness of Saginaw Bay and Muskegon Lake. Both of these organizations have activist organizations involved in their restorations.

The Motivation for This Book All of these locally organized initiatives and involvements form the subjects of this book. My analysis, however, shows that in some instances the politics of local restoration should not be separated from the politics of the overall environmental movement. In particular, confrontational politics have always surrounded our paramount vehicle for federal funding of environmental causes, i.e. the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Since so many of the EPA’s involvements have been politically contentious, but the areas of concern program does not appear to be politically controversial, it should therefore be a relief for the EPA to administer. Perhaps this aided the successes of the AOCs’ restorations because EPA involvement is a significant aspect of the AOC Program. EPA involvement is also of indirect interest for some New England rivers where the initiatives of some local organizations are yet to have significant federal funding. They have nonetheless been successful. For three New England rivers (Housatonic, Mystic, and Penobscot), federal funding appears to be on-the-way through our relatively new Urban

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

xiii

Waters Program and Partnerships. But considerable success has already been achieved in each of these river restorations. I have argued that to be effective, the process for environmental restoration must have certain characteristics of being fair and reasoned in order to fully engage our local advocacy organizations.5 Without these fair and reasoned characteristics, the local organizations will likely feel excluded or ineffective, and the process of restoration will falter. The politics of the “environmental justice movement” are relevant for this “exclusion and ineffectiveness” issue. Hence, the “process” is important and needs to be fair and reasoned. The restoration narratives presented in this book are actually tales of organized expertise. They are stories about the political entities who energize the environmental movement to demand local restoration. Some have yet to receive significant federal funding, but they do have significant state and private organizational funding. They represent heavily used rivers with substantial restoration efforts led by dedicated environmental advocacy organizations. How else could these restorations occur if they were not initiated by large federal programs? As emphasized above, the processes of local restorations vary as to the involvements of the state, provincial, and federal agencies. In particular, the involvements of local environmental advocacy organizations also vary. The key to success in all these efforts is, however, the utilization of the expertise of dedicated scientists (biologists, chemists, engineers, and ecologists) who reside in governmental agencies, academia, and NGOs. To a great extent, these scientists even provide the vision of “what could be.” We should be aware of these narratives since they could potentially provide directions for other restorations. Expressing these narratives is the purpose of this book.

Poking About the Poisons Writing compositions about river restorations in New England left me with rather mixed emotions since I witnessed many of their degradations. These reviews force remembrances of my Huckleberry type boyhood of poking around the brush, dirt, and muck of the streams that flowed into our town’s reservoir (Crystal Lake in Wakefield, Massachusetts). This

5 This was argued in Robinson (2021). See footnote 2.

xiv

PREFACE: THE POLITICS OF CLEANING OUR RIVERS ...

poking around picked up copious amounts of stickers on my clothing and pounds of muck on my shoes. I distinctly recall my first time staring at an abandoned rusty metal barrel hidden by brush at the edge of a pond. The water of that pond flowed through a short brook into the town’s reservoir. I was walking at the time with my father and older sister. I was only six years old. My father pondered what poisons were in that barrel that someone thought had to be hidden and abandoned. But I went back to that pond innumerable times prior to my teenage years, always looking at that barrel rusting away, and always with the same questions. This experience repeated only a few years ago when I walked through some Western New York fields that I was considering for purchase. I walked down a hill, my clothing picking up the familiar stickers, and the dirt and muck along the way. I felt at home on this strange but familiar piece of land. I was heading toward a pond and a marsh along the edge. On the northern edge of the marsh, behind some juniper brush, stood a dilapidated old semi-trailer, propped up by the deflated remains of tires. I could barely perceive the old dirt road that led to the truck. At its back end, I could see that the trailer enclosed rusted metal barrels, some spilled out on the edge of the marsh. Again, barrels were abandoned by a pond, hidden from any easy view. Scratch around the brush, stickers, muck, and dirt that surround isolated water sites, and what do you find? Such places are where we abandon our poisons that contaminate our waters. Hidden ponds and streams provide a resource we find convenient for dissipating our toxins. But perhaps that behavior is the remnant of an old culture; one that has finally given way to a classier and cleaner culture of restoration. I view the restoration efforts of today’s culture as strongly encouraging and deserving of admiration. There is still, however, something to be said for poking around in the brush, and the dirt and muck to find what is there. Over a lifetime of this sort of experience, I know that one can easily clean the stickers and dirt off. Unfortunately, the poisons remain. North East, PA, USA January 2023

Richard M. Robinson

Contents

1

1

Habitat Restoration: An Introduction

2

A Reasoned Process for Restorations

43

3

Restoring Areas of Concern

81

4

The St. Louis River Area of Concern

115

5

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin’s Areas of Concern

149

6

The “Most Polluted River”: The Grand Calumet

187

7

Restoration Sites in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula: Saginaw and Muskegon

209

8

Ohio’s Areas of Concern and Citizen Involvement

233

9

Some Other Important Areas of Concern and Their Analyses

275

Some New England Rivers and Their Advocacy Organizations

309

Conclusion: Some Lessons from Local Restorations

341

10 11

xv

xvi

CONTENTS

Appendix A: Invasive Aquatic Species

381

Appendix B: Invasive Vegetation

397

Appendix C: Toxic Contaminants

407

Index

421

About the Author

Dr. Richard M. Robinson is a long serving Professor of Business at SUNY Fredonia. He received his PhD from the University of Oregon (Economics) in 1981. This is his fourth scholarly book. He has also published numerous peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals. His publications include environmental concerns. He is the former editor of the Journal of Economics and Finance, a Springer journal. He instructs courses in business ethics, statistics, and environmental ethics. His web page is at “profrichardrobinson.com.”

xvii

List of Figures

Chapter 1 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Willamette River and tributaries Examined Areas of Concern along the Great Lakes Three examined Rivers in New England

21 29 41

Chapter 3 Fig. 1

Detroit area AOCs

89

Chapter 4 Fig. 1

St. Louis River AOC

116

Chapter 5 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1 2 3 4

Lower Menominee River AOC Milwaukee Estuary AOC Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC Sheboygan River AOC

150 160 164 182

Chapter 6 Fig. 1

Grand Calumet AOC

189

xix

xx

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter 7 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Saginaw River and Bay AOC Muskegon Lake AOC

211 222

Chapter 8 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Ohio’s AOCs Ashtabula River AOC Administrative Structure for Ohio’s AOCs Cuyahoga River AOC Maumee River AOC Black River AOC

234 237 243 247 255 262

Chapter 9 Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

1 2 3 4

Presque Isle Bay AOC Buffalo River AOC Niagara River AOC Toronto Region AOC

278 286 287 299

Chapter 10 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3

Mystic River Penobscot River Housatonic River

311 320 327

Chapter 11 Fig. 1

Lower Hudson Estuary Area

373

List of Tables

Chapter 1 Table 1 Table 2

Populations of Oregon, Portland, and Eugene Population percentage changes

24 24

Chapter 3 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Canadian AOCs Canadian AORs Canadian areas delisted US AOCs Delisted US areas Bilateral AOCs Some other St. Clair River habitat restorations Nine significant Clinton River AOC projects

87 87 87 87 88 88 106 109

Chapter 4 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

BUI removals for the Duluth Area AOC (as of April 2022) Habitat restoration sites (see Fig. 2) Some nominal household income statistics

134 140 145

Chapter 5 Table 1

Remediation and restoration projects for Milwaukee Estuary AOC

168

xxi

xxii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Milwaukee Estuary AOC Committee members with two or more committee positions The Paper Mills along the Fox River and their effluent discharges Committee members holding multiple positions on Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC

172 174 180

Chapter 6 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table Table Table Table

7 8 9 10

Remediation and habitat restoration projects for the AOC Basic economic statistics for Calumet City, Illinois, 2019 Household income distribution for Calumet City, Illinois, 2019 Indiana poverty rate by race, 2020 Basic economic statistics for East Chicago, Indiana, 2019 Household income distribution for East Chicago, Indiana, 2019 Indiana poverty rate by race, 2019 Basic economic statistics for Gary, Indiana, 2019 Household income distribution for Gary, Indiana, 2020 Gary Indiana poverty rate by race, 2020

195 197 198 198 199 199 199 203 203 204

Chapter 7 Table 1

Table 2

A timeline for significant activities related to the restoration of BUIs in the Muskegon Lake AOC Major habitat restoration projects within the Muskegon Lake AOC

224 226

Chapter 8 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

Ashtabula River AOC Remediation and Restoration Projects Habitat Restoration Projects for Cuyahoga River AOC 2009 Planned Restoration Actions for Lower Black River AOC 2009 Planned Enhancement Actions for Lower Black River AOC 2009 Planned Protection Actions for Lower Black River AOC Black River AOC Remediation and Restoration Projects

240 251 264 264 265 267

LIST OF TABLES

xxiii

Chapter 9 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Some 2020 economic statistics for Buffalo NY, Erie PA, and Toronto ON Resolving other BUIs for Presque Isle Bay AOC Restoration projects for the Buffalo River AOC Remediation and restoration projects for the Niagara River AOC

276 284 290 296

Chapter 11 Table 1

National Estuary Program Areas

371

CHAPTER 1

Habitat Restoration: An Introduction

1

Introduction: Restoring Habitats

This volume concerns our North American society’s efforts at restoration of habitats, especially the habitats of our rivers, lakes, marshes, estuaries, and the wetlands adjacent to these various water bodies. This restoration does not typically mean restoring to an original pristineness. It does mean that at a minimum we have restoration from an industrial, or agricultural, or urban-suburban polluted environment toward an ecologically sound, unpolluted, and sustainable environment. As a society, we aspire that our polluted waters will be restored to a level of cleanliness that will not make people or wildlife sick; that these waters will have a clarity that is aesthetically pleasing; that they will be inviting to native fish and fowl, and other healthy animals. We aspire that the walkways along our water bodies will be inviting, and that they will offer views of sustainable flowers and native vegetation, and not the scenery of poisoned corruption. We aspire that our water bodies will offer unpolluted recreation and provide unobtrusive transportation arteries that are reasonably absent of negative externalities. As a society, we recognize that our rivers historically were used to dissipate industrial, agricultural, and sewerage pollutions by sending them to flow downstream to have negative effects on neighbors. We recognize that our ponds, rivers, bays, marshes, wetlands, and estuaries were used as dissipation dumps. Our historical pollutions were costly to our society © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_1

1

2

R. M. ROBINSON

because of their negative health effects and because of their deprivations of recreation and aesthetic benefits. But these buildups of past pollutions typically remain and continue to generate ill health and continue to deprive us of our recreation and aesthetic benefits. These negative externalities persistently linger to impose substantial costs on us even to today. We recognize, however, that restorations are also costly, but in general we recognize that the benefits of restoration far outweigh the costs of cleanup. Our society recognizes that the only reason for not undertaking these restorations stems from the political protection of narrowly vested commercial interests.1 We further recognize that in order to pursue our desired ends and methods for restoration, we aspire that our decisions should be (i) scientifically informed, (ii) inclusive of input from all those affected, (iii) logical in analysis and decision, and (iv) not frustrated by the political influence of those with narrow self-serving commercial interests. As explained below, these four criteria describe our society’s aspirations for a “fair and reasoned” decision process concerning our environmental matters.2 Most of this volume tells the story of the restoration efforts taking place in various locales around our five North American Great Lakes, including our US and Canadian joint efforts of recent decades. These restorations have been organized and funded by federal, regional (state and province), and private auspices under our joint Canadian-US Great Lakes Compact , our Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement , and our International Joint Commission. Furthermore, these efforts are now directed using detailed plans with effective monitoring of progress as based on the “fair and reasoned” criteria cited above and examined below. The story of this Great Lakes’ program should provide us with some degree of optimism that perhaps properly organized environmental efforts can succeed. Some other restorations are also explored in the chapters below. These include remediations of some rivers in New England which also offer success narratives. Perhaps the methods documented in the chapters below should be extended to other locales. To this end, the story of the Great Lakes areas of concern programs , and the New England rivers, 1 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 10) for a review of one of these “vested interests,” the role of Big Sugar in blocking restoration of Florida’s “Everglades.” 2 See Chapter 2 or Robinson (2021, Chapter 3) for a full review and examination of the criteria necessary for “fair and reasoned environmental discourse and decisions.”

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

3

should be recognized and analyzed. This recognition and analysis provide a motivation for this book.

2

Habitats and Species

As indicated above, most of the chapters of this book concern the lessons to be drawn from restorations of the Great Lakes areas of concern (AOC). These are environmentally degraded areas of significant pollution; areas that were once natural habitats for varieties of fish and other wildlife; areas that were once not hostile to human interactions for recreation or aesthetic enjoyment. Today, by law (The Endangered Species Act of 1973), we preserve habitat for the purpose of saving various species from extinction from the earth. But today we also restore local habitats to preserve a large variety of species from local extinctions, i.e. local disappearance. Restoring an industrially degraded area to a natural park-like setting where people can stroll among wildlife (perhaps semi-domesticated wildlife), and view pleasing native vegetations and clean waters, is also restoring habitat, but it is a restoration for the purpose of preserving human health—both physical health and mental health—and thereby of preserving civilization at its core. These restored places provide more than habitat for human existence; they facilitate our flourishment through natural interactions that are necessary for human contentment. In the US, our political movement for these sorts of preservations began in the late 1800s. At the century’s turning, the Western frontier had closed with all that its closing implied for American culture. The age of electrification was looming with all that this implied. Railroad transportation and telegraph communication linked our various culturally compatible regions. Politically active big agriculture and big industry may have appeared to dominate the Nation, but their elicitation of political reactions generated the progressive era with its Sherman Act of 1892 and the Standard Oil decision of 1911. We took from the land all that we could: oil, coal, lumber, minerals, and the bounty from the tilling of our great prairies. We also depleted the wild bison and our great aviary flocks. We drove the passenger pigeon to extinction for the same reason, and the bison, bald eagle, and whooping crane were driven to near extinction. The politics of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ripened for various local restorations and preservations. People were migrating to our cities where parks were needed. As examples, Central Park in New York City was completed in 1876, and Boston Public Gardens was

4

R. M. ROBINSON

completed in 1880 so that city dwellers could have some degree of natural interaction. But during our late nineteenth century’s North American industrialization, we also had societal reactions against the threats of species extinctions. Outrage over the slaughter of millions of water birds for the millenary business of urban fashion (primarily women’s hats), particularly the slaughter of egrets and other waders, led to the formation of the Massachusetts Audubon Society in 1896. This facilitated cultural-political changes driven by the Audubon Society’s activities: • Between 1896 and 1898, following the formation of the Massachusetts chapter, sixteen other state Audubon Societies were formed. • In 1901, these state-level Societies joined in a loose national-level organization to help preserve our first National Wildlife Refuge— Pelican Island in Florida in 1903—and facilitated the engagement of wardens to protect breeding areas in several states. • In 1905, the National Audubon Society was formed with the declared priority of protecting water birds of various sorts: gulls, terns, egrets, herons, and others. • In 1910, New York State enacted the “Audubon Plumage Law” which prohibited the sale or possession of feathers from protected bird species. Since New York City was the center of the US fashion industry, this substantially changed the women’s fashion trend away from feathered hats. • In 1918, the “Migratory Bird Treaty Act” was passed and signed. It remains one of the strongest laws protecting wild North American birds. • In 1923–1924, the Audubon Society established its first system of water-bird sanctuaries in seven East Coast states, and also Rainey Sanctuary in Louisiana and the Theodore Roosevelt Sanctuary on Long Island. This also initiated large-scale scientifically-based bird conservation efforts. • The “Migratory Bird Conservation Act” of 1937 plus the “Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act” of 1940 were passed due to Audubon’s influence.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

5

By 1941, only sixteen whooping cranes remained in the wild. By 1963, only 487 nesting pairs of bald eagles remained. Loss of habitat, DDT poisoning, and hunting were our aviary’s enemies. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring was published in 1962. This explained that chemical poisons, especially pesticides, were the primary contaminant that caused the declines in aviary populations. Silent Spring renewed our environmental movement. Whereas our nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century depletions of bison and various aviary species were due to commercial hunting, the specie depletions after World War I were largely due to habitat destruction. This presented the fundamental political issue for environmentalists; that is, species such as the tiny snail-darter fish might not carry the public’s emotions as strongly as the bald eagle or prairie roaming bison, but to save a large number of species, habitats must be preserved. But habitat preservation affects much more than the threatened species. Preserving habitats usually involves economic opportunity costs that must be paid for species preservation. Our political process, however, needs to focus on the benefits of the preserved habitat with the specie preservation being only one of the subsidiary benefits. Preserving and restoring habitats intrinsically provide their own benefits in addition to preserving species, i.e. the benefits that serve our emotional-psychic requirements for natural interactions. This is clearly indicated by our areas of concern (AOC) efforts as explored extensively below and in latter chapters. 2.1

Silent Spring and Its Noisy Opponents

This author remembers his hometown’s “fogging trucks” occasionally driving around our neighborhood at dusk on summer evenings during the mid-1950s. They sprayed a thick oily fog of pesticides to kill mosquitoes and other insects. I joined with other children in riding our bicycles behind those trucks. This “thick fog” offered some sort of adventure, i.e. surviving the almost blinding ride and the breathing of the oily fog. We thought that surely the town government would not poison us, so it must be safe. There was no public discussion, apparently no reflective thought about the ecological effects on children or other animals. It was just a matter of getting rid of mosquitoes. There was no debate concerning “using smaller dosage,” or perhaps other mosquito killing methods. Our town was sold the DDT product and purchased it in large amounts. Across the US, the wide and indiscriminate use of this and

6

R. M. ROBINSON

other pesticides stimulated a societal reaction that ultimately led to the environmental movement of the 1960s. Prior to the 1950s, Rachel Carson was an employee of the US Federal Fish and Wildlife Service. In the mid-1940s, she became concerned about the use of synthetic pesticides which were developed from the military funding of chemical productions during World War II. She was a biologist and accomplished author. Her popular 1951 book, The Sea Around Us , was a best seller about marine ecology. After that publication, she organized her next effort, a book on saltwater tidal pools that she published as The Edge of the Sea (1955). This publication was more ecologically oriented in that she examined three ecosystems: (i) the rocky tidal pools of the New England coasts, (ii) the tidal pools along the sandy beaches of North Carolina, and (iii) the mangrove swamps of the Florida Keyes. She examined the question, “Why does an animal live where it does?” She did not group the marine animals examined in typical biological fashion. She grouped them according to their habitat. Appreciation of the habitat was the key to her explorations. With The Sea Around Us , Carson developed an appreciation for the esoteric marine life. But in The Edge of the Sea, she sought to develop our appreciation of the interdependent ecosystems of tidal areas. It concerned the wonders of saltwater life and the relationship of this life to the physical environment. Moreover, it concerned our psychic reactions to these micro-environments that many of us could explore close to home; these environmental interactions and psychic benefits could easily be ours. I read The Edge of the Sea as a juvenile in the late 1950s, but I had already discovered the mystery and wonderfulness of the tidal pools of Wingaersheek Beach on Cape Ann. Many of us discovered these sorts of natural interactions as children and fully enjoyed their benefits. As adults, we would never give them up; when we find them degraded, we would always prefer that habitats like tidal pools be restored. The 1950s were the post-Hiroshima age of thermo-nuclear threat. This was also the age of post-World War II conformity, widespread paranoia toward communist subversion, and faith in America’s institutions. But this was a fragile age of incipient skepticism toward our dominant faith in science and society’s progress.3 The US Department of Agriculture’s 1957 “fire ant eradication program” involved aerial spraying of DDT and other pesticides. These 3 The science fiction movies of the 1950s manifest this “skepticism,” movies such as Them, or The Thing, or The Day the Earth Stood Still.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

7

were mixed with oil and aerially sprayed over public and private lands. The “fire ant program” involved the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) spraying of 20–30 million acres of public and private lands (mostly Southern lands) without obtaining the consent of the property owners. Observers noted the associated effects on wild birds and other wildlife.4 This killing of wildlife elicited robust protest from conservationists. In addition, in 1957, the USDA sprayed DDT for gypsy moths over three million acres in New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; this also had detrimental effects on bird life. The USDA sprayed areas of Long Island fifteen times, and when influential citizens discovered that the USDA planned to repeat the spraying in 1958, they sought to intervene to halt it. This reaction led to The Audubon Society actively opposing these chemical spraying programs. It hired Rachel Carson to publicize the USDA’s deleterious spraying practices. She reacted with moral outrage toward those pesticide spraying practices. In a letter to a friend, Carson complained about “the arrogance of humankind posing a threat to all life.”5 Carson organized The Audubon Society’s campaign against this DDT overuse and began organizing her most significant and politically effective publication, Silent Spring , which she published in 1962. In 1959, the Department of Agriculture’s “Research Service” responded to Carson’s earlier criticism with a public service film Fire Ants on Trial. Carson called it “flagrant propaganda” that ignored the dangers of spraying pesticides to humans and wildlife. She publicly blamed the 1950s’ significant decline in bird populations on spraying pesticides. At that time, the nation’s 1959 crop of cranberries was withdrawn from the market due to high levels of herbicide. Also in 1959, the FDA organized a conference on revising pesticide regulations, a conference Carson attended. She noted the aggressive approach of the pesticide industry’s representatives who presented supposed expert testimony that was entirely in contradiction with the medical scientific literature that Carson was studying. During this time, and contrary to the claims of the pesticide industry, the research at the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute led to many pesticides being classified as carcinogens.

4 A letter published by The Boston Herald in January, 1958, and also sent to Carson, listed these observations. This was the impetus behind Silent Spring. 5 See Lytle (2007, p. 133).

8

R. M. ROBINSON

In reviewing the contributions of Silent Spring , Patricia Hines (1989) wrote, Carson brought to her work a pragmatic, worldly critique of government, one benefit of 14 years of working for the federal government in the Fish and Wildlife Service. The book was activist, not just expository; it was written to reform, not just to have a forum. She pinned down the loopholes in federal regulation, exposed the manipulation of data to cover up pesticide hazards, and identified conflicts of interest in government regulation of pesticides. The reforms she called for in the book and afterwards in Congressional hearings were grounded and actionable. (p. 4)

In Silent Spring (1962), Carson’s main argument was that pesticides have broad detrimental effects on the environment; that they should more properly be called “biocides” because their effects extend way beyond the targeted pests. DDT was a prime example, but many other synthetic pesticides are also subject to bio-accumulation, a significant problem with these chemical compounds.6 Carson accused the chemical industry of intentionally spreading disinformation and also accused public officials of being uncritically accepting of the pesticide industry’s claims without examination. Silent Spring did not just considered the aviary effects of pesticides, but it also provided a broader description of their effects on our natural habitat. I contend, furthermore, that we have allowed these chemicals to be used with little or no advance investigation of their effect on soil, water, wildlife, and man himself. Future generations are unlikely to condone our lack of prudent concern for the integrity of the natural world that supports all life. (Carson 1962, Chapter 2, p. 13)

In Silent Spring , Carson specifically described the spraying of pesticides on Pennsylvania orchards and their killing effects on nearby fish streams, and also described the same effects in tributaries of the Tennessee River in Alabama.7 She also described the effects of pesticide discharged from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal on the ponds of nearby farms. She also detailed

6 Bioaccumulation means that the chemical is passed up the food chain. 7 Ibid., Chapter 4.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

9

the effects of pesticides and other poisons on lakes and rivers in Oregon and California. Carson’s biology background—she held a masters degree in biology from Johns Hopkins University—together with her compositional writing capability thrusted her to become the first popular ecologist. It also allowed her to popularize the subject of ecology. She frequently wrote as an ecologist, The earth’s vegetation is part of a web of life in which there are intimate and essential relations between plants and the earth, between plants and other plants, between plants and animals. Sometimes we have no choice but to disturb these relationships, but we should do so thoughtfully, with full awareness that what we do may have consequences remote in time and place. But no such humility marks the booming “weed killer” business of the present day, in which soaring sales and expanding uses mark the production of plant-killing chemicals. (Ibid., Chapter 6, p. 64)

As an illustration, she described the “land of the sage” where cattle herders had persuaded federal land managers to spray sage plants in order to grow grass for grazing. This destroys sage grouse habitat. She cited her friend Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas’ book concerning the spraying of Western US rangeland in Wyoming by the US Forest Service in order to eliminate the sagebrush so as to establish these grasslands for grazing. This spraying destroys the habitat of moose, beaver, grouse, and other birds and animals, but also of the numerous wildflowers that grow in these areas, and that appeal to many.8 She also cited the numerous “roadside sprayings” to ostensibly control vegetation overgrowth along the roads.9 The actual effects were to destroy numerous wildflowers and attractive tree growth along these roads. Besides causing “needless havoc” and resulting in “no birds singing,” the effects are more broadly spread throughout the ecology and the natural habitats of many species of animals and plants.10 Although most of Silent Spring concerns the effects of overuse of pesticides on the ecology, much of it also concerns the human effects of these 8 Ibid., p. 67. Also see Douglas (1961). 9 See Carson (1962, Chapter 6). 10 Note that “Needless Havoc” and “No Birds Sing” are the titles of Chapters 7 and 8 of Silent Spring.

10

R. M. ROBINSON

carcinogens. At that time, DDT had been linked to liver cancer. In addition, the overuse of aerial spays of pesticides created insect resistance and therefore failed to kill the target population. Prior to its publication in September 1962, Silent Spring was peer reviewed by independent scientists who possessed the necessary relevant expertise. The publisher, Houghton Mifflin, was concerned because Carson was about to undergo chemotherapy for cancer and consequently would not be capable of defending the book through a publicity tour. Before publication, proof copies were distributed to knowledgeable reviewers. Carson also sent a copy to her long-time friend Justice Douglas, an environmental advocate, who provided Carson with some of the material included in her chapter on herbicides. The reception of the book was generally very positive. The publisher was confident that the book was entirely defensible. The book was serialized in The New Yorker and was selected as a “Book-of-the-Month” for October 1962. It received a positive review in The New York Times, and excerpts were published in Audubon Magazine. In the weeks before the book’s publication, the chemical industry voiced strong opposition. Their general claim was that Carson was attacking all pesticide use, but this claim was particularly obfuscating since she was careful to argue that the evidence argued against “overuse” which demonstrated lack of awareness of the particular chemical’s impact on ecosystems. She concluded Silent Spring’s section on DDT with the advice to spray as little as possible to limit the development of resistance. American Cyanamid biochemist Robert White-Stevens was among the most aggressive critics of Carson. He said, “If man were to follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”11 Others tried to attack Carson’s personal character and scientific credentials. She was a biologist, not a biochemist. Former Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson in a letter to former President Eisenhower stated that, “… because she was unmarried despite being physically attractive, she was probably a communist.”12 Monsanto published 5000 copies

11 See Dorothy McLaughlin (2010), “Fooling with Nature: Silent Spring Revisited,” a Frontline documentary, PBS, originally broadcast March 10, 2010. 12 See Lear (1997, pp. 429–430).

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

11

of a parody called “The Desolate Year” (1962), which projected a world of famine and disease caused by banning pesticides. The academic community largely supported Carson’s claims. Public opinion was very supportive. An April 3, 1963, CBS Reports television documentary “The Silent Spring of Rachel Carson” included segments of her reading from Silent Spring . Interviews with other experts were largely positive with the exception being the interview with WhiteStevens. Carson’s biographer Linda Lear stated, “… in juxtaposition to the wild-eyed loud-voiced Dr. Robert White-Stevens in a white lab coat, Carson appeared anything but the hysterical alarmist that her critics contended.”13 The 10–15 million people audience reacted positively to her presentation. The documentary spurred a Congressional review of the hazards of pesticides, and this review was also positive to Carson. Within a year of publication, criticism was little. In late 1963, she received “The Audubon Medal” from the National Audubon Society and the “Cullum Geographical Medal” from the American Geographical Society. 2.2

Impacts of Silent Spring

Mark Lytle (2007) describes the era of Cason’s work as an age of “consensus” that “encouraged social and political conformity, respect for governmental and community authority, uncritical patriotism, religious faith, and a commitment to a vague notion of an “American way of life” defined by prosperity, material comfort, and a secure home. A person did not have to be a communist to come under suspicion as a subversive. One had only to dissent against commonly accepted values, as Carson intended to do, to be considered a subversive.” (Lytle 2007, Chapter 4, p. 134.) The 1960s, however, became the age of this sort of questioning of American values. Silent Spring inspired the “boomer” generation to pay attention to serious environmental science, and in many cases, to personally engage in environmental science. As a personal anecdotal illustration, in June of 1968, on the day after Robert Kennedy’s assassination, I was approached by one of the more brilliant young men who worked at Associated Press in Boston, where I also worked at that time. The year before, he graduated from Harvard

13 Ibid., p. 449.

12

R. M. ROBINSON

and was admitted to Columbia University Law School for the upcoming Fall Term. He had already asked, however, for a year’s delay in admission so he could work for Kennedy’s campaign. Now after both Martin Luther King’s and Robert Kennedy’s assassinations, plus the buildup in Vietnam, his idealism had been shattered. He just wanted to ask what I might have thought about “what to do now?” We, and so many others, were emotionally and physically shattered by the events of that Spring, with both King’s and Kennedy’s assassinations within a few months of each other, plus what appeared to be an irrational buildup in the Vietnam war. Working long hours motivated by a sense of idealism seemed a fool’s errand. How do I respond to my friend? I didn’t really take time to reflect on an answer; this I couldn’t do since it would be too emotionally crushing. I only gently asked him, “Can Columbia prepare you in environmental law? That might be worthwhile. You could actually do something meaningful!” Note that we both knew that Robert Kennedy was concerned with environmental matters. To that question, my friend appeared to straighten and brightened up a bit. The environmental movement seemed a decent way to spend one’s life. It wasn’t cynical; it was a sort of “Come on, be of use to the world!” Perhaps one could still contribute despite all the troubles around us. By the late 1960s, the US needed to change from its post-World War II era. It needed to change from the Vietnam era. It needed to change from the “hippie heavy-rock drug culture.” The environmental movement offered a different perspective, one that was emotionally and mentally engaging and healthy for those involved, and also for the world around us. This was the most significant impact of Silent Spring ; Rachel Carson provided a foundation stone for that movement. The Carson scholar Patricia Hynes stated, “Silent Spring altered the balance of power in the world. No one since would be able to sell pollution as the necessary underside of progress so easily or uncritically.”14 Carson was, in the words of Mark Lytle, “The Gentle Subversive.”15 Carson’s most immediate contribution, however, was the banning of DDT. In 1967, the Environmental Defense Fund was organized as motivated by the pesticide issue, and its first significant political task was organizing the politics of banning DDT. In 1972, the Fund along with

14 Hynes (1989, pp. 8–9). 15 See Lytle (2007).

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

13

the Audubon Society and other organizations succeeded in phasing out DDT from American use. This was a significant result of Silent Spring . The third significant impact of Carson’s work was the creation of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Carson saw the conflict of interest that the Department of Agriculture had in being responsible for environmental matters related to farm policy. She wrote about this in Silent Spring . In response to this obvious government defect,16 the EPA was created in 1970 to handle environmental matters including the phaseout of DDT. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring played a large role in articulating ecology as a disrupting force opposed to both commercial materialism and the technological engineering of nature. Silent Spring was perhaps the first popular presentation of rational scientific discourse concerning environmental matters. It set a standard for all of our environmental discourse. It was stimulated by the vision of the Audubon Society, and it directly led to a strong environmental movement spawned during the 1960s. It had a significant impact on the chemical industry, and in 1970, it was the impetus for the creation of a new environmentally oriented federal agency, the EPA. It substantially led to our current reasoned environmental decision processes. Nevertheless, in a 1987 self-examination report titled “Unfinished Business,” the EPA admitted to drifting backward.17 The US chemical industry now produces thousands of pesticides and other synthetic chemicals that are insufficiently tested for toxicity. Pesticides are produced in the US, used in other countries, and imported back in fruits, vegetables, and meats as though Silent Spring had not been written. (Note that problems with the EPA as a watchdog institution are further reviewed in Chapter 2.)

3 Species Endangerment, Proliferation, and Habitat Preservation In 1972, President Nixon declared that the current species conservation effort was inadequate. Congress responded, and the “Endangered Species Act” (ESA) was signed at the end of December 1973. As part

16 For a decision-making institution to have a “conflict of interest” would be directly in conflict with the “fairness criteria” reviewed above and in Chapter 2. 17 See Hynes (1989, p. 21).

14

R. M. ROBINSON

of this Act, Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to acquire habitat lands necessary for the conservation of threatened or endangered species. The purpose of the Act is to not only protect species, but also the ecosystem upon which they depend. The ESA is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The significant provisions of the Act include: • The federal government must determine whether a species is endangered or threatened. If so, it must list the species for protection as either “threatened or endangered.” • If the above is apparent, the critical habitat must be identified and designated for protection for the listed species. • Federal agencies must use their authority to conserve all threatened and endangered species so listed, and this includes preserving their habitats. For a species to be listed as either threatened or endangered usually means that its habitat is itself being endangered; that is, the preservation of habitat is necessary. Therefore, the habitat also poses the point of confrontation with so-called economic interests. The ESA was written and worded so as to not take so-called economic opportunity costs associated with habitat preservation into consideration, but only to consider the existence of the species. The ESA, therefore, poses a program that supports a general and natural preservation. In a 1978 amendment, however, Congress added the words “… taking into consideration the economic impact …” in the Act’s provision concerning critical habitat designation. This 1978 amendment changed the listing procedure to consider the economic impacts of preserving the critical habitat. This change almost completely halted new listings, with almost 2000 species being withdrawn from consideration following the amendment’s passage. The habitat in question might have had other valuable commercial value, but the reservation demand for preservation was not considered under this 1978 amendment.18 Preserving habitat, however, not only means preservation for the particular species, but also 18 For an examination of reservation demand, see Robinson (2021, Chapter 6). In environmental matters, “reservation demand” means that individuals are willing to pay for preservations or restorations of habitat even though the individuals have no explicit plans to visit these habitats.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

15

preserving areas in a wild state for other species and also for the human visitors who do not disturb but only observe. This sort of preservation likely stimulates reservation demands and the benefits from ecotourism. A 1982 amendment, however, further changed the wording of the ESA by adding the word “solely” to specify that only the biological status of the species should be considered, not the economic impact that the habitat preservation might pose. This placed the impetus back on habitat preservation. But the ESA and its amendments also require that for any listing, the EPA must solicit comments from the public, and that one or more public hearings must be held for this purpose. This opened the process to public evaluation and expression concerning preservation of the specific habitats. Since being placed on the endangered species list, the following have increased in population size as of January 2019: • The Bald Eagle increased from 417 to 11,040 pairs between 1963 and 2007. It was removed from the endangered list in 2007. • The Whooping Crane increased from 54 to 436 birds between 1971 and 2003. • Kirtland’s Warbler increased from 210 to 1415 pairs between 1971 and 2005. • The Peregrine Falcon increased from 324 to 1700 pairs between 1975 and 2000, and was removed from the list in 1999. • The Gray Wolf populations increased dramatically in the Northern Rockies and Western Great Lakes States. • The Mexican Wolf increased to its minimum sustainable population of 109 wolves in 2014. • The Red Wolf increased from 17 in 1980 to 257 in 2003. • The Gray Whale increased from 13,095 to 26,635 between 1968 and 1998, and it was removed from the “endangered” list. • The Grizzly Bear increased from 271 to 580 in the Yellowstone area between 1975 and 2005. • California’s Southern Sea Otter increased from 1789 to 2735 between 1976 and 2005. • The San Clemente Indian Paint Brush increased from 500 plants to 3500 between 1979 and 1997. • Florida’s Key Deer increased from 200 to 750 between 1971 and 2001. • Texas’ Big Bend Gambusia increased from 24 to over 50,000.

16

R. M. ROBINSON

• The Hawaiian Goose increased from 400 to 1275 between 1980 and 2003. • Virginia’s Big-Eared Bat increased from 3500 to 18,442 between 1979 and 2004. • The Black-Footed Ferret increased from 18 to 600 between 1986 and 2006. Unfortunately, eleven other species have become extinct since the 1973 Act was passed. In general, however, the ESA has been somewhat effective for the preservations of both species and natural habitats. The current problem of species proliferation is different from preventing extinction. Proliferation poses a relatively new phase for the environmental movement, i.e. the environmental restoration of various locales. As explored below and in latter chapters, this problem concerns species proliferations in suitably regenerated areas, a refurbishment of ecologically sound habitat capable of supporting some fish and wildlife plus some appropriate human interactions. The next sections of this chapter focus on the movement to restore the habitats of a variety of fairly common species along the North American Great Lakes. In general, these habitats were degraded by severe industrial pollution, but agricultural pollutions also played significant roles in these degradations. By mutual agreement between the US and Canada, these degraded areas are termed areas of concern (AOC), and their cleanup affects both the Canadian and US sides of the Great Lakes. These restoration efforts are significant not only because of the intrinsic value of these areas, but also because they represent efforts that result from cross-border agreements, and because of the associated identification, planning, and monitoring efforts that, as shown in latter chapters, yield effective results.

4

Of Rivers and Their Restorations

The problems of river and wetland restoration are as old as civilization. Our rivers attract populations and commerce, both of which cause environmental problems in need of either ongoing or frequent remediation. For example, consider the ancient river of Roman commerce, the Tiber. The Tiber River connected ancient Rome to its seaport of Ostia, 15 miles downriver on the Tyrrhenian Coast. The Tiber was navigable up to Rome. Through Ostia, the produce and goods of the ancient world were imported to Rome. Due to thousands of years of silting, however,

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

17

the archaeological site of Ostia is now two miles upriver from the sea. As with all rivers, the Tiber accumulates silt at its mouth. It rises in the Apennine Mountains and flows 250 miles through agricultural lands, then through Rome, and then to the Tyrrhenian Sea. It carries the silty runoff from the agricultural lands. The port city of Ostia dates from the fourth century BC, but because of the silting in its main channel, Julius Caesar had to improve the harbor. The silting was so severe, however, that Tiberius had to develop a new and nearby port of Portus. But the problem remained so that a third harbor, Centum Cellae, was also developed nearby. This also became silted and needed to be replaced by a harbor built by Trajan in 113 AD. The problem concerned the large volume of farmland runoff that the Tiber carried. The Romans were great engineers, but dredging without power equipment was overly difficult, and establishing new harbors appeared to be simpler and less expensive than dredging. One significant problem of leaving the buildup of silt, however, was that it developed marshy malaria swamps, and malaria was likely the ancient world’s greatest killer. Malaria was rampant in the area. After the demise of the Western Roman Empire in 476, Ostia decayed. The population of Rome fell from approximately 800,000 in AD 400 to 200,000 by 500 AD. Ostia was abandoned in the ninth century. The lesson is that rivers and their ports do need to be restored. What is upriver tends to accumulate downriver, be it alluvial silt or contaminated sediment. Also, the channels of rivers do change, and the floodplains become altered. Today, rivers are cleaned and restored. We routinely use power equipment to dredge sediment to keep harbors open. We also dredge contaminated sediments, and we reestablish floodplains and restore fish runs. These efforts pose the subjects of this book. 4.1

My Personal Observations of River Restorations

In the Autumn of 1971, I moved from Cambridge in Massachusetts to Portland in Oregon. If I had stayed in Cambridge, I would have observed the very necessary restoration of the Charles River. The first actions of that restoration, along with the cleanup of Boston Harbor, were to begin in 1972. In Oregon, however, the cleanup of the Willamette River was fully

18

R. M. ROBINSON

underway. It began in 1966; it formed the hub of the Emerald Empire’s politics.19 In this book, one of the questions confronted is, “Do environmental restorations typically have leaders?” The Willamette cleanup certainly did. It was led by Oregon’s great Governor Tom McCall, now an icon of the environmental movement. We briefly explore his leadership in this chapter, and in the following chapters, we review some similar leadership efforts for other river restorations. But many restorations appear to just naturally grow from the river itself, where there are no heroic leaders who initiate the cleanups but rather just some government agencies of dedicated environmentalists, scientists, and engineers asserting the need for restoration. In some instances, some local environmental organizations act as a team to make the needed argument. In these instances, the politics of restoration is sufficient to motivate a coordinated effort; a charismatic political environmentalist leading the charge is not necessary. My 1971 move to Portland was long considered. My several uncles and aunts, mostly residents of Southern California, told their stories of vacations in Oregon, apparently a land of impressive environmental cleanness. The older brother of a friend, who just returned from the Air Force, lectured us about the benefits of living on the beautiful West Coast to which he was planning to return. My life, I thought, required that I move from the overly crowded existence of environmentally corrupted and contaminated northeast cities to an area friendlier to my trout flies and an area of true wilderness hikes and devoid of crowds and their thoughtless litter and cavalier pollution.20 During my first days in Portland, I began to discover Oregon’s politics of the environment, a very powerful and morally upright movement. Why were people moving to Oregon? What did Oregon’s natives and transplants expect of this apparent environmental paradise? Like me, they wanted a clean environment to interact with; they wanted to flee from the hazy air pollution found in Los Angeles, or from the legacy industrial pollutions of the old Northeast or Midwest cities. That is what another transplant from Massachusetts, Tom “Big Foot” McCall, also wanted; these “wants” formed the politics surrounding his leadership. 19 I use here an old tag—Emerald Empire—for Western Oregon (meaning west of the Cascades), one that refers to its greenness. 20 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 13, p. 346) for an account of fly fishing for cutthroat trout on the North Fork of the Willamette in the late 1970s.

1

4.2

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

19

Charismatic Leadership in Restoration

Thomas Lawson McCall (March 22, 1913 to January 8, 1983) was called “Big Foot” because of his rather large size. This tag refers to the mythical large creature of the Pacific Northwest Rainforest where thick stands of tall Douglas Fir and Ponderosa Pine predominate. McCall appeared to be a product of this rainforest. He now belongs in the pantheon of America’s great environmentalists.21 His contributions to the restoration of one of our most important rivers warrant this claim, but as indicated below, he has other significant environmental contributions to his leadership record. As reviewed here, he led the 1960s and 1970s restoration of Oregon’s Willamette River. But also as reviewed, this restoration is very much ongoing even today. This sort of continual restoration should occur. Furthermore, this word “should” must apply to all our water bodies. It therefore poses an ongoing challenge to our society. This is a significant argument of this book. Tom McCall was born and raised in Scituate, Massachusetts, an ideal beach community on Cape Cod Bay, twenty miles southeast of Boston. He was the grandson of copper baron Thomas Lawson and also the Congressman and previous Massachusetts Governor Samuel McCall. Tom’s childhood was split between Scituate and his father’s ranch in the central Oregon town of Prineville, an equally ideal location in the high desert just east of the Cascade Mountains. He graduated from nearby Redmond High School and then enrolled at the University of Oregon (U of O) in Eugene, the small city located at the southern end of the Willamette Valley, just west of the Cascade Mountains. Eugene is not in high desert. It is on the edge of the mountainous rain forest of central Oregon. McCall attended the U of O in the depression of the early 1930s when Oregon’s economy, then largely built on timber and agriculture, was severely disrupted. McCall’s family fully experienced this disruption. Tom McCall graduated U of O in 1936, then worked for the summer at The Bend Bulletin (Bend being close to Redmond), and then at the Daily Idahoan in Moscow, Idaho. After this, he moved his career to Portland’s most significant newspaper, The Oregonian. His World War II military service was as a “battle correspondent” aboard the cruiser USS St. Louis in the Pacific. Tom McCall returned to print journalism 21 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 8) for a review of some of the significant American environmentalists and their contributions.

20

R. M. ROBINSON

after World War II, but his robustly resonant voice moved his journalistic career to being a news announcer in radio. His tall and masculine bearing then moved his career further to TV. His notoriety from TV then led him into politics. He was elected as Oregon’s Secretary of State in 1964, from which he was recognized for his efforts to assist migrant workers. Oregon’s Willamette River flows north through the middle of the central valley between the high Cascade Mountains with its 11,000-foot peaks and the smaller mountains of the Coastal Range. This river forms a very significant agricultural valley due to its rich alluvial floodplain, plus its mostly light and misty precipitation, and its moderate temperature range. Most of Oregon’s population has always been in the cities of the Willamette Valley. Portland is close to its northern end and Eugene is close to its southern end. The small river cities of Salem, Springfield, Corvallis, and Lebanon are between. (See Fig. 1.) During the 1920s, the domestic, agricultural, and industrial wastes from pulp mills turned the Willamette River into an open sewer. In 1927, a report sponsored by the City Club of Portland labeled the Willamette as “filthy and ugly” and blamed the City of Portland as the worst source of this pollution. A political battle ensued which resulted in a ballot measure that passed in 1938. The measure created a regulatory agency aimed primarily at the river’s cleanup, but the pollution continued. In 1962, Tom McCall produced and hosted a TV documentary, “Pollution in Paradise,” which detailed the severe contamination of the Willamette River. This documentary focused the public’s attention on the necessity of real substantial cleanup. The popularity of this restoration movement, plus McCall’s capable and forceful leadership, led to his election as Oregon’s Governor in 1966 and again in 1970. In 1966, McCall ordered water quality tests of the Willamette. With this information, he initiated a tighter regulatory program that closed those polluting companies which did not meet Oregon’s newly passed stringent standards. In 1974, as a result of a cleaner river, the salmon were again migrating upstream in the Willamette. Taglines of recreational boaters began to be extended across the river upstream of Portland. The catch was an event for celebration. Governor Tom McCall was also responsible for: i. preserving all of Oregon’s beautiful beaches as public entities with public access and associated land-use restrictions that prevents

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

21

N

WASHINGTON

P

Columbia River

A C

Willamette River

OREGON

I

Portland

F I C

C

C

2

1

O

S A

O C E A

A

Oregon City 3

S T

4

Salem

A

A

7

5

C

Corvallis

D E

L

6 Albany

N

M

R O A

Willamette River

N

U 8 N

G

9 T

E

Springfield Eugene 10

12 11

A I N S

Fig. 1 Willamette River and tributaries

Rivers 1: Clackamas 2: Tualatin 3: Mollala 4: Pudding 5: Santiam 6: South Santiam 7: North Santiam 8: Calapooia 9: Makenzie 10: North Fork 11: South Fork 12: Long Tom

22

R. M. ROBINSON

multilevel hotels from being constructed that would obscure these beautiful settings, ii. establishing Oregon’s “bottle bill” that prevents the proliferation of plastic wastes, and iii. establishing state-wide land-use planning which included “urban boundary rules” that limits urban and suburban sprawl.22 But perhaps even more important was that Tom McCall’s successful efforts to clean Oregon’s rivers led to an optimistic political atmosphere that extends even to today. These more recent efforts are explored next. 4.3

The Willamette River

The Willamette River creates one of America’s more significant agricultural resources.23 Its watershed drains 11,478 square miles. It is approximately 180 miles between its southern end and its northern junction with the Columbia River. (See Fig. 1.) The Willamette’s Basin is approximately 100 miles wide. The Willamette River’s significantly sized tributaries include its Coast and Middle Forks, the McKenzie, Long Tom, Calapooia, Santiam, Pudding, Yamhill, Mollala, Tualatin, and Clackamas Rivers. The Willamette Valley lies between the Coast Range with peaks of approximately 4000 feet and the Cascade Mountains with peaks of approximately 11,000 feet. Its significant cities include Eugene and Springfield on the Valley’s southern edge; Corvallis, Albany, and Salem in the Central Valley; and Oregon City and Portland on its northern end. The Willamette River’s water flow varies enormously between the high Spring melts in the Cascades—where 20-feet of packed snow is common in the winter—and the low flows at the end of summer in September and October.24 Western Oregon’s precipitation occurs mostly during the North Pacific winter storms.

22 Oregon’s “bottle bill” was passed in 1971. It was the first bottle bill in the nation. It requires that consumers pay a $.10 deposit on a large variety of drink containers. The deposit is returned when the empty bottle is brought to a redemption center. The aim is to reduce plastic litter. 23 Oregon’s agricultural sales in 2019 were approximately $5.4 billion. Of this, its crop sales were $3.7 billion. The vast majority of both figures were generated in the Willamette Valley. 24 Global Climate change has changed the depth of snow packs in recent years.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

23

Population migrations from the Eastern US to Oregon began in the 1840s, the primary attraction being the agriculturally rich Willamette Valley. The Willamette River provided the transportation artery for moving cattle, hogs, sheep, and wheat downriver to Portland for shipment through the Columbia River. The development of the river cities (Eugene, Springfield, Salem) began in the 1850s. To remove obstructions from the river (usually timber logs), the federal government funded a steam-powered “snag puller” in 1869. In 1873, a canal and locks were constructed at the Willamette Falls at Oregon City. (See Fig. 1.) Dikes and revetments were constructed to channel the river to prevent flooding. Coincidental to this development, the Willamette was being used to dispose of urban and agricultural wastes. Oregon’s Anti-Stream Pollution League brought a pollution abatement bill before the state legislature in 1937. It passed easily, but Governor Charles Martin vetoed the bill. Environmental advocacy organizations then sponsored a ballot initiative, the “Water Purification and Prevention of Pollution Bill,” which voters approved by a wide margin in November of 1938. The new law established the Oregon State Sanitary Authority aimed at cleaning the Willamette. The growth of Oregon was substantial in the post-World War II era. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Most of the state’s population has always been in the Willamette Valley so that flood control of the river became a significant objective of public projects. This was particularly true of the Army Corps of Engineers’ projects begun in the 1930s.25 The Corps’ plan was to construct dams and reservoirs on the Willamette and its tributaries to provide flood control, navigation, and hydropower. The Willamette Valley Project was completed in the early 1970s with a series of 13 dams and reservoirs that stored seasonal high water flows from the Spring melts to be released during the dry seasons of August and September. From the 1920s through the early 1970s, five pulp and paper mills contributed a significant portion of the point source pollution to the Willamette River. Their discharges were finally controlled by the McCall Administration in the early 1970s. But agricultural runoff and the pollutions associated with the rapid population growth in the Valley (see Tables 1 and 2) generated significant non-point source contaminations. In the 1990s, however, technology developed so that detection 25 Since the 1870s, the US Army Corps of Engineers has been the principle federal agency responsible for control of the significant rivers and ports in the US.

24

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 1 Populations of Oregon, Portland, and Eugene

Table 2 Population percentage changes

Year 1870 1920 1970 2020

Years 1870–1920 1920–1970 1970–2020

Oregon 90,923 783,389 2,091,385 4,237,256

Oregon (%) 752 167 103

Portland 8292 258,288 382,619 652,503

Portland (%) 3015 48 71

Eugene 861 10,593 79,028 172,622

Eugene (%) 1130 646 118

of petroleum residues and toxic chemicals from urban and suburban nonporous surfaces, plus the pesticide and fertilizer runoffs from rural sources—the primary non-point source—became possible. In 1997, the Willamette River Basin Task Force reported that non-point sources of pollution to the watershed far exceeded the point sources, especially during high precipitation periods. Dioxin, PCBs, municipal effluents due to riverbank developments, and especially runoff from farming were poisoning the Willamette causing fish deformities, wildlife reproduction declines, and dwindling salmon and steelhead runs. The pollution also threatened domestic water supplies. 4.4

Willamette River Superfund Sites

“Superfund” is not a term applied by the EPA or any other federal agency. It is a term invented by the news media. The official term is the National Priorities List (NPL). This list consists of the worst contaminated sites the EPA is able to identify. (The political evolutions of the EPA’s program of cleanups are reviewed in Chapter 3.) The restorations of rivers examined in this book generally have associated EPA Superfund cleanups. It is normal that these cleanups usually, but not always, precede the other restoration efforts. Perhaps the remediation of the worst contaminations should precede the necessary other restorations. This time sequencing is more likely to be politically appropriate.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

25

Why? The rivers that require significant remediation tend to have downstream urban industrial areas. Their ports were used for transporting the industrial and/or agricultural goods. The pollutions produced by these commercial activities ended up either deposited in the river’s sediments or stored in dump sites nearby. Once discovered, heavily dangerous contaminations demand the quick EPA action of Superfund expenditures, but the other restoration efforts can be more circumspect in being planned where aspects need careful consideration and sequencing. Of course, there are times when the heavily dangerous contaminations are discovered in the process of more routine remediations; hence, the typical sequencing is reordered. This was the case of the Willamette River restorations. Along the Willamette River, the most contaminated Superfund site has been completely remediated and transformed into a clean “industrial park.” This site is now the Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park, located to the north of, and downriver from Portland. In 1941, on this site, the federal government built an aluminum smelter to support the aviation industry in the “arsenal of democracy” movement on the eve of World War II. Reynolds Aluminum operated this smelter until 2000. It was purchased by Alcoa in 2002. At this site, the production wastes had contaminated groundwater and the river’s sediment, plus its upland soils. After remediation, in 2007, the site was sold to the Port of Portland who developed it as an industrial park. In 2008, FedEx developed a major distribution center there, and Amazon followed with their distribution facility in 2017. The Portland Harbor—12 miles downriver from downtown Portland—is the Willamette’s second Superfund site. It consists of approximately 22,200 acres with old ship building and repair facilities, lumber milling and wood treatment, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, metal fabrication and recycling, steel mills, smelters, and foundries. The contaminations include PCBs, dioxins, PAHs, pesticides, and their breakdown products. (See the Appendix to this book for a review of these toxins.) The EPA’s preliminary assessment of Portland Harbor was completed in May of 1998. The site was placed on the NPL in December of 2000. By 2008, five specific sites within the Port had been largely remediated, but five other sites are still being cleaned. Much of the cleanup consists of dredging sediments with appropriate capping (or backfilling) placed on top of the remaining contamination. Completion of this project is not anticipated until at least 2024.

26

R. M. ROBINSON

4.5

Some Other Restorations Along the Willamette

The Willamette Mission State Park is managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). It is located on the Willamette River approximately five miles north of Salem. On 752 acres within this park, the Willamette Riverkeeper Organization in conjunction with the OPRD is restoring the largest tract of floodplain forest and wetland shrub habitat along the river. This includes removal of invasive vegetation and planting native vegetation that will stabilize the floodplain and riverbank. (We will see that this replacement of invasive vegetation with stabilizing native vegetation is a common action required for all the river restorations examined in latter chapters.) The project will be completed in 2022. Since the Willamette Riverkeepers are using this effort as a demonstration project, this floodplain stabilization demonstrates restoration techniques that are also applicable to private riparian floodplain acreage. The Gail Achterman Wildlife Area is on the Willamette River near Salem. It is a 270-acre area that contains a 12-acre newly remediated gravel quarry. In 2016, in order to prevent further gravel mining, the area was purchased by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. (The property was previously zoned to allow this mining.) The area was purchased with financing from the Bonneville Power Administration, the Willamette Wildlife Mitigation Program, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and the Trust for Public Lands. This area has the only significant riparian forest along the 34-mile stretch of river between the Santiam River and the Willamette Mission State Park. This restoration replaces 123 acres of invasive vegetation with native plants so as to stabilize the area’s floodplain and riverbank. It also restores habitat for endangered Chinook salmon and numerous other species of local preservation concern—Cooper’s hawks, great blue herons, screech owls, pygmy owls, and river otters among many others. The Minto-Brown Island Park is also a project to control invasive vegetation in an ecologically complex natural area important for native fish and wildlife. This Park includes two sloughs: the 87-acre Willamette Slough and the 45-acre Oxbow Slough. Both of these sloughs have been smothered with invasive aquatic weeds. Replacement of the invasive vegetation will create habitat for fish, wildlife, and light boat recreation. This spread of noxious aquatic weeds fed by the high nutrients from agricultural runoff causes rapid degradation of wetlands and riverbanks. Grants from Bonneville Power and the Meyer Memorial Trust finance this restoration.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

27

Along the entire 187-mile Willamette River, the Oregon State Weed Board—a program within the Oregon Department of Agriculture—seeks to identify invasive vegetation early in its spread. This Board conducts invasive weed surveys and implements its “Early Detection and Rapid Response Program” as part of the State’s efforts at restoration and preservation of the Willamette. This program is a significant component in the Willamette’s restoration. We will observe that other restoration locales might benefit from this sort of state- or area-wide program. As indicated above, Portland has been the main source of contamination of the lower Willamette. In 2011, Portland completed its “Big Pipe Project” which eliminated over 95% of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) it was previously experiencing. Before the completion of this project, small amounts of rain (one tenth of an inch) would be sufficient to cause a CSO, that is the stormwater system would overflow into the sanitary sewer system and cause sewerage to flow into the streams and tributaries of the Willamette. At a cost of $1.4 billion, storm drainage systems were separated from the sanitary system. Much of the storm drainage is now channeled into ponds and buffer areas that absorb the water. 4.6

Some Characteristics of the Willamette Restoration

The Willamette River’s restoration illustrates some characteristics that we frequently find in other restorations: i. Charismatic leadership can play a role in restoration particularly in initiating the political movement that underlies the effort. ii. Restorations often have Superfund (NPL) or similar EPA led cleanups. iii. Restorations are typically long-term ongoing efforts. iv. Restorations generally involve interruptions of both point source and non-point source pollutions. The latter includes not only urban-suburban sources but also agricultural sources. v. The most significant sources of contaminations tend to be urban and often legacy-industrial contaminations. These urban areas tend to be close to the mouth of the river. In latter chapters, we will see that these characteristics repeat in many of the old Midwest industrial river cities that we examine.

28

R. M. ROBINSON

The Willamette River restoration was almost entirely without federal funding. (Much of the Superfund finance was recovered from the polluters.) The finance tended to come from state sources, plus from some private environmental organization. This, we shall see, is not the case for the restorations in the Great Lakes Basin. Nonetheless, even without the federal funding, a great deal was accomplished in the Willamette. The next sections, however, briefly review the AOC Program for the Great Lakes. This Program systematically attempts federally funded restorations of more than forty sites along the Great Lakes.

5

The Great Lakes and Their Restorations

Our recent restorations of various locales along the Great Lakes are significant because of the effectiveness of the organizational methodologies used. By overcoming considerable impediments, these methods generate a reasonable degree of optimism that they may be effectively utilized elsewhere. There are five Great Lakes. Each lies on or close to the border of the US with Canada: Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. (Lakes Michigan and Huron are actually joined at the Straits of Mackinac in Northern Michigan, and therefore might be considered as one waterbody.) Whereas Lake Michigan lies entirely within the borders of the US, the other four lakes have the Province of Ontario, Canada, on their northern sides, and the US states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, or Minnesota on their southern, western, and/or eastern sides. The Great Lakes hold twenty-one percent of all the freshwater on the globe, and 84% of all freshwater in North America. They are connected. Shipping can move through Superior, to Michigan, and then to Huron, to Erie, then down the Niagara River (around Niagara Falls via a canal) onto Lake Ontario, and then to the Atlantic via the St. Lawrence Seaway. (Fig. 2 illustrates these connections.) The Erie Canal, built during the 1820s, connected the Hudson River and New York City to Lake Erie at Buffalo, NY. It opened the Midwest of the US and Canada to the port of New York City via the Midwest canal networks that developed in the 1830s and1840s. It opened midwestern areas to exporting agricultural and resource extraction goods. Manufactured goods came on the returning legs of the canal boats. The significant cities along the Great Lakes include Buffalo NY, Erie PA,

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

29

Lake Superior Ontario

Minnesota

Michigan’s Upper Peninsula 1 Lake Huron 2 17

Wisconsin 3

7

Lake Ontario

8 Lake

4 Michigan

16

Erie

9

15

5

New York

14 10

Lake Michigan

6

Illinois

Indiana

13 11

12

Pennsylvania

Ohio

1. St. Louis River 2. Lower Menominee River 4. Sheboygan River 5. Milwaukee Estuary 7. Muskegon River 8. Saginaw River and Bay 9. Detroit River, River Rouge, Lake St. Claire, Clinton River 11. Black River 12. Cuyahoga River 14. Presque Isle Bay 15. Buffalo River 17. Toronto

3. Fox River, Green Bay 6. Grand Calumet River 10. Maumee River 13. Ashtabula River 16. Niagara River

Fig. 2 Examined Areas of Concern along the Great Lakes

Cleveland OH, Toledo OH, Detroit MI, Chicago IL, Milwaukee WI, Green Bay WI, and Duluth MN. Montreal and Quebec City are along the St. Lawrence Seaway which connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. The economies of all these localities depend on the commercial health of the Great Lakes. The original source of water in the Great Lakes was the melting glaciers that carved them at the end of the last ice age of 14,000 years ago.

30

R. M. ROBINSON

As they carved basins, they filled them with meltwater. The Lakes have been stable in water depth except for very recent years when the effects of global warming raised the levels and consequently partly eroded their shores. The significant threats to the ecology of the Great Lakes include (i) invasive species, (ii) industrial toxins including those from mining, (iii) water diversions, (iv) wetland destruction, (v) sewage overflows, and (vi) climate change. Cross-border regulation of the Great Lakes began in 1909 with the Boundary Waters Treaty which created the International Joint Commission to advise the state and provincial governments about water resource issues. The primary concerns were water diversions from the Great Lakes. For example, water was diverted from Lake Michigan into the Chicago River to operate the Illinois Waterway. The Water Resources Development Act of 1962 codified the law with respect to diversions in that all eight state governors and Canadian Province Premiers, acting as the Great Lakes International Joint Commission, need to unanimously approve any diversion. For example, in 1998, the Canadian Company “Nova Group” won approval from the Province of Ontario to withdraw 158 million Gallons of freshwater to ship by tanker to Asian countries. Public outcry forced the company to abandon the plan, but since that time, the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario, together with the US Governors of the states that bordered the Great Lakes, negotiated the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resource Agreement and Compact. This prevents most local water diversions and prevents all long-distance ones. Following this, in 2008, The Great Lakes Compact was approved by all eight US Governors and by Congress and signed by President Bush into law. This prevents diversions of water into US towns that do not lie directly on one of the Lakes, and restricts use by those that do. The Compact offers extensive protections because it treats groundwater, surface water, and tributaries as a single ecosystem. In attempting to battle the threats cited above, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), launched in 2009, authorized federal expenditures on local toxic cleanups, wetland and coastline restoration projects, and also projects to eliminate invasive species. During 2020, the following thirteen local projects were funded by the US EPA:

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

31

• For urban watershed management implementation: – Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District ($380,000) – Lake County Stormwater Management Commission ($446,603) – Delta Institute ($355,370) – Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps ($390,995) – Grand Valley Metropolitan Council ($340,065) – Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative ($340,065) • For invasive species prevention and control: – Grand Traverse Conservation District ($301,340) – Grand Valley State University ($405,275) – Ozaukee Washington Land Trust ($514,278) • For agricultural watershed management implementation: – – – –

Ozaukee County ($298,869) Macatawa Area Coordinating Council ($473,111) Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance ($498,634) Calhoun Conservation District ($160,377)

The “urban watershed management grants” generally funded the updating of old sewer systems. The older-designed stormwater runoff systems were usually integrated into the local sewerage treatment systems. During the larger stormwater runoffs, the sewerage treatment plants would be overrun, and untreated sewerage washed into the Lakes.26 The various EPA grants, listed above, were for updating these systems. Since the nineteenth century, an estimated 160 new species (many invasive and destructive) have entered the Great Lakes ecosystem. They generally entered through ship ballast.27 Currently, the zebra mussel (discovered in 1988) and the quagga mussel (discovered in 1989) are particularly destructive. They destroy fish spawning grounds and

26 See “Fourteenth Biennial Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality,” at www.ijc. org/php/publications/pdf/ID1631.pdf. 27 See “Our Threatened Great Lakes,” Inland Sea Education Association, April 3, 2013, at www.greatlakeseducation.org.

32

R. M. ROBINSON

reduce their available food.28 The alewife also entered Lake Ontario in the nineteenth century, and by the 1960s, it was also a nuisance on Lake Michigan, Huron, and Erie. Periodically, the alewife died in large numbers, and the dead fish washed onto lake shores. In the late 1960s, State and Federal Fish and Wildlife Departments stocked the Lakes with salmon and lake trout, and the alewife dropped considerably since these larger fish feed on the smaller alewife.29 In addition, the nuisance goby, ruffe, Asian carp, and the parasitic lamprey entered the Lakes in the 1950s through the 1990s. They prey on other more desirable fish and survive in poorer water conditions. As a result, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission was formed. It initiated preventive actions to limit the spread of the noxious fish.30 All of these efforts—anti-mussel initiatives and noxious fish elimination—benefit from the “invasive species prevention and control” projects of the GLRI as listed above. (See Appendix A to this book for reviews of these invasive species.) As in other water bodies (Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and a large number of other lakes), summer algae blooms have also been a problem in the Great Lakes, especially in the shallow areas such as in Lake Erie. In these areas, phosphate detergents historically have been a significant source of pollution that feeds these blooms, but by the mid1980s, Canada and the US had fully regulated this phosphate source. But currently, there are two other significant sources that feed these blooms: (1) agricultural fertilizer runoff, and (2) sewerage that even when treated, still adds fertilizer when the treated waste is dumped into a river and/or lake.31 The largest Lake Erie bloom was in 2015, near Toledo (1.300 square kilometers). There are five large sewerage systems on the Great Lakes: Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Milwaukee, and Gary. They form the largest sewerage-system sources of untreated, or insufficiently treated,

28 See “Great Lakes Aquatic Nuisance Species,” the Great Lakes Commission, March 27, 2007, at www.glc.org/ans/. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. Also see “Predicting Invasive Species in the Great Lakes,” US EPA at www.

epa.gov/ord/sciencenews/csinews_great_lakes.htm. 31 “Spring Rain, then Foul Algae in Ailing Lake Erie,” New York Times, March 14, 2013. Also see Sharon Hill (August 7, 2019), “Large Lake Erie Algal Bloom Nearing Colchester Tested for Toxicity,” Windsor Star.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

33

discharge into the Lakes.32 The GLRI initiatives listed above are designed to combat this pollution. To control agricultural fertilizer runoff, the US Department of Agriculture: Natural Resource Conservation Service promotes the establishment of “bumper crop borders” around agricultural crop fields (generally ten-feet-wide perimeters) so that the fertilizer runoffs are stopped and absorbed by the bumper crops. This method improves soil health, reduces soil erosion into streams, and reduces the nutrients and sediments into the Lakes. This reduces the algae blooms. All these efforts benefit from the “agricultural watershed management” funding and efforts of the GLRI as listed above. Other important pollutions include industrial-based chemicals such as methyl mercury which has a high propensity for human absorption. It is known to cause birth defects in humans and other animals, and to cause the near extinction of eagles in the Great Lakes region.33 The cleanup efforts described below frequently involve removal of industrially polluted sediment from water beds and banks. This is usually a necessary requirement for restoring the Great Lakes’ areas of concern as explored in detail in latter chapters. The Great Lakes Compact and International Joint Commission are the significant institutions that seek to protect this essential natural resource. They are cross-border government organizations rather than NGO environmental advocacy organizations. The Great Lakes Alliance is a significant NGO in advocacy support dedicated to the ecology of the Lakes as a group. In addition, as explored below, there are various NGOs dedicated to managing specific sites identified as areas of concern along the various Lakes. Through organizing the efforts of the bordering states and provinces, the cross-border government-formed Compact and Joint Commission, together with these local environmental advocacy groups, are mitigating the dire versions of the tragedies-of-the-commons at these sites. As a result, the collective actions needed to avoid the “tragedies” have been exercised, even in the context of multi-jurisdictions across two countries with numerous borders.34 32 See “New Report: Solving Regions Sewerage Crisis Will Create Jobs, Restore Great Lakes,” Healthylakes.org, August 9, 2010. 33 See the appendix to this book for a review of the effects of methyl mercury. 34 “Tragedies of the commons” concern the degradations of common property

resources. See Robinson (2021, pp. 100–104). Also see Robinson (2022, Chapter 15).

34

R. M. ROBINSON

As prime examples of the management efforts that benefit the restoration and preservation of the Great Lakes, the Joint Commission has developed and is implementing the Lake-Wide Management Plans and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement . These function in concert to remediate industrially and agriculturally contaminated localities in the Great Lakes Basin. They present detailed cross-border planning, monitoring, and cleanup efforts that are models of effectiveness in environmental restoration and preservation. They offer robust models of management efforts applicable to other areas of environmental concern. These Joint Commission efforts are briefly reviewed in this chapter. Their lessons of broader applicability are also reviewed in latter chapters. Under The Great Lakes Legacy Act , since 2002 the US EPA has invested more than $400 million to address contaminated sediment in various locals called areas of concern (AOC). (The material below explains these AOCs.) This money has been matched by $251 million from non-federal sources and $74 million from private sources. Contaminated sediment in the AOCs together with degraded former industrial sites (brown fields) are major impediments to community revitalization. Communities struggle to revitalize their waterfronts with new commercial enterprises, real estate development, and recreation.35 Industrially caused sediments are often contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals such as mercury, and petroleum products. These pollutants settled into sediment at the bottom of rivers that flow into lakes and harbors where public health is threatened. But as shown below, there is considerable success in cleanup efforts so that the organization of these remediations should be worthy of investigation and is therefore explored in the latter chapters of this book. 5.1

The Binational “Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement”

As reviewed above, in 1972, the US and Canada signed The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This initiated commitments between the two countries to restore and enhance the water quality in the Great Lakes ecosystem. To this end, it established water quality objectives and commitments concerning the design, implementation, and monitoring of a wide array of preservation and enhancement programs. 35 See Campbell et al. (2015) for a review of the factors that drive the Great Lakes restoration efforts.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

35

It also recognized the International Joint Commission for implementing and monitoring these binational efforts. The agreement was revised in 1978 to purposely broaden the goal of restoration by focusing on “maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.” At that time, the Agreement called for the virtual elimination of “persistent toxic substances” in the ecosystem by adopting zero-discharge rules for toxic chemicals into the Lakes. Despite the 1972 and 1978 Agreements, the Great Lakes continued to deteriorate. In the 1980s, this deterioration stimulated efforts at restoration. The US and Canada identified 48 highly degraded shoreline areas in particular need of remedial efforts in the US, Canada, and shared border areas. These were the locales classified as areas of concern (AOCs), and they became the focus of restoration efforts involving US federal, Canadian, state, provincial, and municipal authorities. Progress, however, continued to lag so that in 2009, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched to accelerate these cleanup efforts. To do this, the US and Canada defined 14 specific “Beneficial Use Impairments” (BUIs) applicable to these AOCs, and that resulted from degradations that could be addressed in cleanup efforts. (These BUIs are explored in depth in Chapter 2.) These BUIs included degradation factors such as poisoned sediment buildups, shoreline hardening from industrial interests, untreated or undertreated sewerage discharges, etc. Under the GLRI, government entities and local communities develop and implement projects to remove the BUIs and ultimately “delist” the AOCs. The GLWQA was amended again in 1987 to incorporate broader ecosystem management concepts. In particular, to further this “ecosystem management,” in 2012, “remedial action plans” (RAPs) were initiated to revive the significantly degraded areas designated as AOCs. Each AOC requires a specific RAP to guide its restoration and future protection. Also, each local area can be designated as an “AOC in recovery” once all of the RAP’s elements have begun to be implemented and a monitoring system identifies that the impairments—such as beach closures, fish tumors, or algae caused “dead zones”—are remediated. “Restoration” of the AOC is achieved by eliminating the sources of contaminants or other environmental stressors that have impaired the locality, and by restoring the fish and wildlife habitat and populations. Once these are achieved, under the approval of the Joint Commission, the area is removed from the AOC designated list. (A list of these areas is given in Chapter 2.)

36

R. M. ROBINSON

6

Lake-Wide Ecosystem Management Plans

In addition to the AOC Program outlined above, the 2012 amendment to the GLWAQ included a broader initiation of “Lake Wide Management Plans” that addressed problems of non-point contaminant sources (such as agricultural and suburban runoffs), plus contaminated sediment, airborne toxic substances, and contaminated groundwater within the Great Lakes Basin. These plans began the “nearshore framework” for the Great Lakes. This expanded the concept of the lake’s ecosystem to identify those “nearshore” areas that are now—or might become—under environmental stress. The “Lake-Wide Management Plans” also identified the factors that caused this stress. These plans established priorities for prevention, monitoring, and protection. They represented binational strategies for treating the lakes as entire ecosystems to be protected. The plans identified objectives based on science, and these objectives were to be updated every five years. For example, the waterborne bacteria and viruses that originate in sewerage, municipal stormwater, and agricultural wastes are now measured, and plans for their abatement are included in the “Lake Wide Management Plans.” Funding is provided via the GLRI for specific AOC restorations and also for remediations outside designated AOCs. This funding became crucial for reenergizing the restoration efforts. In general, each of the five Great Lake “Plans” addresses eight specific objectives. Each of these is considered below. Objective 1: To eliminate harmful chemicals in each of the Great Lakes in order to (i) reduce future costs associated with water treatment, (ii) reduce treating illnesses related to chemical exposure, and (iii) improve the quality of life by better protecting the environment.

To pursue this objective, the US and Canada identified “Chemicals of Mutual Concern” and developed strategies for their monitoring and reduction to zero discharge. This means managing their import or manufacture, their use, and their re-use and disposal, i.e. managing over their entire “life-cycle.”36 Besides their identification and monitoring, both countries agreed to identify safer substitutes for these chemical uses, and

36 For a list of these identified “chemicals of concern,” see www.chemicalsubstances. gc.ca.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

37

to regularly exchange science-based information for monitoring, and also to publicly identify these chemicals and their harmful effects. Currently, chemicals that concentrate in fish such as mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), remain at levels of particular concern. But emerging classes of potential concern include pharmaceuticals and personal care products since these are also identified as adversely affecting the Lakes’ ecosystems. Objective 2: To reduce the occurrence of toxic and nuisance algae blooms that degrade drinking water quality, impair fish spawning, and adversely impact commercial and recreational fishing, swimming, tourism, and overall enjoyment of the Great Lakes.

Pursuit of this objective requires eliminating phosphorous concentrations, particularly in Lake Erie—the shallowest of the Great Lakes—which has suffered the most from the “dead zones” produced by algae blooms. In particular, this objective requires the reduction in sewerage discharges which are not entirely treated and the non-point pollution from agriculture and suburban runoff. This requires development of programs to affect and monitor the full treatment of sewerage and the establishment of buffer zones for agricultural and suburban runoffs. Objective 3: To protect human health and the environment by preventing harmful, polluting substances from being discharged from vessels operating in the Great Lakes.

This objective requires the prevention of ship discharges of sewerage, garbage, and harmful polluting substances such as oils or other harmful pollution, and also from the discharge of aquatic invasive species in ballast water. In particular, the objective requires the monitoring of relevant shipping activities. Objective 4: Preventing ecosystem harm due to the spreading of aquatic invasive species.

Recently, zebra and quagga mussels have been found to trap nutrients in nearshore zones of the Great Lakes. This contributes to degraded water quality, algae development, and aviary botulism.

38

R. M. ROBINSON

Objective 5: To provide ecosystem services that will prevent further loss of habitat and species.

The pursuit of this objective requires protecting shorelines from development, from “hardening,” and from other stresses. It first required a baseline survey of existing habitat and the establishment of basin-wide target for habitat gain. This also required efforts at species and habitat restoration from both countries. This also requires the evaluation of the effects of climate change on species and habitat. Objective 6: To protect the Great Lakes water quality from the negative impacts of changes in groundwater that enters the lakes.

Groundwater stored in aquifers exists throughout the Great Lakes Basin. Its total amount equals the volume of Lake Michigan. It is a significant source of drinking water in the Basin. Identification of its contaminants and their sources is essential. This requires analyzing the effects of climate change on groundwater and also requires binational groundwater monitoring. Objective 7: To enhance the long-term effectiveness of management strategies for restoring and protecting Great Lakes water quality by understanding and considering climate change impacts.

Pursuit of this objective requires that scientific investigations be coordinated between the two countries to study the impacts of increased water temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and decreased ice coverage. It also requires an evaluation of how climate change will affect runoff, erosion patterns, wetland development, and other environmental processes. Objective 8: To enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Great Lakes science through cooperation and coordination.

This objective commits both countries to maintain and monitor comprehensive science-based ecosystem indicators so as to anticipate emerging threats and restoration progress. This coordination is undertaken by the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). This assures that science information is generated and available to support

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

39

Great Lakes programs and to inform the public.37 This also requires setting priorities for expenditures on scientific investigations. This objective requires utilizing comprehensive, science-based ecosystem indicators to assess the environmental health of the Great Lakes.

7

The Great Lakes Restoration and Robust Extensions

The Great Lakes restoration is a substantial binational effort between Canada and the US. It consists of basin-wide environmental preservation and monitoring efforts, and also the restoration of areas of concern (AOCs). The AOC Program applies to environmentally restoring heavily polluted localities. It substantially involves local governments in restoring natural habitats and does so to pursue clean and environmentally healthy human interaction. These local restorations are primarily financed through federal funds, but also include state, local, and NGO foundation funding. Chapters 3–9 review the effectiveness of these binational restoration efforts for twenty of these AOCs. (See Fig. 2.) Latter chapters also demonstrate the potential robustness of the methods used in the Great Lakes for applications elsewhere and also suggest some of these possible extensions. One aspect of the Great Lakes effort that is worthy of exploration concerns the nature of the binational agreement and its extensive funding. The notion that a polluted Great Lakes would cause tension between Canada and the US must have played a political role in generating the considerable funding for these efforts. For example, as explored in a latter chapter, heavily polluted watersheds that lie entirely within a particular state (such as some river systems within Massachusetts), or even those that cross state borders (such as those systems that flow into the Chesapeake Bay), have not received the degree of federal funding and attention of the 2009 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. As stated by Kirstie Pecci of the “Conservation Law Project – Zero Waste,” the Federal EPA “does not rock the boat,” meaning it appears to wait for the political forces to gain some momentum prior to supporting some new conservation 37 Note that the Cooperative Institute for Great Lakes Research at the University of Michigan was begun in 1989, but was reorganized with federal funding in 2017. Similar institutes were initiated at area universities at this time, e.g., at Central Michigan University and the University of Windsor.

40

R. M. ROBINSON

effort.38 Perhaps this is a wise method for allocating the limited resources managed by a federal environmental agency. Perhaps the political possibilities for environmental restoration must be envisioned first by a group of dedicated activists, and then, they must work to build the political momentum prior to organizing a federal (or substantial state) effort. This was an issue explored in Robinson (2021, Chapter 4), and it is also an issue revisited and extensively explored in the next chapter. Perhaps we can generalize that political tension is a necessary ingredient for garnering large federal funding. It appears to be the key ingredient for the Great Lakes restoration and preservation.

8

The Organization of Latter Chapters

Chapters 3–9 review twenty areas of concern (some are compendiums of adjacent AOCs). Figure 2 illustrates their locations. These reviews examine the origins of their environmental degradations, the plans for the progress in their cleanups, the expenditures on the restorations and their sources of funding, and also provides some interviews with those directly involved, e.g. the government officials, academicians, and leaders of the environmental advocacy organizations involved. In a similar way, Chapter 10 reviews three New England rivers—the Housatonic, the Mystic, and the Penobscot outside the Great Lakes Basin. (See Fig. 3 for their locations.) The differences between these three New England rivers and the areas of concern consist of the governmental agencies, the initiating advocacy groups, and the funding for the efforts, i.e. whether the funding is primarily state or federal or other. Chapter 11 reviews the lessons drawn for the AOC Program and the other restorations examined. It also extends these lessons to the relatively new Urban Waters Federal Partnerships and National Estuary Program, both federal programs for local restorations.

38 Presented in a speech before the “Saugus River Watershed Council’s Annual Meeting,” December 5, 2019.

1

HABITAT RESTORATION: AN INTRODUCTION

41

Maine

Quebec Penobscot River Vermont Bangor

New York State

Housatonic River

New Hampshire

Mystic River

Boston

Massachusetts Connecticut Rhode Island Long Island Sound

Fig. 3 Three examined Rivers in New England

References Campbell, Maureen, Matthew Cooper, Kathryn Friedman, and William Anderson (2015), “The Economy as a Driver of Change in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41 (1): 69–83. Carson, Rachel (1951), The Sea Around Us, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Carson, Rachel (1955), The Edge of the Sea, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Carson, Rachel (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Douglas, William O. (1961), My Wilderness: East to Katahdin, Doubleday, New York, NY.

42

R. M. ROBINSON

Hynes, Patricia H. (1989), The Recurring Silent Spring, Pergamon Press – Athene Series, New York, NY. Lear, Lind (1997), Rachel Carson, Mariner Books Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, NY. Lytle, Mark Hamilton (2007), The Gentle Subversive, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Robinson, Richard M. (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave-Macmillan, New York, NY. Robinson, Richard M. (2022), Business Ethics: Kant, Virtue, and the Nexus of Duty, Springer Texts, Cham, Switzerland.

CHAPTER 2

A Reasoned Process for Restorations

1

Introduction

The restorations of locales along the Great Lakes represents a new industrial era, one of cleaner societies that are rid of the old soot-laden areas built from coal and fuel–oil-based processes that left workers to live in poisoned environments. All of our new industries can now be vastly cleaner. But this new era still generates a variety of toxins such as those from agriculture and urban-suburban storm runoffs. These are controllable pollutions. But the transformation from one era to another poses the potential of ignoring the old mistakes in the sense of not confronting what is directly and currently in front of us. We shall explore in the chapters to come our efforts to foresee these problems and to not commit this sin of ignorance. By applying the proper science, even these new forms of toxins can be controlled to our substantial benefit. For example, we need not suffer from the toxic algae blooms of recent decades, or the invasive vegetation that potentially destroys our wetlands. While cleaning our legacy pollutions, new contaminations can be prevented. Our processes of restoration need the ability to anticipate and prevent. This poses a considerable political problem explored in this chapter and throughout this monograph. Consider the old industrial era now left behind. As reviewed in the previous chapter, at the end of the nineteenth and in the early twentieth © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_2

43

44

R. M. ROBINSON

centuries, North America had dramatic loss of aviary species, most often due to hunting for commercial purposes. It was also suffering threats of still more extinctions of significant species such as the bison. These were also threatened by hunting. During the early twentieth century’s specie-preservation movement, North America was able to preserve the Bald Eagle and the American Bison, two nationally significant symbols. But it lost others. At this time, the requirements for preserving species changed from restrictions on hunting to preserving habitat, and that is a point often obfuscated by development interests. Our environmentally important habitats are often wanted for commercial development, and the demands for preservation or restoration are ignored. Therefore, some species (e.g. the small fish known as the “snail darter”) is belittled by the vested commercial interests as unworthy of protection. It is, however, the habitat that is particularly important; it is the key objective of environmental preservation. Our reasoned discourse should generate a public understanding of this habitat preservation issue. Promoting this discourse has been an essential task of the environmental movement. Preservation and restoration of habitat stem from somewhat similar motivations, namely a desire to maintain a natural environment rather than to commercially convert or develop it. But preserving a natural habitat for species survival needs a somewhat different motivation than restoration of a local habitat. The latter may have the aim of providing some locality with aviary, fish, or other animal species that are abundant elsewhere, or a variety of plant life that might not be under threat of extinction from the earth. For example, in Edge of the Sea, Rachel Carson (1955) wrote about the wonderfulness of the tide pools and the various marine species that thrived there, none of which were in danger of extinction, but all contributed to the ecosystems of the tidal pools she studied on Cape Ann and elsewhere. It is the habitat of the tide pool that needs preservation or restoration. It is needed for the intrinsic value to the locality in question. We need to know that the habitat exists, that it can be locally observed and interacted with, and that it is part of a larger nearby ecosystem worthy of preservation. In a similar way, the Detroit River, the Cuyahoga River, and Presque Isle Bay—all along Lake Erie—were each in need of restoration, but not in order to prevent some global species extinction, but in order to proliferate various species back into these local habitats and to restore natural areas for the experience of nearby residents. But in each of these cases, the

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

45

aim was to restore the local habitat to ecological soundness, not to a pristine wilderness. This was accomplished through a particular sort of Great Lakes restoration program reviewed in this and subsequent chapters. What is of particular importance is the process of deciding what these restored local habitats will be. This process needs to address three questions: i. What is to be restored? ii. What method or plan will be used for this restoration? iii. What do we mean by restored, i.e. what will be the extent of this restoration? Subsequent chapters of this book analyze these three questions as they apply to those areas along the Great lakes under the auspices of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement established between Canada and the US. This Agreement establishes a process that identifies those areas of concern (AOC) located on both sides of the Canadian-US border, areas that are in particular need of environmental restoration. This “process” must answer the above three questions. It might also be sufficiently robust for application to needed restorations outside of the Great Lakes region, areas such as the largely polluted watersheds of the US’ northern rust-belt areas. This possibility of robustness is directly addressed in latter chapters. The chapters of this book review the process for restoration not only of our areas of concern along the Great Lakes, but also of some other rivers not within the Great Lakes Basin. (Note that there are forty-eight Great Lakes’ areas of concern under restoration initiatives.) This exploration suggests lessons that the process for the areas of concern poses for other North American localities. But the rest of this chapter reviews the requirements necessary to align this political process of restoration with the aspirations of our North American society and also to review the governmental institutions that attempt to facilitate this process. It is argued here that to be effective, the requirements for this process are essentially the “fair and reasoned” criteria as previously explored in Robinson (2021). Given this recent elucidation, only an abbreviated review of these requirements is provided here. The previous exegesis effectively argues that the process should (i) be fully informed of relevant scientific and socioeconomic information, (ii) be fully inclusive of input from all affected,

46

R. M. ROBINSON

(iii) be objectively logical in analysis and decision as reviewed by disinterested but knowledgeable parties, and (iv) not be corrupted by those with narrow and personal commercial conflicts of interest. These are the requirements that are also reviewed here where it is argued that these four possible and ethical criteria of process can facilitate morally motivated environmental restorations. This “political-ethical process” can facilitate success, but violation of this criteria will likely diminish public support. 1.1

Our Moral Process of Environmental Restoration1

In light of our society’s environmental restoration efforts, we are justified in asking: • How do we know if our public debate and decisions concerning these restorations serve more than only narrow commercial interests? • How do we know if our restoration considerations are fully inclusive of input from all those affected, or even if they are properly scientifically informed? • How do we know if these decisions are fair and reasoned? Do we even have clear understandings concerning our society’s norms for what we consider to be fair and reasoned? We would surely demand that the notion of “fair and reasoned” requires an application of logic, i.e. of properly formed relevant premises and necessary logical deductions concerning where and how restorations should take place. These premises must include the relevant scientific and socio-economic information and analyses. To assure this, we must be open to and actively solicit and carefully consider the input from all affected constituents, commercial and other. But we would also want our decision process to be uncorrupted by any direct and narrow commercial conflicts of interest. But how do we assure this last requirement? The typical way would be to utilize a panel of rational “judges” (decision makers) who we know are not corrupted by conflicts of interest, and then have them review the decision and the process for reaching that decision. Did the

1 Some of this section reflects Robinson (2021, Chapters 2 and 3).

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

47

decision process include all the relevant scientific information and input? Did the decision logically follow?2

2

Environmental Duty and Restorations

The environmental duty we examine here essentially involves local community engagements in local habitat restorations. Communities are expressions of the mutual dependence of their participants, who we assume aim at fulfilling their own needs. But mutual respect requires that these individuals treat each other not merely as the means to their own ends, but also that they allow others to pursue their ends.3 This mutual respect is at the core of what we usually term “duty” of which there are two types that we often term perfect and imperfect duties. The former (also often termed negative duty) is of an absolute and narrowly defined prohibition, such as “do not commit murder,” or “do not dump refuse into that river or bay.” But the latter type of duty concerns an active interest in the community. It is also often termed positive duty in that it implies to do something, that is to perform some good act. Whereas perfect duty is always of narrow aim, imperfect duty is of wide aim such as “be civil,” or “be civically involved,” or “contribute to cleaning the local environment.” The wide nature of imperfect duties means that they always have practical limits and therefore require tradeoffs in our use of time and resources. Some degree of pursuit of these widely aimed duties is expected by our society, but we do not specify how these broad duties are to be fulfilled, or the extent of their fulfillment. “Be of use to the world” is society’s expectation for each of us, but we leave the “how” and the “how much” to personal discretion as influenced by personal circumstance and inclination. We applaud those who “push the envelope” in their pursuits of being useful, but we do not condemn those who do not “push.” We view our environmental duties as (i) we have a perfect duty to actively not harm the environment, but we also have (ii) an imperfect duty to try and

2 The norms applicable to our environmental and other concerns are shaped by the process we term “moral construction,” i.e., the philosophy that these norms should be logically derived as a social contract from fundamental principles. This normative process is particularly and extensively reviewed by Robinson (2021, Chapters 2 and 3). Readers are referred to that exegesis for a fuller understanding of the applicable moral construction relevant to environmental issues. 3 See Kant (1797, 6, p. 393).

48

R. M. ROBINSON

help restore it even if that help consists of only small and mundane tasks such as organizing our personal recyclables. Of course, it could involve a much greater effort such as organizing a significant recycling campaign or soliciting grants to restore our local river. Environmental preservation and restoration are wide moral pursuits, i.e. imperfect duties. This sort of wide duty does not specify how the duty is to be met, and it is always to be considered as having practical limits and tradeoffs of one duty with another. Success in pursuing these wide environmental duties depends on our knowledge of the scientific facts of the case and of how to effectively meet these practical ends. Today, we act environmentally with an abundance of relevant available scientific information. We can therefore pose that: (i) we have an imperfect duty to obtain knowledge concerning our environmental impacts, and (ii) we have an imperfect duty to apply our environmental knowledge to preserve, enhance, or restore the natural environment. But we must accept that these wide duties all have individual practical limits and tradeoffs with pursuits of other wide aims. We also have constraints on these wide pursuits that result from our individual circumstances, e.g. our wealth, the other duties we recognize, our background knowledge, etc. These propositions of environmental knowledge are very much supported by the examples explored in latter chapters. To further our analysis, however, we must tackle the notion of “community” referred to in several places above. The argument here is that our widely aimed imperfect environmental duties are essentially expressions of community that address one of the broader issues of today, preserving and restoring our environment.

3

Some Maxims for Reasoned Environmental Discourse

Reasoned discourse provides the glue that shapes our imperfect environmental duties and that stimulates our community efforts. What can we claim about this discourse? Beyond the larger requirements of “being informed” and “being inclusive,” can we establish some micro-oriented applicable criteria? Should reasoned discourse have constraints; if so, what should they be? The philosopher Onora O’Neill (1995) suggests some principles for this social discourse, principles applicable to our environmental considerations as reviewed in this monograph. They are reviewed

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

49

and explained more extensively in Robinson (2021, Chapter 3) as relevant for our environmental debates, but they are also briefly reviewed here. These principles are particularly relevant for our governmental agencies and our environmental advocacy organizations that often initiate, influence, and direct our restorations. Our society’s environmental decision processes must generate the reasoned discourse capable of eliciting confidence in our decisions. To this end, the following five maxims and their practical limits were posed by O’Neill (1995, pp. 34–50) as broad principles for our reasoned social discourse, although not in the specific context of environmental concerns. They are, however, particularly applicable for assuring reasoned environmental discourse. The first four of O’Neill’s maxims are clear specifications of wide imperfect duties. We explore here their applicability to associated practical limits. The fifth of O’Neill’s maxims specifies a prohibition against falsehoods (a narrowly defined perfect duty of prohibition), but there is an imperfect environmental duty aspect to this that must also be explored. For example, we have an imperfect duty to try to be accurate in all our communications, although perfect accuracy might often be an unlikely attainment. Consider, for example, the problem of just measuring various environmental assets such as the amount of forest lands or wetlands existing at some moment of time. One can estimate these inventory levels at a point of time, but some degree of inaccuracy must occur due to continued changes such as dredging in our waterways, or other developmental incursions and deteriorations, but also because of the very definition of what we seek to measure. For example, what do we mean by forested land? What do we mean by wetland? All of these causes of uncertainty should be recognized. O’Neill’s principles of reasoned communication are presented below. 1. Assertions of authority must be based on reason. Intolerance brings unreasoned authority to bear on communication. Wherever intolerance is practiced, whether by state or church or other bodies or individuals, those whose thoughts and communications are suppressed, are silenced not by reason, but by authorities that lack reasoned vindication. When these authorities govern us, the authority of reason is diminished, and our distance from a reasoned form of life and politics grows. (O’Neill, 1995, p. 48, italics added)

50

R. M. ROBINSON

Consider our civic institutions that ultimately carry out our environmental policies, institutions such as the US Army Corps of Engineers that has great power over our nation’s water resources, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the US Bureau of Land Management, and also the various similar state-level agencies. Our civic institutions should communicate the logical decision criteria that support the broad interests of the community, and these decision criteria should be communicated through well-articulated and reasoned policy documents that indicate: 1. the environmental problems at hand, 2. the data considered that exposes these problems and subjects them to analysis, 3. the methods of analysis, 4. the results of analysis, and 5. the proposed logical remedies. All of this should be “grist for the mill” of community debate, but these written policy documents should attempt to articulate not only the necessary decisions, but also the reasoned argument that supports these decisions. If, for example, we insist on restrictions to the chemicals we place on our lawn, our government institutions need to explain why, and/or how to properly apply what is allowed. This reasoned clarity is required to promote civic understanding for the purpose of promoting adherence. We cannot achieve broadly agreed-upon environmental resolutions if our government institutions, such as those state agencies we will be examining in the chapters below, merely assert authoritarian decrees unsupported by reason and considerations of “fairness” (a notion to be examined below). In our environmental decisions, the socially communicated policy documents must be sufficiently clear, and the training and expertise of those engaged in these analyses must be sufficient so that the individual biases of those analyzing will not end up dominating the community. This is particularly to be sought in our local restorations such as in our Great Lakes areas of concern program. In programs such as this, a breakdown in the reasoned communication could occur, and the imperfect duty to discover the correct policy can end up being ignored in favor of an obfuscating and logically mistaken argument. Illogical or bias motivated

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

51

obfuscations of a few should not cavalierly replace logic. But if we can generate sufficient effective discourse in our areas of concern program, then this should prevent the obfuscations of unreasoned argument. The institutions and processes of our AOC Program are shown in the chapters below to conform to this reasoned principle. The practical limits to the imperfect duties associated with our social discourse should be based firstly on the requirement for clarity in the reasoning of the argument itself. Some constituents might choose to not accept the logic of the argument however coherently presented, but always ask for more information, or simply deny the logical connections presented no matter how clear they are. It is the psychology of accepting authority that might be the issue. The judgment of “how reasoned the argument is” should be based on the fictional “reasonable diligent judge,” and not on the conception that “all must be persuaded.” This must apply to our community’s debates concerning environmental restorations. In the areas of concern program examined here, the scientific expertise provided by federal, state, provincial, and academic sources is substantial. It need only be well communicated, and the elicited debate respected by objective decision makers. The decision makers engaged have duties to act as reasonably diligent judges in understanding the logic of the arguments presented, and those who argue the contingencies of policy have wide imperfect duties to communicate this logic effectively. These efforts are required to maintain a sense of moral community especially in our environmental matters and local restoration efforts. Failures in these efforts indicate either willful violation of moral community relations, or some degree of incompetence. Both might be remediated. 2. Community actors and decision makers should tolerate the logical reason of others. What does this imperfect duty imply particularly in the context of our local restorations? One who adopts it, … detaches himself from the subjective personal conditions of his judgment, which cramp the minds of so many others, and reflects upon his own judgment from a universal standpoint (which he can only determine by shifting his ground to the standpoint of others). (Kant, 1793, V, p. 294)

52

R. M. ROBINSON

These criteria prohibit indifference on the part of the decision maker to the reasoned communication of others. The practical limit to this imperfect duty is that one cannot consider all arguments from every individual constituent, at least not without being too exhausted to perform other wide duties. Decision makers are not likely to have the time for all of these considerations; hence, standardized policies are set. But decision makers should also be open to new evidence and new arguments that appear to be relevant and logical. Why? There are two reasons: (i) all should respect the dignity of those who try to communicate with them, and should even encourage these communications; (ii) all should consider evidence that is relevant to their community’s potential performance. The rationing of the decision makers’ time, however, poses practical limits. Respect should be given to others, but attention to the community’s performance in all of its dimensions poses the primary demand on the decision makers’ time within the constraint of avoiding disrespect of “others.” We shall review below the considerable efforts of state agency scientists who work on our local restorations. With respect to this science, there are commonalities in the local problems along the Great Lakes, and therefore, there are economies of scope and scale that should be exploited. For example, we will review some of these economies with respect to statistical analyses of fish populations across the Great Lakes, even though local constituents are likely to view their restoration as somewhat unique. This can pose a key communication problem for administrators. Strong claims that, “We have seen this problem before and know how to remedy it!” might not offer the best approach. We will review below the methods of state personnel in resolving these problems of local constituency especially in our reviews of the Saginaw AOC and Muskegon AOC. 3. Reasoned argument should not be restricted or discouraged. Non-reasoned argument that denigrates, mocks, or bullies, or more generally fails to respect relevant constituents, may make it difficult for others to articulate their logical argument, and hence, it violates a maxim to allow others to “think for themselves.”4 These communications foment 4 The Storm King Decision provides a significant example of an advocacy group acting in a non-servile way. The Hudson River Fishermen’s Association successfully challenged a bureaucratic assertion of authority. By doing so, it established one of the most significant precedents in environmental law. See Robinson (2021, p. 271).

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

53

divisions between individuals and groups. The practical limits to this wide duty of “non-restriction” may, however, pose the necessity for some form of ultimate censorship where its absence would lead to forms of defamation or harassment that lessens or stills the reasoned communications within the community.5 4. Community, stakeholders, and decision makers should reason in common with those affected by its policy decisions. Community interests cannot expect to reason correctly unless it does so in common with those affected by its policies.6 This “reasoning in common” requires broad social discourse within the community and also with all of the various stakeholders. This discourse benefits the reasoning of decision makers in that it makes them aware of the logical arguments of those affected. We will review in latter chapters the considerable lengths that restoration authorities have taken to resolve this “reasoning in common” problem. 5. Accuracy in community discourse should be pursued. Intentional falsehoods must clearly be prohibited.7 Falsehoods in communication could not serve as an allowable principle among a plurality of individuals. The practical limits, of course, concern situations of uncertainty where our declarations should be unbiased estimates of what we reasonably expect to be accurate, and that also include qualifying statements that indicate this uncertainty.8 There is an expectation of effort underlying the formation of our estimates of the relevant probability distributions, and this effort should be subject to our due diligence. We will review below the extents the experts involved in the areas of 5 Kant’s Universal Principle of Right (or Justice) argues that the freedom of individuals should be maximized subject to non-interference with the freedom of others. See Kant (1797, 6, p. 231). This applies to freedom to try and persuade, an aspect of communication. 6 See O’Neill (1995, p. 48). 7 See O’Neill (1995, p. 45) and Korsgaard (1996, pp. 325–349). 8 By unbiased we mean we expect to be accurate over numerous repetitive trials in that

across these hypothetical trials, the sum of the positive and negative errors would be in a statistical sense, insignificantly different from zero.

54

R. M. ROBINSON

concern program have gone to communicate this risk-related information. For example, we will examine the efforts involved in statistically analyzing the fish population degradations referred to above. 6. Community stakeholders should not act in a servile manner. One who is servile does not act as an autonomous agent who reasons both independently and in common with other community members. Acting in a servile manner undermines our own dignity and violates our norms of respect for the dignity of persons and self. It deprives the community of our reasoned input. We therefore have imperfect duties to act in non-servile ways, especially to not be servile to the crowd. We are required to exercise our logical faculties and to participate in our community’s reasoned environmental discourse. Examples of citizen groups involved in the areas of concern program and behaving in a non-servile manner are reviewed in the following chapters.

4

The Nature of Reasoned Environmental Discourse

We should review our local environmental restorations as essentially being motivated by our pursuit of a moral community. We should recognize our environmental restorations as moral pursuits which manifest community efforts in pursuit of this moral goal. As such, they should manifest the moral principles reviewed above, and ultimately, we should recognize the nature and extent of our restoration efforts as manifesting the morality of our community. What else would they manifest, the commercial development interests of a few? Commercial development can be a moral pursuit, but only under the transparent guidance of community consensus. That guidance is not likely to tolerate environmental degradation. 4.1

The Attempted Disseminations of Information and the Obfuscations to Be Avoided

As reviewed above, environmental discourse has dimensions of both perfect and imperfect duty. With respect to our environmental concerns, one of our relevant duties of prohibition is to not deceive or obfuscate the severity of the problem. For example, we have a duty to not deny

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

55

that global warming exists, but if we have doubts about the relevant data, then we have a duty to find and objectively evaluate the existing scientific reviews. To not do so and claim the problem does not exist is a violation of duty. We might state, “Do not purposely deceive concerning environmental concerns!” But currently there is an abundance of environmental knowledge that is readily available through reputable online sources such as government agencies, university research laboratories, and environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs) of various sorts. In fact, we have so much information that any deception or obfuscation concerning the environmental problems must be willful. This public information usually has passed scientific review. It is readily available from internet sources, is scientifically authenticated, and can be compared to biased and non-scientific information foisted on the public by self-interested organizations for the very purpose of self-interested obfuscation.9 Given that accurate information is so available at low or no cost to the public reviewer, our duty to obtain it for the purpose of being a well-informed citizen appears to be a required duty. One should know what is happening in the surrounding environment. But there are still wide duty aspects to consider. When the information is more stylized to fit narrow but legitimate interests—such as the condition of marine populations in a particular bay—our pursuit of having a moral community should push us to recognize a required duty to generate accurate information and to apply that information.10 Our pursuit of applying this information, as differentiated from obtaining it, is an obligation posed as an imperfect duty. There is discretion concerning how it is to be applied as long as we recognize an absolute obligation to apply it in environmentally respectful ways. The scientific information indicates that our environmental needs are currently substantial, and our reasoned social discourse should reflect this as part of our society’s collective imperfect duty, a concept explored in detail below. Current environmental concerns have both scientific and socioeconomic aspects. Our environmental condition is analyzed through large volumes of scientific data and analyses. Latter chapters explore some of this information. While the science pertains to how nature is affected, the 9 Numerous examples of this obfuscation with respect to climate change are presented in Mann (2021). 10 Note that Robinson (2021, Chapter 2) argues that this “pursuit” should be the moral motivation for our actions. This is the essential element of Kantian ethical philosophy.

56

R. M. ROBINSON

socio-economic effects concern who is affected, i.e. the issue of environmental justice. The resulting examinations compose much of the public’s current discourse, and therefore, this information is highlighted in our latter examinations. 4.2

Fairness or Obfuscations

Our reasoned environmental discourse should concern issues of fairness (defined and explained below). To be consistent with our society’s aspirational norms, fairness in discourse should be inclusive of both socioeconomic input and scientific analysis. All should have the opportunity to participate in this discourse, but this poses some equity issues since participation can be difficult for people at considerable distance even though they are affected by our environmental policies. We do have global involvements and agreements that attempt to overcome these difficulties such as the Paris Accord and our Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada, but we still have the equity issue concerning our effects on future generations since they cannot participate in our current discourse. There are ways of overcoming this moral conundrum such as using long-lasting scientifically-based decision criteria that were acceptable to previous generations so that we expect these same criteria would be acceptable to future generations, unless of course substantial relevant new scientific evidence is discovered. Nevertheless, the intergenerational and people-at-distance equity problems remain and should not be avoided in our discourse just because of their difficulty. Restorations of local areas, especially of larger water bodies such as the Great Lakes, will likely have global long-lasting impacts on both people at distance and future generations. These effects then compound our widely aimed imperfect duty to remedy our environmental problems. These problems are also addressed in latter chapters.

5

Considered Moral Environmental Judgments

In the sections above, we have used notions of “fair” and “reasoned” with reference to our environmental decisions. A more serious explanation of these terms is warranted. This section addresses this issue. It does so by reviewing the Rawlsian criteria for considered moral judgments. This describes a judgment process for how our environmental duties should be recognized, i.e. a set of criteria for what we mean by “considered” or

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

57

“reasonable.” Part of this notion of being “considered” and “reasonable” requires that the judgment be “logical,” but this requirement is difficult to establish in a public context. The Rawlsian criteria establish this “logical requirement” indirectly by specifying that the judgment must be capable of passing scrutiny in review by those who are presumed reasoned and without direct conflicts of interest; that is, they are disinterested. Hence, below we call this a “stability criteria.” This set of criteria, also reviewed below, therefore includes requiring decisions to be informed and stable across competent moral judges (those recognized as reasoning individuals who have no direct conflicts of interest), which provides our indirect method of judging what we mean by “logical.” It is argued that these criteria for considered judgements and competent judges are relevant for our current environmental debates, and their resulting restoration decisions such as those examined in latter chapters. John Rawls (1951, p. 1) posed the relevant question for our analysis, “Does there exist a reasonable method for validating and invalidating given or proposed moral rules, and those decisions made on the basis of them?” Rawls’ purpose was to discern rules centered on inductive logic. He attempted to do so by elucidating two categories: competent moral judges and considered moral judgments. He used the former as one condition for the latter.11 We can apply the latter to discern the rationality of our decisions, but this requires the former for defining what is termed the “stability criteria,” as explained below. Note that the use of “judge” can be replaced by “decision maker” and “judgments” by “decisions.” The criteria presented can therefore be applied to both our environmental decision makers, or even to the participants in our environmental debates, and their resulting decisions. Rawls’ criteria for competent moral judges is an expression of the ethics of virtue manifested in four characteristics. The four requirements listed include what our public should, and likely does, expect of our governmental decision makers: i. They have a requisite degree of intelligence required for analysis of the issues at hand.

11 Note that in this analysis, Rawls essentially differentiates a virtue ethics approach (the criteria required to be a moral judge) from a deontology approach (the ex post criteria for a moral decision).

58

R. M. ROBINSON

ii. They desire to be knowledgeable concerning the facts relevant for the analysis. iii. They have a predilection to use reason; that is, they are openminded, they use inductive logic, and they are knowledgeable about their own potential biases. This includes not applying a prior ideology to the analysis of the facts at hand. iv. They have the capacity and desire to consider all interests relevant to the considerations at hand. A predilection to exercise these four characteristics constitutes what Rawls terms intellectual virtue.12 With respect to environmental concerns, we ask whether those engaged in the current environmental policy debate seek the relevant scientific knowledge, and whether they are open-minded and logical in their decisions or merely ideological? The above Rawlsian criteria manifest these desired characteristics. In addition to characterizing the criteria for competent moral judges , Rawls also characterizes considered moral judgments as meeting a set of rules that manifest four characteristics: i. The judge(s) making the decision is (are) disinterested; that is, they cannot directly benefit or be affected by the judgment (no conflicts of interest). ii. The judge is familiar with the relevant facts. iii. All those affected had opportunities to present their arguments. iv. The judgment is stable across decisions by other competent moral judges . These criteria can be applied to ex post evaluate whether a particular decision is a reasoned one. The reasonableness of a decision can be decided by the acceptance of those competent moral judges who have freely weighed the evidence after open discussion and criticism. This provides evidence that the decision can “hold its own.” These criteria can be applied to our society’s environmental decisions. For example, (1) are these decisions made by those with narrow and commercial conflicts of interests, or (2) were the relevant facts rationally considered, or were decisions made on an ad hoc basis and out-of-step with logical analysis? 12 See Rawls (1951, p. 5).

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

59

The sets of criteria for competent moral judges and considered moral judgments can be used to evaluate the reasonableness of the intergenerational-environmental decisions, as well as those addressing the effects of people at a distance. For example, conflicts of interests, and a prior ideology that interferes with either information gathering, or evaluation of data, bias the objectivity of those decisions. In addition, it is apparent that being a moral judge does not necessarily result in a moral judgment in that violations of the criteria above might not pass the reasonableness test. For purposes of clarity and convenience, we explicitly define this test here: A “reasonable decision” (or uncorrupted decision) is a “considered moral judgement” that is “stable” across other competent moral judges according to the Rawlsian criteria.

These criteria, however, may appear to apply only to individuals and not to the overall society, but if a plurality or majority of the unbiased and informed establishes environmental policy, then we should assume that the reasonable test applies to the results of our social discourse. Open and informed democratic discussion may be expected to result in considered moral decisions with respect to the environment and associated intergenerational problems, but this might not always result. The Rawlsian criteria assist in discerning those decisions that do not. As reviewed above, individuals have widely aimed (imperfect) duties to be both informed and unbiased concerning these matters, criteria specified for both competent moral judges and considered moral judgments, but the public must also be wary of influences from those with conflicts of interest in exploiting the environment. There is, however, one requirement for being a competent moral judge that might be easily overlooked in this analysis, that is the criteria of having a predilection to use inductive logic, especially to envision the potential impacts of our decisions, and also to gather the information necessary to assist in this envisioning and analysis. All this should be emphasized as necessary for aiding our environmental discourse and restoration decisions. For example, people in general, and perhaps particularly business people since they are already involved in the cooperative ventures we call business, or even activists in environmental coalition since they are also involved in organizational settings, should all have the capacity and inclination to envision the degree of “environmental

60

R. M. ROBINSON

good” achievable through cooperative endeavors. Along with this, they also should have the capacity and inclination to participate in the pursuit of environmentally conscious actions, and through this participation, they might develop community trust that perhaps leads to further actions and further reinforcement. These actions may lead to overcoming the tragedy of the commons phenomena.13 This needed exploration is provided in the next sections.

6

Collective Imperfect Duty

We recognize that we have significant **environmental problems such as global warming, acid rain, the problems generated by agricultural pollution, the endemic problems caused by plastics throughout our biosphere, and chemical poisons in our waters. These problems, and also the problems of restorations of heavily polluted locales, generally require our collective action which must result from our reasoned social discourse if we are to expect any acceptable resolution. To this end, and as previously reviewed in this chapter, we have an imperfect duty to acquire and apply knowledge as it pertains to these problems. But how can the individuals who have acquired this knowledge, and who wish to apply it to the environmental problems we consider important, be effective in this pursuit? The answer is to contribute as a member to one or more of our many and effective environmental advocacy organizations and/or coalitions. To this end, we specify the following: Proposition of collective imperfect environmental duty: We have an imperfect duty to participate in the collective actions of those organizations we evaluate as effective (or potentially effective), and that aim to resolve our environmental problems.

Being a duty of wide aim, to pursue environmental restoration we should evaluate the potential effectiveness of our environmental organizations and do so for the purpose of selecting those organization(s) we individually deem worthy of involvement, as well as the extent of our

13 The tragedy of the commons refers to the depletion or degradation of common property resources that occur when there is a lack of effective and enforced agreement among those who utilize the resource.

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

61

involvement. Our predilection will likely be for involvement in the organizations that we know something about, that perhaps address problems that are close to our community for which we have some expertise that might apply. For local environmental causes, these community affecting organizations must include our local environmental advocacy organizations. But we must also recognize that our national-level NGOs, such as the Nature Conservancy as an example, also have significant and often dominating local effects. Many examples of these collective nongovernment involvements are examined in the chapters below. It should be particularly recognized, however, that these organized involvements are expressions of collective and creative civic effort as documented extensively in the latter chapters. In many instances, local restorations are expressions of this collective and creative civic impetus similar to humanity’s past constructions of great temples, monuments, public squares, and the like. A proper exploration of these collective involvements, however, should be prefaced by a relevant exploration of the criteria for fairness in environmental decisions because violations of this criteria will likely diminish the collective impetus of the effort. This gives context for these organizational involvements. This exploration is presented next. 6.1

Considerations of “Fair and Reasoned”

The environmental involvements examined in this book include attempts to reach a variety of local agreements such as those concerning: (i) resource reallocations, (ii) local restorations of assets, especially degraded watersheds, (iii) the prevention of pollutions that affect our locale and that could migrate to other locales, and (iv) many similar agreements. These agreements often take place between various public-coalitions or environmental advocacy organizations and various government agencies and institutions as illustrated in latter chapters. Whether these agreements exhibit flaws of unfairness can be judged by the Rawlsian criteria reviewed above. But agreements are also reached in the form of remedial action plans (RAPs) that are agreed upon by state, local, and federal governments plus in some instances citizen advisory committees (CACs). Are these agreements fair and reasoned? To examine this question, and for convenience of applications in latter chapters, the Rawlsian criteria reviewed above are reduced to a set of fairness criteria summarized into

62

R. M. ROBINSON

four categories here. If these are met, then we presumed that the agreement is fair and reasoned. In these latter chapters, we will apply this set of criteria. The informed criteria: All relevant information (both scientific and socio-economic) is considered without ideological bias by decision makers and is logically reflected in the decisions. Criteria of inclusiveness: All affected by the decisions have representative access to the negotiations, and all have the “power to avoid coercion.” All affected also have access to relevant information and are represented in the considerations that lead to the decision. As a result, paternalism is not present. (The concepts of “power” and “paternalism” are explored below, but these are particularly difficult to apply in the cases examined in latter chapters.) Corruption or integrity criteria: All of the considerations associated with the decision processes are without deceptions, and all the participants in the public discourse are transparent with respect to their interests; that is, they have no hidden conflicts of interest. The objective evidence and judgments should indicate that all affected parties have reasonable expectations and intentions of being able to fulfill their commitments. Also, in all the involved discourse, the participating parties exhibit “the noble nature” of voicing their ethical concerns in the relevant social settings. Logic and diligence criteria: Those involved in reaching the agreements must communicate and explore the options for resolution of the relevant environmental problems. They must demonstrate the creativity and inductive logic for developing the best solutions to these problems. In this sense, the agreement must be judged as logical according to the “Rawlsian stability (or reasonableness) criteria” explained above. (These criteria are applicable to some of the cases examined in latter chapters.) An agreement that exhibits these four conditions is consistent with the criteria for considered moral judgments. These four characteristics are hereafter termed the conditions for “fair and reasoned” environmental discourse and decisions. They are imbedded in the Rawlsian criteria for competent moral judges and considered moral judgments. If the four fair and

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

63

reasoned characteristics listed above are met, then as a practical approach, we should assume that the Rawlsian criteria are also satisfied. The term “power” as used above means that those who are contributing to this decision process are not in servile positions; that they are free to think for themselves and to communicate their judgments. For example, those working for a polluting company would be considered as likely biased in voicing opinions within the decision process. In this sense, “paternalism” should be discouraged in the decision process.14 6.2

The Collective Imperfect Duties of Restoration Efforts

The restorations examined in latter chapters all involve both analyses and decisions made by technical advisory committees (TACs) in forming the restoration’s remedial action plan (RAP). This often also includes input from various environmental advocacy organizations (NGOs). They also include input from citizen advisory committees that in some cases play significant roles in forming and revising the RAPs. These RAPs specify the actions necessary for these local restoration efforts. The TACs involve government, academic, and other experts in this scientific approach to restoration. The CACs are volunteers who, as a group, manifest the collective duty of wide aim as defined and described above. Both groups attempt to pursue the propositions of environmental knowledge and environmental community as described above. To be successful, these collectives must follow O’Neill’s (1995) principles for reasoned discourse—also reviewed above. All of these principles for organizational behavior, plus the “fair and reasoned discourse and decision criteria” presented above, are applied in the examinations of these Great Lakes restoration efforts examined in latter chapters. The success of these restorations likely depends on the criteria reviewed in the above sections.

7

The EPA as Political Institution

Environmental restoration is inherently a political movement. In the US, the key institution that facilitates these restorations is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is the main federal funding conduit and consequently most significant source for funding of local restoration

14 See Robinson (2021, p. 11) for an analysis of “paternalism.”

64

R. M. ROBINSON

efforts. In some areas, it also provides most of the significant scientific and organizational expertise necessary for these local efforts to be successful. But all of this expertise and local aid exists in the atmosphere of the environmental movement’s political turbulence. This turbulence has been subdued for local restoration efforts, but it still lurks below the surface ready to bubble forth. Why? Because cleaning legacy pollutions in old industrial areas is one thing, but interrupting, altering, and preventing current pollution externalities is a very different task. Politics is fueled by funding. Dumping externalities on the public waterways or wetlands, or other areas, has always been a favored way of lowering the costs of production, and allowance of this fuels some political funding. Therefore, the EPA is caught between the demands of environmentalists and the protection demanded by political opportunists. Consideration of the EPA’s political history and current political context is therefore essential for our restoration analyses. To that end, in this section we review seven categories of environmental action by the US EPA, the chief US Agency for facilitating our Great Lakes restoration efforts. The seven categories include: 1. applying the “Refuse Act” of 1899, and the Clean Water Act of 1972, 2. limiting the production and sale of various toxic chemicals, 3. reaching “Superfund” and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) consent decrees with polluters, 4. reaching consent decrees for controlling “concentrated animal feeding operations,” 5. controlling the hydraulic fracturing methods for oil and natural gas drilling, 6. controlling automobile emissions, and 7. controlling the fossil fuel emissions (greenhouse gases) that add to global warming. The first four of these categories directly affect our Great Lakes restoration efforts, but the latter two are also relevant for affecting the political atmosphere within which the EPA operates. The last concerns the recent Supreme Court decision (June 2022) that restricts the EPA’s ability to control greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of the analysis presented here is to place our Great Lakes restoration efforts, and their precedent

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

65

setting possibilities, in the political context of the EPA’s broad charge of environmental control and enhancement. This political context may well now favor funding the local restoration efforts, so this is a question examined below. 7.1

The Advent of the EPA

In North America and most of the world, as compared to the 1930s the post-World War II era experienced rapid economic growth. The era of consumerism began in the decade following World War II, which among other advents saw rapid increases in plastics for throw-away packaging, the development of new synthetic chemicals for insecticide and pesticide purposes, and a deluge of toxic materials deposited in waste dumps. In the 1960s, literature such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) became popular. Also, the pivotal and critical legal environmental cases such as the Storm King Decision, and the initiation of the enforcement of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Refuse Act) of 1899 after several decades since its passage, plus the academic development of studies in ecology, environmental law, and the development of various Environmental Advocacy Organizations (EAOs such as The Environmental Defense Fund), ignited the environmental movement.15 In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created as a reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; 15 agencies of the US Government were reorganized from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, from the Department of the Interior, from the Atomic Energy Commission, and from the Department of Agriculture. All were placed into the newly unified environmental agency, the EPA. But this new Federal Agency was also born amidst an industrialpolitical reaction against the 1960s’ environmental activism. The EPA continues today with a mission of defending the environment while the politically powerful forces of industrialism, commercialism, and development resist. Within this ongoing politically contentious atmosphere, William D. Ruckelshaus became the EPA’s first Administrator. Ruckelshaus was from a respected Indiana family of attorneys who were active in Republican Party politics. After a tour of duty in the US Army, he graduated from Princeton in 1955 and from Harvard Law School in 15 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 10) for a review of these environmental developments including the Storm King Decision.

66

R. M. ROBINSON

1957. In 1960, he was appointed Deputy Attorney General of Indiana where he particularly supported the Indiana Board of Health. In that context, he helped write the “Indiana Air Pollution Control Act” in 1961, the State’s first attempt to reduce air pollution. In 1969, the newly elected President Richard Nixon appointed Ruckelshaus as US Assistant Attorney General. The 1968–1969 fires along four of the rivers that flowed into the Great Lakes (see the review below) led Ruckelshaus to sue the Jones and Laughlin Steel Company “… for discharging substantial quantities of cyanide into the Cuyahoga River,” and “… to halt the discharge of the deleterious materials.” With the strong recommendation of the US Attorney General John Mitchell, Ruckelshaus was appointed the first Administrator of the EPA. As the first Administrator, Ruckelshaus defined the EPA’s mission, decided its priorities, and selected its organizational structure. At that early time in the EPA’s creation, Ruckelshaus had this discretion, something that has been contentious ever since. Ruckelshaus operated during an era of environmental activism. For example, in the EPA creation’s aftermath, the environmental politics of the 1970s elicited the passage of the following significant environmental laws: • • • • • • • • • •

The The The The The The The The The The

Environmental Quality Improvement Act (1970), Coastal Zone Management Act (1972), Clean Water Act (1972), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act (1972), Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), Endangered Species Act (1973), Deepwater Ports and Waterways Safety Act (1974), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1974), Water Resources Planning Act (1977), Water Resources Research Act (1977).

Administrator Ruckelshaus’ first significantly controversial action was to order the Cities of Atlanta, Detroit, and Cleveland to cease violations of water pollution standards—as specified in the 1899 “Rivers and Harbors (Refuse) Act”—and to do so within 180 days. This was the EPA’s first politically contentious exercise of authority. Atlanta was cited for “massive discharge of pollutants” into the Chattahoochee River; Detroit and

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

67

Cleveland were cited for severe pollutions of Lake Erie. Other politically contentious actions followed. 7.2

The Control of Toxic Chemical Manufacturing and Sale

Silent Springs ’ revelations concerning the ecological effects of DDT and the subsequent political agitation by the “Environmental Defense Fund,” the “Audubon Society,” the “National Wildlife Federation,” the “Izaak Walton League,” and other environmental groups, led to the EPA’s first major decision concerning the banning of chemical substance. The transfer of the pesticide registration function from the Department of Agriculture to the EPA in December of 1970 enabled the Agency to cancel all remaining federal registrations for DDT. Hearings about this issue reexamined DDT’s effects on fish, wildlife, and human health. In June of 1972, Administrator Ruckelshaus announced the banning of the DDT insecticide, and the courts upheld the decision. The ability to deny registration of a chemical compound to be sold to the public became the EPA’s second controversial exercise of authority. Administrator Ruckelshaus’ first term was marked by the following other politically sensitive environmental enforcements: • The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act, • The Environmental Impact Statements required by the National Environmental Policy Act (1970), • The Resource Recovery Act (1970), • Guidelines for the limited control of radiation (1972), • The Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act (1972), • The regulation of land use (1972), • The revision of the water pollution legislation of 1972 that shifted the control from “water quality” to “effluent limitations” with the goal of zero discharge, • The Safety Standards for Farm Workers (1974). The inability of federal law to control insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides led to a new law: the Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972. It allowed the EPA to regulate use and registration of all such poisons and also for national monitoring of lasting residues. This also was a particularly politically sensitive issue that dated back to the chemical

68

R. M. ROBINSON

industry’s reaction to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring .16 The production and sale of these compounds had established a lucrative industry with sufficient resources to oppose regulation. In 1973, Russell Train became the second EPA Administrator. In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed. This directed the EPA Administrator to establish national drinking water standards, and to control underground injections of wastewater, an issue that was to return with consideration of hydraulic fracture drilling for oil and natural gas. This was also the era of the EPA attempting to limit excessive “noise pollution,” and also the passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act (1976). This passage occurred in light of the recognition of the PCB contamination of the Hudson River, the discovery of stratospheric ozone depletion and consequent regulation of halocarbon emissions, plus a pesticide tragedy that occurred in Hopewell, Virginia, where Allied Chemical Corporation produced the nonbiodegradable insecticide Kepone. Kepone was a potent compound that killed leaf-eating insects, ants, roaches, and fly larvae. Between 1966 and 1975, Life Sciences (a contractor of Allied Chemical) produced Kepone at a small plant in Hopewell, Virginia. Life Sciences dumped their production’s wastes directly into the James River. Because chemical production was Hopewell’s largest industry, the local, state, and federal authorities overlooked safety regulations and granted special exceptions to Kepone production. The citizens of Hopewell discovered the effects of the toxic dumping in 1975 when an employee of Life Sciences suffered from uncontrollable shivering and was found to have high levels of Kepone in his blood. The plant was immediately shut. Studies found that Kepone had negative effects on neurological and reproductive systems, and also on liver functioning, vision, and also caused skin problems. Kepone was found throughout the sediment of the James River downstream from the plant. In December of 1975, fishing on the James and its tributaries was prohibited. Allied Sciences was eventually sued by workers, Hopewell residents, and fishermen. Allied was found liable for more than $200 million. The toxic sediment was removed or contained by capping with a large layer of clay. This insecticide tragedy made national news and set the atmosphere for passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976. 16 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 9) for a review of this environmental movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Also see Chapter 1.

2

7.3

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

69

The “Superfund” or National Priorities List

Douglas Costle became the third EPA Administrator in 1977. The “Love Canal” hazardous waste dump in Niagara Falls, New York, and the “Valley of the Drums” in Louisville, Kentucky, both of which contained thousands of barrels of chemical wastes that contaminated soil and groundwater, plus similarly discovered waste dumps elsewhere, emerged into the public’s consciousness during Costle’s tenure. These “dumps” precipitated the creation of what the news media called the “Superfund,” a federal fund for cleanup of highly contaminated sites. The actual name of this fund was the “National Priorities List” which specified about 1,600 of the most dangerous sites. This “Superfund” was the creation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, which authorized the cleanup mechanisms and funding for these extremely hazardous sites. The popular term “Superfund” emerged into the political rhetoric when significant oil spills were cleaned through federal funding during the 1970s, and it subsequently became the term applied to federal cleanups of hazardous waste dumps such as “Love Canal” and the “Valley of the Drums.” “Love Canal” is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York. In the 1920s, this canal became a dump site for the municipal refuse of the city. But during the 1940s, the canal was purchased by Hooker Chemical Company which used it to dump its chemical waste byproducts. The canal was then sold to a local school district in 1953. Over the next thirty years, the 16 acres of the canal attracted national attention due to the health problems among those living nearby, particularly the children that played in the area. Between 1942 and 1952, Hooker Chemical had deposited almost 20,000 tons of caustic chemicals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, dioxins, and other toxic substances into barrels and then buried these in the dump. Hooker warned the school district to not build on the property, but perhaps to use it for a park. The problem was that no park-like vegetation would grow on the property. The school board began excavation to build a school on the site, but once the buried barrels were discovered and the chemical wastes were recognized, the building site was moved to a nearby area. Rain then became the problem since it washed the chemicals into the nearby areas. The New York State Department of Health acknowledged that birth defects, cancers, and other severe health

70

R. M. ROBINSON

effects were high in these nearby areas, and the Department linked these health effects to the chemical wastes now found on the nearby properties. In 1976, the local newspaper (Niagara Falls Gazette) began publicizing the “Love Canal problem.” The New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly picked up the story. The Love Canal Homeowners Association was formed and agitated for a cleanup. In August 1978, President Jimmy Carter recognized the health emergency at Love Canal and called for federal funds to remedy the disaster. He ordered the Federal Disaster Assistance Agency to assist the City of Niagara Falls in cleaning up the site (the first time emergency funds were used for a crisis other than a natural disaster). In 1979, the EPA investigated and found that blood tests indicated high precursors to leukemia and high levels of chromosome damage among nearby residents. It also found that “… residents exhibited a disturbingly high rate of miscarriages … and Love Canal can now be added to a growing list of environmental disasters involving toxins.”17 When the local EPA Administrator visited the Love Canal area, he stated, I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. … Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these were in their basements, others were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces.18

The federal government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for the loss of their homes. The state and federal government spent $15 million to purchase the 400 homes closest to the toxic area and demolished several rows of houses. This well-publicized environmental disaster led to the passage of CERCLA in 1980. From this, the slang term “Superfund” was established, and $400 million was expended on the Love Canal cleanup. In 2004, federal officials announced that the cleanup was completed. Love Canal was not the only highly publicized hazardous waste disaster that led US politics toward establishing the Superfund; Love Canal was 17 See “The Love Canal Tragedy,” at https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lovecanal-tragedy.html, archive.epa.gov from 6/10/2017. 18 Ibid.

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

71

not even the most publicized site. The “valley of the drums,” south of Louisville, Kentucky, was a similar dump. It was highly photographed and publicized. It was a 23 acre uncontrolled dump of over 100,000 fifty-five gallon drums of toxic waste deposited during the 1960s and 1970s. It first attracted the attention of state officials when the drums caught fire in 1966 and burned for more than a week. The drums deteriorated and given the steep slopes along the site, the leaked wastes washed into Wilson Creek. The owner-operator of the dump, A. L. Taylor, never applied for the permits required by state law for waste dumps, but in 1975 the State documented the spread of the poisons. Under the authority of the Clean Water Act , the EPA tried to prevent further spread of the wastes into Wilson Creek. But in 1979 the problem became so acute that Congress used the emergency to justify authorization of the 1980 Superfund legislation (CERCLA). Cleanup under Superfund finance began in 1983 and was completed in 1990. In total, 140 toxic chemicals were identified at the site. Under CERCLA, the Superfund is administered by the EPA to clean hazardous waste sites. There are at least 40,000 of these sites across the US. In cooperation with state agencies, the EPA uses a “Hazardous Ranking System” to score (0–100) for each examined site. A score of 28.5 or above places the site on the National Priorities List (NPL) of which there is still over 1,600 listed. The NPL lists the more contaminated of the 40,000 sites, and these are usually referred to as the “Superfund sites.” Under CERCLA, the EPA is authorized to identify the parties responsible for the pollution, and to compel them to cleanup their dumps, or alternatively the EPA will undertake the cleanup and recover the costs from the responsible parties provided they can be identified and are financially solvent. This, however, is frequently not the case as was the situation of the “valley of the drums” when the owner-operator died shortly after the EPA became involved. Through the 1980s, most of the funding came from a tax on petroleum and chemical products passed onto consumers. But this tax was eliminated in 1995. Since then, the cleanups of hazardous waste sites have generally been funded through taxpayers. During the Regan Administration, only $40 million was recovered of the $700 million that could have been recovered from the responsible polluters. Congress judged this as mismanagement by the EPA

72

R. M. ROBINSON

Administrator, Ann Gorsuch Burford.19 The Superfund reauthorization in 1986 added standards for the cleanups and also required that cleanup arrangements with the responsible polluters be entered as consent agreements at federal courts. These were now subject to public review and comments. This method addressed the “sweetheart deals” that the Regan era EPA reached with polluters as discovered by Congress. As one analysis described the agreements, From 1981 until mid-1983, the CERCLA program suffered from the frequent policy shifts and reorganizations, patent abuse by its leadership, and a demoralizing slowdown of Fund expenditures and other cleanup initiatives. Negotiation acquired a bad name during this period because key officials appeared willing to negotiate unduly generous cleanup terms with site users. (Anderson, 1985, pp. 276–277)

Reaching consent agreements for conducting cleanups has been the EPA’s third category of controversial action. Shortly before Administrator Burford took office, a fire and explosion destroyed the General Disposal Company’s hazardous waste dump in Santa Fe Springs, California. The contamination covered a nearby neighborhood and beach, killing fish along that beach. This gave the EPA a test for applying its Superfund Law. The EPA, having the authority to begin the cleanup and to later sue the company for the recovery costs, began the cleanup and settled with the offending company for the immediate costs but released it from further liability, a poor precedent for environmental enforcement. CERCLA was written to overcome deficiencies in the previously established law which did not provide for emergency and remedial cleanup. CERCLA now required a Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to aid with emergency responses and to aid in assessment of liability and financial responsibility for Superfund cleanups and monitoring after sites are closed. In this light, the EPA initiated its National Priorities List (NPL) of waste sites. But in several instances, the EPA’s settlements with the liable companies were considered too low and below the actual cleanup costs. Congress investigated, but the Regan Administration declared “executive privilege” and did not cooperate in furnishing data. Other fiscal scandals beset the EPA, and Anne Burford resigned 19 Ann Gorsuch Burford is the mother of Supreme Court Associated Justice Neil Gorsuch.

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

73

as Administrator. To resolve the Congressional complaints and scandals, in May, 1983, William Ruckelshaus again became EPA Administrator. Following this, over 17,000 abandoned hazardous waste sites were identified, and the EPA’s most significant concern became identifying the National Priorities List (NPL) and administering the Superfund. In 1985, a partly restored EPA budget supported a Superfund increase by 50%. 7.4

States’ Rights and State Pollution Responsibilities20

Every summer, nutrients from agricultural runoff drain into the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These nutrients then drain into the Gulf of Mexico fueling algae blooms that starve the water of oxygen thereby killing marine life.21 These nutrients are from crop fertilizers (including on-sight animal wastes) and from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The latter include industrialized swine, poultry, and dairy operations all of which have rapidly spread throughout the Mississippi Basin. (These operations are also prevalent in several Southern US states.) Every summer, at the mouth of the Mississippi a dead zone of oxygen-starved seawater is created in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2021, because of the heavy rainfall in the watershed, the dead zone reached a record size larger than the state of Massachusetts.22 The “Pure Farms, Pure Waters” campaign of the environmental advocacy coalition Waterkeepers is an attempt to promote regulations of CAFOs.23 Over the last 50 years, these industrialized animal feeding operations have been a growing phenomenon. They involve large concentrations of animals for feeding and associated large concentrations of untreated animal wastes which are either stored in open “lagoons” of earth-sided skeptic pools, or spread in excessive amounts on feedercrop fields. Subsequent rainfall causes the “lagoons” to overflow and the overly-manured fields to drain. Like the large dump-truck driving fast down the highway with an uncovered bed filled with fall-leaf cleanup, 20 This section largely follows Robinson (2021, Chapter 9, pp. 219–221). 21 This process is termed “eutrophication.” For a review, see The Wall Street Journal,

Wednesday July 3, 2019, p. A6. 22 Ibid. 23 The Water Keepers Alliance began in 1999 as a coalition of the many local River-

keepers and similar NGOs (over 200 organizations in 2019). The original Riverkeepers was organized in 1983 for the purpose of restoring the Hudson River.

74

R. M. ROBINSON

these lagoons and excessively manured fields intentionally dissipate the waste into negative externalities. This appears to be intended by the design of this concentrated industrial process in that the design of the waste systems of these CAFOs necessitates that the rainfall creates a sewer of untreated animal wastes that eventually drains into the Mississippi Basin. In 2017, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) reported that only 30% of the CAFOs had the permits required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972.24 But the enforcement of permits, however, has been left to the states. They are not generally enforced. In 2005, the EPA initiated its National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) for the purpose of identifying nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in American waters. It found that in the Upper Mississippi Basin—where 61% of the land is agricultural—50% of streams had unacceptably high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. In the Lower Basin, the pollution levels were higher. In response, the Mississippi River Coalition (MRC)—a coalition of environmental NGOs—was formed for the purpose of seeking stronger EPA oversight of the state-controlled permitting processes for CAFOs. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), however, the states were to take the initiative in setting standards for and the regulation of non-point agricultural pollution.25 The CWA’s authorization of state regulation inevitably resulted in legal conflicts. The MRC sued the EPA asking it to regulate the pollution coming from upriver states. The National Pork Producers Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), and a coalition of 44 other states and agricultural coalitions joined in defending the “states rights” decision and challenged the MRC’s suit by pointing out that the states were assigned the pollution control under the CWA. Note that the FDA had previously reached a precedent setting consent decree for “total maximum daily loads” of agricultural non-point pollution in the Chesapeake Bay area, and the AFBF feared this sort of consent decree might be established for the Mississippi River Basin. This sort of maximum limit on the total pollution from specified geographic areas would force the states to regulate under the supervision of the EPA, a practice the AFBF

24 See “NPDES CAFO Permitting State Reports,” at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2017-04/documents/tracksum_endyear2016_v2.pdf. 25 “Point source” water pollution originates from an identifiable spot such as a discharge pipe. “Non-point” pollution refers to runoffs such as from streets or agricultural fields.

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

75

resisted because it considered the EPA to be a stricter regulator than the Mississippi Basin states acting in isolation. This sort of area-wide regulation under EPA supervision was not, however, the court’s decision. In December, 2016, the court found in favor of allowing states to again take the lead in these regulations. The AFBF argued that, “States are working on the issue; they are performing their role and it would be bad policy to overstep states at this time.” The AFBF general counsel stated, “The time may come when the EPA may no longer reasonably let states remain in the lead. The AFBF and all these organizations will need to redouble their efforts to help generate programs and assistance for farmers to do the good work they want to do and get those right practices in place to see those improvements.”26 In the meantime, the dead zone continues to expand. The problem here is that downstream pollution is a negative externality forced by upstream producers onto others. The AFBF and other agricultural coalitions have clear conflicts of interest in arguing for the dumping of external costs onto those who are downstream. The science is, however, established concerning the dead zone. The external costs are clear and are also clearly the result of intentional design of the CAFO waste dissipation system. The pollution does not occur by accident. The regulation and supervision must be regional; in this case, it must be by a super-regional body such as the EPA, i.e. a body that has authority and intent to regulate the entire Mississippi Basin as an entity. In addition, the political pressure that the agricultural industry places on an individual state to allow its pollution to flow to another is extremely high and corrupting. States are not “performing their role” and have no incentive to effectively regulate the externalities imposed on other states. The social discourse concerning the dead zone problem appears to be reasoned, but the law is cumbersome in expecting states to regulate their own externality. You should not ask a polluting company to regulate itself, and likewise that should not be asked of a state that pollutes its neighbor. The Waterkeepers associations and the Mississippi River Coalition have led the discourse concerning this “dead zone” pollution, but this reasoning has not yet led to the establishment of regional EPA supervision. If the individual states do not respond with regulations—and they likely will not—then the time of ultimate resolution is delayed at best. 26 See “NPDES CAFO Permitting State Reports,” at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2017-04/documents/tracksum_endyear2016_v2.pdf.

76

R. M. ROBINSON

7.5

Hydraulic Fracturing and Emissions Control

In 1977, amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act became law. This gave the EPA the authority to require that community water systems monitor unregulated contaminants, but it also forbade the EPA from setting “unnecessary disruptive” underground injection control requirements. This was a reaction to the 1974 Act that gave the EPA authority to prevent wastewater from being injected into underground aquifers and thereby contaminating drinking water. In 1980, however, the EPA issued regulations for state-level injection control programs to protect underground sources of drinking water. This was a politically controversial but necessary step to assure safe drinking water through much of the US. Today, controlling poisons in drinking water primarily concerns controlling “hydraulic fracturing,” a highly effective technique for petroleum and natural gas drilling. We can identify this as a fifth category of politically controversial action by the EPA. “Hydraulic fracturing”—or “fracking”—consists of injecting hydraulic chemicals and sand into layers of shale so that the layers split, and thereby release the oils and/or gas that lie between the seams. This injection, however, can seep into groundwater and contaminate the quality of drinking or irrigation water. Localities have requested that the EPA regulate or prohibit this technology, but the Safe Drinking Water Act now prohibits this intervention.27 In a similar fashion, auto and truck emission standards have been politically controversial since their inception. The EPA regulates these emissions under federal law, but because of the persistent smog problem in Los Angeles, the State of California is allowed to establish its own more strict standards. Other states may choose to follow the more strict California standards or to follow the federal standards. By 2009, 16 other states adopted the stricter California standards. Since the California vehicle market is so large, the California standards are mostly followed by the auto and light truck manufacturers. In regulating these emissions, California is attempting to control greenhouse gases. Other states have also asked the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but since 2007 the EPA has declined to do this. This is the sixth controversial regulatory area for the EPA.

27 See Tabuchi (2021), for a review.

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

77

On June 30, 2022, in the West Virginia vs the EPA case, the US Supreme Court prohibited the Biden Administration from continuing its “Clean Power Plan” or evan pursuing possible suggestions for revisions. This EPA instituted plan would have limited each state’s total allowable greenhouse gas emissions by setting performance standards for carbon dioxide from power plants. This would be authorized under the Clean Air Act that empowered the EPA to designate a “best system of emissions reduction” for existing facilities. This provision had been previously used a few times for regulating solid waste incinerators. But the Court now demanded that if the EPA seeks to regulate any significant portion of the American economy, it must have a more explicit authorization from Congress. This attempt by the EPA would be similar to its previous successful court-approved consent agreements for treated sewerage flows into the Chesapeake Bay in which maximum emissions would be set for each locale along the Bay. The difference would be that the limits would now be for greenhouse gas emissions. The intent of emissions control was to push public power plants to switch from coal—an intrinsically dirty and polluting fuel—to natural gas, a much cleaner fuel; hence, the coal mining state of West Virginia objected. The greenhouse gas problem of coal, therefore, remains. The Biden Administration is now limited by a politically oriented Supreme Court. It again limits the authority of the EPA to combat global climate change. This is the seventh illustration of the EPA’s inherent political context. The charge given to the EPA is (i) inherently vast in its original intent and (ii) political in that it must embroil this agency in conflicts with modern production and associated externalities. The first EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus certainly manifested the character and integrity to pursue this “charge.” But in its scope, the task is massive and because of its associated political turmoil, the task must be forcefully pursued. These last three environmental but politically sensitive problems (fracking, greenhouse gas, and vehicle emissions) illustrate the controversies that the EPA is inevitably involved with. The point of this review is that the problems of Great Lakes restorations appear to be free of any of these controversies, perhaps because they largely exist in old rust-belt areas that polluting industries have abandoned. This political insulation should be considered when examining the restoration issues reviewed in the next chapters in that these local restorations apparently

78

R. M. ROBINSON

offer the EPA opportunities for environmental activities of little political controversy. The Agreement between the US and Canada also provides politically convenient opportunities for the EPA and other environmental regulators, opportunities with low political resistance.

8 A Reasoned Process for Great Lakes Restoration The above section indicates that preventing environmental degradations can be politically controversial since it often impacts the vested interests of industry. After the industrial “fouling of the nests” have occurred, however, and the effects have been rejected by society as too poisonous to be allowed to remain, then we observe the abandonment of those degraded areas, perhaps for only a short distance, but still an abandonment occurs. The politics of cleanup then emerge. Our North American society has now refined its cleanup and restoration policies by adopting a “fair and reasoned” approach in seeking recompense from the polluters for the cleanup costs. This is done in the US through our EPA. This is a model explored in the following chapters since many of the restorations reviewed were initiated by Superfund-type remediations, or they have similar efforts coincident with other restoration activities. The material presented above suggests (1) we do have norms for the “fair and reasoned” discourse concerning our society’s overall approach to environmental problems, and (2) the politics involved in our environmental movement have somewhat limited our efforts. This “limiting” is illustrated in the examples of (i) the difficulties in reaching Superfund consent decrees, (ii) our political difficulties in reaching a national control of CAFO-generated “dead zones,” (iii) our political difficulties in controlling the negative aspects of fracking, (iv) our political difficulties in applying our Refuse Act and Clean Water Act, and (v) our political difficulties in applying our Clean Air Act. But our society’s “fair and reasoned criteria” favors a scientific basis and control for our public’s environmental decisions as manifested by our federal and state government agencies who embody this scientific expertise. But it also favors citizen involvement in this control. Via our areas of concern approach (reviewed in the next chapters), our Great Lakes restoration efforts reveal the ability of the EPA to manage and overcome the political difficulties apparently associated with the reactions to our environmental movement (reactions such as those indicated in the

2

A REASONED PROCESS FOR RESTORATIONS

79

section above) and to do so while fully meeting our norms for “fair and reasoned decisions.” Latter chapters show this, and they also show the potential robustness of these restoration approaches to areas beyond the Great Lakes Basin. The success of our areas of concern program indicates that it should perhaps be considered for restorations outside the Great Lakes’ area. Establishing this point is one of the purposes of this book.

References Anderson, Frederic (1985), “Negotiation and Informal Agency Action: The Case of Superfund,” Duke Law Review, 34 (2): 276–277. Carson, Rachel (1955), The Edge of the Sea, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Carson, Rachel (1962), Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Kant, Immanuel (1793), Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, in Basic Writings of Kant, edited by Allen W. Wood, The Modern Library Classics, The Modern Library, New York. Kant, Immanuel (1797), The Metaphysics of Morals, edited by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996), Creating the Kingdom of Ends, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Mann, Michael E. (2021), The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet, Public Affairs, Hachette Book Group, New York, NY. O’Neill, Onora (1995), Constructions of Reason: Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Rawls, John (1951), “Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics,” Philosophical Review, 60 (2), April: 177–197. Reprinted in Collected Papers—John Rawls– edited by Samuel Freeman, Harvard University Press, 1999. Robinson, Richard M. (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave-Macmillan, New York, NY. Tabuchi, Hiroko (2021, July 12 and 26), “E.P.A. Approved Toxic Chemicals for Fracking a Decade Ago, New Files Show,” New York Times.

CHAPTER 3

Restoring Areas of Concern

1 The Binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Restoration of the Great Lakes During 1968 and 1969, the surface waste oils on four rivers that flowed into the Great Lakes—the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, the Buffalo River in New York, the River Rouge in southeast Michigan, and the Chicago River in Illinois—caught fire. All had flames of up to fifty feet, and all required extensive and lengthy efforts by local fire departments for extinguishment. (It should be recognized that the Cuyahoga repeatedly burned during the 1950s and 1960s, so catching fire again in 1969 should not have surprised anybody.) The environmental resources of the areas along the Great Lakes had previously been envisioned as primarily inputs to industrial production. The rivers that emptied into the Lakes were used as sewers for industrial and urban wastes. By the 1960s, these waterways were heavily polluted with toxic wastes from steel mills, factories, tanneries, breweries, pulp and paper mills, coke and coal plants, etc. In 1970, Lee Botts formed the Lake Michigan Federation (which evolved into the Great Lakes Alliance) to demand an end to the contamination of the Great Lakes and to initiate the cleanups of the past toxic remnants. (The appendix to this chapter presents a brief biography of Lee Botts and her considerable leadership and achievements in this restoration effort.) © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_3

81

82

R. M. ROBINSON

This goal was particularly timely given the US Upper Mid-West’s decline in its heavy industry. In addition, the incipient demands for environmental recreation, tourism, and cleaner industry increased in the late 1960s and 1970s. This also added to the demands for restoration. For over 150 years, the bilateral agreements between Canada and the US have addressed the implicit issues concerning their “boundary waters,” e.g. navigation, water quality, and water extractions. This includes the 1872 treaty concerning navigational rights and a 1909 treaty that formed the International Joint Commission for resolving water-use disputes. For example, by bilateral agreement, the water diversions from the Great Lakes require the approval of the governors of all bordering states and provinces who act through the Joint Commission. Initiating environmental restoration efforts, however, began in 1972, when the US and Canada signed The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This initiated commitments between the two countries to restore and enhance the water quality in the entire Great Lakes ecosystem. It established objectives and commitments concerning the (i) design, (ii) implementation, and (iii) the monitoring of the effects of a wide array of restoration and enhancement programs. It also recognized the authority of the Canadian-US International Joint Commission for implementing and monitoring these binational commitments. The agreement was revised in 1978 to purposely broaden the goal of restoration by focusing on “maintaining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes and associated ecosystem.” At that time, the “Agreement” called for the virtual elimination of “persistent toxic substances” being discarded into the Great Lakes’ ecosystem and did so through adoption of zero-discharge prohibitions for poisonous chemicals. The program for restoration of the Great Lakes and its watersheds focused government efforts on what was termed the areas of concern (described in detail below and also in latter chapters), but prior to 2009, these efforts were severely underfunded. In 1998, Cameron Davis became the Director of the Lake Michigan Federation. During the presidential and other political campaigns of 2000, Davis emphasized that these necessary cleanup efforts needed appropriate levels of funding. “These areas of concern had been languishing. We had all the right policies in place, we knew what we needed to do scientifically, we just didn’t have the resources to kick these cleanup efforts into high gear,” Davis recollected. (See interview with Kari Lydersen, October 4, 2020.)

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

83

Cameron Davis worked with Congressmen Vern Ehlers (Republican from Michigan) and James Oberstar (Democrat from Minnesota) to draft effective funding legislation. Davis proposed the name, “The Great Lakes Legacy Act,” since he believed it posed two meanings: the existing inherited legacy of pollution and a potential legacy of a clean Great Lakes for future generations. In 2002, the Great Lakes Legacy Act was enacted to stimulate this funding. On the US side, it was to be organized through the efforts of the EPA. This ultimately led to passage of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) of 2009, which substantially enhanced funding for the areas of concern program. In his testimony before Congress in 2001, Davis stated, “Contaminated sediment is not a glamorous issue. But therein lies the danger of this problem. It is one that continues to permeate the Great Lakes. It is one that continues to permeate the health of the people of the Great Lakes region. Because it is not glamorous and does not really get front page attention, it makes it all the more important that we do something about it.” (See Lydersen, October 4, 2020.) Cameron Davis recalled that at the Congressional hearings, some representatives contended that the cost of this cleanup would be too high, that the Nation could not afford it. Davis response was, “Here we were in the middle of the largest economic expansion in world history. It was a great lesson that, as advocates, we have to be diplomatic and determined.” (See Lydersen, October 4, 2020.) Under The Great Lakes Legacy Act , since 2002, 4.3 million cubic yards of toxic sediment were removed in the US with the EPA investing more than $400 million to address the sediment problem in the areas of concern (defined below). This money was matched by $251 million from non-federal government sources and $74 million from private sources. Since the passage of the GLRI in 2009, the fundings for sediment removal, habitat restoration, and other point and non-point poisonous discharge remediations have all continued with strong bipartisan support even in our currently highly polarized political era. Congress has funded more than $3 billion since the inception of this initiative. The reasons for the bipartisan popularity of these environmental initiatives are readily apparent. The contaminated sediment in these areas of concern (AOCs), together with degraded former industrial sites (brownfields) posed major impediments to community revitalizations. Communities struggle to revitalize their old river and lake waterfronts with new

84

R. M. ROBINSON

commercial enterprises, real estate development, and recreation.1 The industrially caused sediments are often contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals such as mercury, and petroleum products that are all toxic to people, wildlife, and vegetation. These pollutants settled into sediment at the bottom of rivers and then spread into the lakes and harbors where public health is affected. But as reviewed below, there has been significant successes in cleanup efforts so that the organization of these Great Lakes’ restorations are worthy of investigation. They might pose robustly applicable lessons for other heavily polluted areas outside the Great Lakes Basin. As indicated above, in the 1970s, the deterioration of the Great Lakes stimulated binational plans for restoration. The US and Canada initially identified 41 highly degraded shoreline areas in particular need of remedial efforts: 24 in the US, 12 in Canada, and five cross-border areas. These were the locales classified as areas of concern (AOC). They became the focus of restoration efforts involving US state and Canadian provincial and municipal fundings. In 2009, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched to accelerate these cleanup efforts and to facilitate the process the US and Canada defined 14 specific characteristics termed “Beneficial Use Impairments” (BUIs) that were applied to identify these AOCs, characteristics such as the presence of toxic sediments, or oxygen-deprived dead zones due to algae. These BUIs resulted from environmental degradations that could be addressed by practical cleanup efforts. Under the GLRI, government entities and local communities developed and implemented detailed planned projects to remove these BUIs and “delist” the AOCs. Besides the efforts to restore the AOCs, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was amended in 1987 to incorporate broadly defined Great Lakes Basin’s “ecosystem management concepts.” These “concepts” include regulations that attempt to prevent discharges of pollutants and/or invasive species from freighter ships that travel through the Lakes. But also, in order to further this “ecosystem management,” the formation of remedial action plans (RAPs) was initiated to revive those significantly degraded areas identified as AOCs. Therefore, the AOCs are of particular importance since each requires a specific remedial action plan (RAP), i.e. a detailed action plan to remove the area’s identified

1 See Campbell et al. (2015) for a review of the factors that inhibit revitalization.

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

85

BUIs and to guide and monitor the area’s restoration and future protection. Also, each of these contaminated local areas can be designated as an “AOC in recovery” once all remedial action plans have initially been implemented and the established monitoring system identifies that the “impairments” are in the process of being resolved. “Restoration” of an AOC is ultimately achieved by eliminating the sources of contaminants or other environmental stressors that caused the BUIs and degraded the locality. This elimination thereby restores the habitat to a level of sustainability. Once these are achieved, then under the approval of the Joint Commission, the area is removed from the AOC designation list. (A list of these remediated areas is given below.) “Delisting,” therefore, is the program’s ultimate aim. These RAPs are: • to identify BUIs relevant for the particular AOC, • in consultation with the local community, to identify the criteria for restoring the beneficial uses, • to identify and initiate the remediation measures to be taken and the entities responsible for their implementation, • to implement a monitoring system for judging progress, and • to periodically provide updates to the public, and to the Joint Commission, on the implementation and status of the AOC’s beneficial uses. The International Joint Commission approves the designation of an “AOC in Recovery” and/or the removal of the local area from the AOC list. All of the above depends on the BUIs being science-based identifications of environmental impacts due to degraded water quality. For this purpose, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) identifies those various factors that contribute to a locality being designated as an AOC. These BUIs therefore also provide the objective evidence for the specific needs of restoration, evidence such as (i) pollution caused effects on the locality’s fish and wildlife, (ii) necessary drinking water restrictions, (iii) rapid growth of undesirable algae, (iv) beach closings, and (v) degradation of aesthetic/visual appearance. The Joint Commission provides some broad guidance for identifying BUIs, and the US EPA offers criteria for the restoration targets, criteria such as:

86

R. M. ROBINSON

• The BUI removal criteria should be realistic, measurable, and achievable. • The targets should be premised on local goals for the watershed. • The targets should be consistent with applicable government regulations and the objectives of the GLWQA. • They should allow for flexibility in addressing local conditions. • The targets should be developed and periodically reviewed on a sitespecific basis by the local government agencies and stakeholders. This should allow any new information developed to be used to modify the targets. The RAPs are typically aimed at sediment remediations and/or habitat restorations such as restoring spawning grounds or wetlands for aviary nesting. Once the RAP’s actions are conducted, they are expected to facilitate the desired environmental improvements that lead to the complete remediation of the BUIs and therefore the AOC’s “delisting.” This requires supervision and consensual agreement among local “advisory groups” together with relevant government agencies. (The US EPA’s delisting guidance is declared in “Restoring US Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Delisting Principles and Guidelines.”) Since the AOC’s program initiation, there have been 392 BUIs identified across all the AOCs in the US and Canada. As of May 2021, a total of 169 BUIs have been removed. As reviewed above, after the AOCs are identified according to the BUI criteria, and after sufficient progress is made, then they are listed as “in recovery” (“areas of recovery” or AORs). Finally, those that meet all criteria for recovery are “delisted.” Currently (July of 2021), there are nineteen US AOCs and five fully-restored delisted areas. There are seven Canadian AOCs, two Canadian “areas of recovery” (AORs), and three Canadian areas have been delisted. There are also five “bilateral AOCs” as agreed to by the Joint Commission. These are areas at critical border junctions between the two countries such as the Niagara River between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and the Detroit River and St. Claire River complex between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. The listing of all of these classifications is presented in the Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. In order to illustrate the importance of, and the workings of this AOC method of restoration, the next section of this chapter reviews the remediation efforts in the Detroit area, i.e. the efforts to restore the Detroit River, the River Rouge, the St. Clair River, and the Clinton River. These reviews indicate well-organized remediations under state

3

Table 1 AOCs

Canadian

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

Thunder Bay Nipigon Bay Peninsula Harbor Hamilton Harbor Toronto and Region Port Hope Harbor Bay of Quinte

87

LS LS LS LO LO LO LO

Note LS is “Lake Superior;” LO is “Lake Ontario.”

Table 2 AORs

Canadian

Table 3 Canadian areas delisted

Jackfish Bay Spanish Harbor

LS LO

Severn Sound Collingwood Sound Wheatly Harbor

LH LH LE

Note LH is “Lake Huron:” LE is “Lake Erie.”

Table 4

US AOCs

St. Louis River Torch Lake Manistique River Red River and Lower Green Bay Sheboygan River Milwaukee Estuary Waukegan Harbor Grand Calumet River Kalamazoo River Saginaw River and Bay Clinton River River Rouge Maumee River Raison Cuyahoga River Ashtabula River Buffalo River Eighteen Mile Creek Rochester Embayment Note “LM” is Lake Michigan

LS LS LM LM LM LM LM LM LM LH LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LE

88

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 5 areas

Delisted US

Table 6 AOCs

Bilateral

Deer Lake Lower Menominee River White Lake Presque Isle Bay Oswego River

St Mary’s River St Lawrence River at Cornwall St. Clair River Detroit River Niagara River

LS LM LM LE LO

LS and LH LH and LE LH and LE LE and LO

and local government direction and with various advocacy group (NGO) involvements. Chapters 4 through 9 review restorations at various other AOCs. In Chapter 10, the needs for restorations outside the Great Lakes Basin—non-AOCs—are also reviewed. But the Detroit area’s AOCs are examined here because they were severely degraded and provide closely interacting ecosystems, and they also provide successful models of urban area restorations. As such, they also concern urban issues of social justice.

2

The Detroit Area’s AOCs

The City of Detroit’s urban-suburban areas provide the most significant challenge for North America’s “areas of concern” program. For approximately a century, this heavily industrialized area produced severe accumulations of poisoned sediments, destroyed any semblance of natural habitat, and used its waterways as sewers for human and industrial wastes. If our North American society can restore the Detroit area to environmental sustainability, then perhaps we should have some degree of optimism that any area could be so served. Detroit is Michigan’s largest city. It is located in Southeastern Michigan, close to Lake Erie on the Detroit River. This area includes the Detroit River AOC, the St. Clair River AOC, the River Rouge AOC, and the Clinton River AOC. (See Fig. 1.) These four AOCs offer detailed case analyses of the organization of the restoration process referred to in the above sections. For that purpose, they are reviewed in this chapter. They

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

89

Lake Huron

Stag Island Clinton River

Anchor Bay

River St. Clair

Cottreville Fawn Island St. Clair Flats

Pontiac

Lake St. Clair Belle Isle

River Rouge

Detroit Detroit River

International Wildlife Refuge and Humbug Marsh

Windsor Grosse Island, Sugar Island and Celeron Island

Lake Erie

Fig. 1 Detroit area AOCs

provide examples of successful restorations that can be used as models for efforts elsewhere. This “success” provides the motivation for the reviews presented below. 2.1

The Detroit River AOC

The Detroit River comprises the southernmost section of the “Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels” which allows water to flow from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron and ultimately into Lake Erie.

90

R. M. ROBINSON

The Detroit River flows 32 miles from Lake St. Clair to Lake Erie where the river’s delta is just north of Toledo, Ohio. Since Lake St. Clair is connected to Lake Michigan via the St. Clair River (North of Detroit), the Detroit River is a critical portion of the connection between two Great Lakes. (See Fig. 1.) The river flows through the urban areas of Detroit in Michigan and Windsor in Ontario. It drops only three feet over its 32-mile length. It is easily navigable; it has no locks or dams. It forms a major element of the international transit border between the US and Canada. It has five tributaries on the US side—the River Rouge being the largest. There are three tributaries on the Ontario side. Because the Detroit River provided the source of water for significant industries (automobile manufacturing being the largest), and because the River Basin experienced rapid residential development during the twentieth century, the river received untreated waste discharge from industrial use and from urban-suburban development and storm runoff. This pollution developed high bacteria levels, but also included pollutions from PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals such as methyl mercury, oils, and other industrial contaminants. (See Appendix C for a review of these toxins.) On the American side, the Detroit River is entirely within Wayne County, Michigan. (See Fig. 1.) On the Canadian side, it is entirely within Essex County Ontario. The river’s width varies from 0.5 miles to 2.5 miles. Since it has been industrialized since the early twentieth century, it has suffered excessive pollution from unregulated dumping of chemicals, industrial wastes, garbage, and sewerage. Its shores were significantly polluted and unsafe for recreational use or any other interaction. Previously, thousands of migrating birds died each year due to the oil slicks and contamination around the delta of the river joining with Lake Erie. Toxic algae blooms became endemic due to the sewerage and non-point storm runoffs polluted with phosphorous. Because of the algae, the river’s oxygen levels were depleted to the point of creating dead zones for fish, and because it drained into Lake Erie, it contributed to the Lake being considered as “dead.”2 In 1970, toxic levels of mercury caused the closing of the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, and the Detroit River to any sort of fishing.

2 See Graham (2021).

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

91

In 1961, Congress approved the Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, established on one of the river’s islands. This led to placing tighter restrictions on industrial pollution. In 2001, the Wyandotte Refuge was absorbed into the larger Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, a cooperative effort between the US and Canada, and the only international refuge of this sort. Since then, substantial dredging of contaminated sediments and other ecological efforts led to the return of eagles, ospreys and falcons, and also significant returns of bass, salmon, perch, and walleye to the river. Recently, large numbers of boats have returned to the Riverfront. Visitors have returned to Belle Isle Park and the Renaissance Center on the river’s banks. Over the course of its development history, the Detroit River has suffered from shoreline hardening (steel and concrete construction for industrial purpose), plus industrial pollution, sewer effluent discharge, and deep shipping-channel excavation, all of which caused environmental degradation. All of this eventually resulted in the Detroit River being identified as an AOC. In the early 1990s, a group of environmentally concerned citizens organized the Friends of the Detroit River (FDR). This organization recognized that the announcement of plans to develop the real estate on the 410-acre, mile-long Humbug Marsh shoreline—the only natural stretch of shoreline on the US side—posed a serious threat to the river’s ecology. The FDR organized opposition to the development. This environmental degradation would have meant loss of critical fish and wildlife habitat. Over a seven-year period, because of the FDR’s efforts, the developers were denied permits for the development, and the Humbug Marsh was eventually incorporated into the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. The FDR, therefore, emerged as an environmental force in the Detroit area. (A summary of the various habitat projects funded by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and managed by the FDR is provided below.) The FDR joined the National Waterkeepers Alliance in 2002 and hired its first “waterkeeper”—a person engaged to monitor the water body’s maintenance. The FDR raised funds for a patrol boat to facilitate monitoring the river and began to raise grants to preserve natural habitats. As an example, this preservation included the “Frank and Poet Shoreline Restoration Project” in Trenton, Michigan. This transformed a significant section of the river’s shoreline into a restored natural bank. Also, during this post-Humbug period, the EPA asked the FDR to revive the “Detroit

92

R. M. ROBINSON

River Remedial Action Plan” (RAP), which without citizen or substantial state agency backing had been inactive for several years. The FDR together with local businesses, government agencies, and other citizens formed the RAP’s Public Advisory Council (PAC) to identify the beneficial use impairments (BUIs) that indicated the Detroit River AOC’s problems, and to form the impairments’ remediation plan. For this purpose, in 2010, the FDR expanded its resources through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative’s grants of $3 million. It pursued the restoration projects of Lake Okonoka on Belle Isle, of an old US Steel Mill site, and of Celeron and Stony Islands. (All of these are reviewed below.) The abovementioned Detroit River Public Advisory Council (PAC) was established in 1991 in conjunction with the Great Lakes’ Areas of Concern program. It consisted of the FDR plus local government representatives. As indicated above, this PAC is essential for forming the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the river. The FDR acted as the PAC’s organizational fiduciary for the RAP’s implementation; that is, it raises and manages the necessary fundings. Because the Detroit River AOC contains the largest city in Michigan along its shore, its restoration must address problems of sewer overflows, non-point source pollutions, contaminated sediment, and habitat restorations. Cleanups of industrial sediments pose the most significant of these efforts. These sediment removals include the “Black Lagoon” project and the “Detroit Riverwalk” project (both are reviewed below). There are also several significant other habitat remediation efforts underway: Lake Okonoka, Celeron Island, Sugar Island, Stony Island, Detroit Riverwalk, and others as reviewed below.3 2.1.1 Sugar Island Restoration Sugar Island is one of the more important fish spawning areas in the western Lake Erie area. In the early twentieth century, Sugar Island was the site of an amusement park reached by a ferry from Detroit. The park, however, was not maintained, and in 2012, it was purchased by the US Fish and Wildlife Service with funds from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). After restoration, it will be included into the International Wildlife Refuge. This restoration project is now being pursued in order to return the island to being a significant spawning ground

3 See www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs.

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

93

and aviary sanctuary. The Friends of the Detroit River (FDR) developed the restoration plan with $17 million funded from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under its “Urban Waters Program.”4 2.1.2 Lake Okonoka Lake Okonoka is on Belle Isle (see Fig. 1), the most significant island by size along the Detroit River. In the 1950s, water connections were interrupted between the Lake Okonoka and the river, which prevented fish from utilizing this Lake for habitat. In 2014, a partnership between FDR and NOAA, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) reestablished the water connection by installing culverts and channels. The project created 3,800 linear feet of deep channeling, 3.2 acres of deep-water pools, gravel restorations of fish spawning beds, 1.5 acres of mudflats for shorebird foraging, and 2 acres of wet meadows so that pollinators and amphibians can pass between the woodlands and Lake Okonoka. Reconstruction began in 2017 and was completed in 2020.5 This project was organized by the FDR, and its $6.5 million funding was from NOAA and the GLRI. 2.1.3 Celeron Island Celeron Island consists of 68 acres of uninhabited forests and wetlands at the southern end of the Detroit River (see Fig. 1). It provides a significant aviary habitat for waterfowl and other species. The Celeron Island restoration project included construction of rock shoals at the southern end of the island. These shoals provided critical fish spawning grounds and stopover habitat for waterfowl migrations. This project was also aimed at stopping erosion of the island as well as habitat restoration. The project started in 2018 and was completed in 2019. It created 4,000 feet of shoals.6 The project was organized by the FDR with $8.4 million funding from NOAA and the GLRI. (Note that the Sugar Island habitat restoration was very similar to the Celeron Island project. Both contain a Great 4 This is a relatively new program that includes involvement by other federal agencies. See “Environmental Justice and Urban Waters Federal Partnerships,” NOAA, Office of Response and Restoration, April 5, 2021. https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/orr-wee kly-report. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

94

R. M. ROBINSON

Blue Heron rookery.) A similar Blue Heron Lagoon is also being restored on Belle Isle with $1.5 million funding from NOAA and the GLRI. 2.1.4 The Detroit Riverwalk The Detroit Riverwalk was a joint effort of the US EPA and the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy. Its project removed 13,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from a 1.2-acre site upstream from downtown Detroit. Remaining sediment was capped in-place to isolate contaminants from exposure. The project was completed in 2020 and was also initiated and led by the FDR.7 2.1.5 The Black Lagoon The “Black Lagoon” project was jointly organized between the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the EPA. It removed 115,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the Black Lagoon inlet to the International Wildlife Refuge (see Fig. 1). The dredging effort began in 2004 and lasted 13 months. It removed 160 pounds of PCBs, 380 pounds of mercury, and 300,000 pounds of oil and grease. The bottom of the dredged lagoon was then covered with 6 inches of sand gravel and 3 inches of stone. The effort facilitated the recovery of the Wildlife Refuge.8 2.2

The FDR as a Critical Element

The FDR was the critical element for organizing the details of the restoration projects briefly reviewed above and also of the fiduciary supervision of the grant funding as reviewed above. But the other essential ingredient necessary for success in these restorations and maintenance efforts is the monitoring of the river, i.e. the monitoring of conditions and the notification of authorities of environmental violations. To this end, in 2002, the FDR joined the Waterkeepers Alliance for guidance on forming a riverkeepers’ mission and establishing a “Riverkeeper” position. The FDR purchased a dedicated boat and appointed a “Riverkeeper” for the purpose of monitoring the river’s condition and the progress with

7 Ibid. 8 Ibid.

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

95

respect to the many projects undertaken.9 But a key ingredient in this monitoring was the establishment of cooperative efforts among Michigan state agencies—Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)—federal agencies (EPA), academics, and NGO organizations that have the scientific capacity to perform the various necessary tasks. The Riverkeeper position requires communication with the various government agencies (both state and federal) and also with the various NGOs involved with the restoration projects, and with the general public. For example, in 2002, ten thousand gallons of waste oil was spilled into the Detroit River and flowed into Lake Erie. The extent of the oil spill was not realized until downstream fishermen (who were miles downstream) began to communicate their observations. Quicker reporting would have been beneficial. In response to this problem, the FDR organized an effective “marine pollution reporting system” through which individual observers can communicate to the Riverkeepers who then report it to the appropriate government authorities. The Riverkeepers , together with the FDR’s Riverkeepers Committee, also accomplished four other critical tasks: 1. With the FDR, the Riverkeepers created a mapping system for all stormwater runoffs into the river, and established GPS coordinates for monitoring purposes. 2. The Riverkeepers with the FDR also documented all the important aquatic weed beds and fish breeding areas along the river and also continually assess local water quality and the condition of spawning beds along the river. 3. The Riverkeeper serves as a technical advisor to the PAC with respect to the condition of sediments along the river. 4. The Riverkeeper communicates with the EPA and state agencies concerning the conditions of the river and its shorelines. In addition to the above, the FDR currently plays several other restoration roles with respect to the Detroit River:

9 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 10, section 4) for a brief reviews of the establishment of the “Riverkeepers.”

96

R. M. ROBINSON

1. It works with private and public land holders to create conservation easements for sustainability. 2. It provides public forums so that individuals can speak out concerning issues that affect the river. 3. It works toward reduction in both point and non-point discharges into the river’s watershed. 4. It works with local businesses and industrial concerns along the river to reduce their environmental impacts and to protect the natural environments contained on their properties. 5. It works with local communities to assist them in meeting their State mandated stormwater control requirements. 6. It supports the Detroit River AOC’s public advisory council in organizing the various RAPs for restoration. 2.3

Other Essential Restoration Issues

On the Canadian side of the Detroit River, there are 12 restoration projects either currently under action or are planned. They are organized by the “Detroit River Canadian Partners,” which includes “Environment and Climate Change Partners,” the “Great Lakes Sustainability Fund,” the “Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,” and the “Essex Region Conservation Authority.” Most of these remediation efforts involve shoreline softening, i.e. the removal of concrete and steel barriers and restoring natural riverbanks. Two of these projects are already near completion, and three have been completed. Whereas the US side of the river was primarily industrial and involved waste disposal, the Canadian side consisted mostly of hardened shorelines with sheet steel, concrete, and other constructions. The hardened shorelines destroyed habitat. Reefs have now been reconstructed for fish habitat, and wetlands have also been restored at Ruwe Marsh and Peche Island to provide spawning beds and aviary nesting grounds and sanctuaries. Habitat restorations on both private and public lands have been funded to protect the watersheds on the Canadian side.10

10 See web2.uwindsor.ca/softs/keyindicators/indicators-habitat-restoration.pdf.

3

2.4

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

97

The “Beneficial Use Impairments”

As reviewed above, beneficial use impairments (BUIs) are indicators of the health of the particular water body and surrounding areas. Restoration requires either direct removal of contaminants, and/or reconstruction of the attributes of the AOC such as the riverbanks or spawning grounds. Identifications of the BUIs are therefore important for both identifying the AOC and forming the remediation plan, and also monitoring the plan’s success. For example, in the 1980s, the Detroit River AOC identified the following beneficial use impairments (BUIs): 1. Restrictions on fish consumption: As a result of identification of chromium, lead, mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a “fish contamination and consumption advisory” was identified as a primary impairment. The remediation includes removal of contaminated and toxic sediments, and the correction of sewerage system problems. 2. Tainting of fish: The tastes of fish caught in the Detroit River were compared to the same species caught in clean waters elsewhere. In addition, surveys of fishermen in the 1990s concerning these tastes indicated the problem. Remediation required removal of the contaminants indicated above and the restoration of “benthos” as indicated below. 3. Fish tumors and deformities: Fish and Wildlife Administration’s samples of fish indicated a level of tumors and deformities as compared to fish caught in clean waters elsewhere. Remediation required the removal of the contaminants indicated above and the restoration of “benthos” as indicated below. 4. Aviary deaths, deformities, and reproductive problems: Aviary sampling indicated the problematic effects of the contaminants indicated above. Remediation requires the removal of those contaminants. 5. Degradation of benthos: “Benthos” refers to the community of organisms that live at the bottom of rivers and wetlands. These organisms feed on algae and organic runoff from the land. Bottom fish and crustaceans feed on the benthos as part of the food chain. Depletion of the benthos is an indicator of contamination of the sediments and/or water. Remediation requires the safe removal of the contaminants.

98

R. M. ROBINSON

6. Restrictions on dredging activities: According to the river’s 1991 RAP, the sediments along the entire river’s banks indicate they were either heavily or moderately contaminated. Inputs from Lake St. Clair indicated high levels of PCBs, cyanide, zinc, cadmium, copper, iron, nickel, methyl mercury, lead, chromium, oil, and grease. Remediation requires the safe removal of those contaminants. 7. Restrictions on drinking water: In 1990, municipalities along the river identified taste and odor problems in the water. The problem was identified as stemming from the blue-green algae blooming along the river. Remediation requires removal of the contaminants indicated above and the restoration of “benthos” as also indicated above. 8. Beach closings: The only public beach along the Detroit River AOC is on Belle Isle, near the head of the river. The potential sources of bacterial contamination throughout the watershed include discharges from failing upstream-sewer and storm-runoff systems, and illegal sewer connections to the storm-runoff systems. Remediation requires modernizing these systems. 9. Degradation of aesthetics: According to the 1991 “remedial action plan,” wet weather events caused large volumes of sewer effluent and slaughter-house effluent to be discharged into the river. Odor and discoloration occurred. Remediation requires the actions indicated immediately above. 10. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat: The 1991 “remedial action plan” indicated that the significant loss of fish and wildlife habitat occurred because of agricultural development, urban development, and industrialization. Remediation requires publicly funded restorations of wetland habitat as driven by local private groups and governments. Specific remedial actions in the Detroit River AOC include the following: • In 2003, private funding facilitated stabilization of habitat along the south shore of Elizabeth Park. • In 2003, the Detroit Recreation Department initiated a sturgeon habitat project for restoration of the reef off of Belle Isle (see Fig. 1).

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

99

• In 2003, Humbug Marsh was acquired by the Trust for Public Land. It includes 410 acres of unique fish and wildlife habitat along the river (see Fig. 1). • In 2002, the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge was created along the lower Detroit River and western shore of Lake Erie (see Fig. 1). It is the first such international refuge in North America. It was expanded by Congress in 2003 and in 2005 through the “North American Wetlands Conservation Act” which matched donations from a number of federal, state, and nonprofit organizations. Since the creation of the Refuge, it has been expanded through numerous land acquisitions by organizations such as the Trust for Public Lands , The Nature Conservancy, and the US Army Corps of Engineers . • In 2002, the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy secured over $10 million from the Kresge Foundation to create a three-mile riverfront walkway along the river in downtown Detroit (see Fig. 1). It is part of a larger plan of the City of Detroit to rehabilitate the riverfront. All of these actions are monitored by committees of local citizens (the FDR) and others (federal, state, and local government representatives) which provided the expertise required for assessing progress. (Examples are presented immediately below.) There are two examples of removal of BUIs reviewed here: (1) drinking water restrictions and (2) tainting of fish. (Both of which were listed above.) On the Canadian side of the Detroit River, these BUIs were assessed as remedied in 2009. On the US side, in November 2008, the Detroit River Public Advisory Council (PAC) voted to recommend that this BUI be assessed as remedied. This was based on meeting two a priori established criteria over a two-year period: 1. At the point of distribution into the water system, the public water supply met the current and most stringent human health standards for levels of disease-causing organisms, hazardous or toxic chemicals, or radioactive substances. 2. The treatment needed to make the water palatable did not exceed the standard methods for those supplies.

100

R. M. ROBINSON

In September of 2010, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) judged that these criteria had been met. Both the FDR and the Detroit River PAC concurred that the criteria were met. The “technical advisory committee,” consisting of representatives of the MDEQ, the Detroit River PAC, the US EPA, and other experts also concurred. (This was preceded by a public comment period.) The International Joint Commission agreed. With respect to the “fish tainting” BUI, the a priori criteria included: 1. No more than three reports of fish tainting were observed for a period of three preceding years. 2. A representative sample from the AOC indicated that in accordance with MDEQ’s assessment, there was no tainting. In keeping with the MDEQ’s standards, surveys of fishermen were conducted in 2011–2012. This established that “fish tainting” was not occurring. This analysis was reviewed and approved by the MDEQ, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Department of Community Health, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Friends of the Detroit River, the Detroit River Public Advisory Council , and the Detroit River Canadian Cleanup. These examples illustrate the stringent and objective standards required for judging that the BUIs are remedied and therefore justify “delisting” in the AOC. Details, such as those presented above, are not further reviewed for the three other Detroit area AOCs examined below: the River Rouge, the River St. Clair, and the Clinton River. The “details” for establishing BUIs, for forming the relevant RAPs, and for “delisting” have been similar.

3

River Rouge AOC

The River Rouge is 127 miles long (204 kilometers). It drains a 467 square mile watershed (1,210 square kilometers) in southeastern Michigan that includes 48 municipalities with a total population of more than 1.35 million (see Fig. 1). Its drainage basin is largely urban and suburban with extensive industrial and residential development. This river has four branches: the main, upper, lower, and middle branches. It flows into the Detroit River at the boundary between the cities of Detroit and

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

101

River Rouge. Between 1915 and 1927, the lower 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) of the river was widened, channeled, and dredged to allow freighter access to Ford’s inland River Rouge Plant, a complex of blast furnaces, an open-hearth steel mill, a steel rolling mill, glass plant, huge power plant, and assembly line. This plant employed approximately 100,000 workers. In the early twentieth century, the River Rouge was highly polluted by this industry. In 1969, oil on the water’s surface caught fire with flames that sored up to fifty feet. In 1986, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization called Friends of the Rouge formed and organized an annual “Rouge Cleanup.” They raised environmental awareness concerning the need for restoration. In 1987, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), the River Rouge was identified as an area of concern (AOC). In 2006, a supervisory group of governmental and nongovernmental organizations, the Alliance of Rouge Communities formed to manage this AOC. The majority of the land along the River Rouge and its tributaries is residential, industrial, or commercial. But it also flows through fifty miles of parklands. The AOC covers this entire watershed. It is polluted by industrial discharges, urban and suburban sewer overflows, and contaminated stormwater runoffs from both point and non-point sources. Combining stormwater drainage with sanitary sewerage systems causes sewerage overflows during severe storms, so the River Rouge was contaminated by bacteria. But the river’s sediments were also contaminated by the industrial pollutions of toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and heavy metals such as methyl mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), petroleum oils, and grease. (See Appendix C for a review of these toxins.) As reviewed above, the River Rouge watershed suffers from urban stormwater stressors that include storm sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, other point source and non-point source contaminated discharges, contaminated sediments, and high flow variability. These stressors resulted in poor benthos, oxygen depletion, and public health advisories related to fish consumption.11 To date, no BUIs have been removed. In August of 2006, under the GLWQA, the River Rouge Advisory Council (RRAC) adopted delisting targets for its nine BUIs:

11 Benthos includes the living organisms in riverbeds and underwater soils of other water bodies.

102

• • • • • • • • •

R. M. ROBINSON

restrictions on fish consumption, fish tumors or other deformities, degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging, undesirable algae growth, beach closings, aesthetic degradation, depletion of fish and wildlife, loss of natural habitat.

To address these BUI degradations, there are three significantly large remediation projects and many other smaller projects reviewed here. The first of these projects involves reconnecting large segments of the river by eliminating old dams, or in some cases rerouting streams around the dams. For example, the “Henry Ford Estate Dam” was built by Henry Ford as a hydroelectric generation facility to service his estate. It imposed the first barrier to fish migrating upstream from the Great Lakes. In 2011, building a “fishway bypass” around this dam was identified as a high priority project by the River Rouge Area of Concern (RRAOC), and construction of the channel began in 2018. Habitat restoration is continuing around this area. This restoration is a collaborative effort among numerous government agencies (federal, state, and local) plus the Alliance of Rogue Communities, and the Friends of the Rouge. In addition, elimination of the “Wayne Road Dam” along the Lower Branch of the Rouge and “Danvers Pond Dam” on the Upper Rouge reconnected the main river with 108 tributary miles of watershed streams. This significantly enhanced the fish populations and natural habitats. The second large project in the RRAOC is the “Rouge Oxbow Restoration Project” began in 2002 and completed in 2020. At its “Oxbow Bend,” the Rouge River was “channeled” in the 1970s to mitigate flooding. The banks were hardened with concrete which resulted in the “Oxbow” section being disconnected from the rest of the river. This precluded fish passage through the river. The sixteen-year effort to reconnect the river required channel reconstruction and reestablishment of 13 acres of wetland and upland habitat. It also required stabilizing the streambank with deep-rooted native vegetation. This restoration was also a collaborative effort among numerous government agencies (both federal and local) plus the Alliance of Rogue Communities and the Friends of the Rouge.

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

103

A third large River Rouge project involves dredging the old Lower River Rouge channel, originally built in the 1920s in order to transport automobiles from Ford’s Dearborn Plant to and through the Great Lakes. The first phase of this dredging project consisted of repairing the riverbank which was completed in 2019. The dredging, capping, and elimination of the toxic material began in late 2021. This involves dredging approximately 70,000 cubic yards of sediment from 10 acres. This sediment is polluted with coal tar and various petroleum products, and will be removed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The other restoration projects along the Rouge involve (i) reestablishing other connections of small tributaries to the larger branches of the river, (ii) reestablishment of wetland and upland habitat through replanting proper vegetation and streambank restorations, and (iii) elimination of toxic discharges into the tributaries via the sources reviewed above. It is important to note that the Alliance of Rouge Communities (ARC) is the watershed management organization under which the majority of the remedial efforts, plus the necessary monitoring, and the assessments of the effectiveness of the BUI cleanups are accomplished. The ARC includes the three county governments within the AOC area (Wayne County, Oakland County, and Washtenaw County), plus municipal governments, state agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations. Each community within the watershed contributes to financing the monitoring and compliance efforts. These consist of (i) biological, chemical, and physical monitoring, (ii) a geographic identification of discharge sources, (iii) illicit discharge eliminations, and (iv) public education. The primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of the watershed’s remediation. The River Rouge Park is Detroit’s largest park at 1,184 acres. In that park, and in other wetland restoration projects, restoring stream banks with native deep-rooted vegetation is essential for prevention of erosion. These stream restoration efforts are conducted under the “Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.” These park-like areas frequently have closer mown grasses that do not hold up to high levels of stream runoff due to storms. This sort of stream preservation with proper plantings also offers a buffer between various polluted storm runoffs and the watershed. Another restoration occurred around Fordson Island in 2010. This island was created in 1917 by the dredging of a new channel between Ford’s auto plant and the Lower River Rouge. In the 1970s, sediment

104

R. M. ROBINSON

buildup interrupted boat access, and stranded boats were abandoned. The Fordson Island shoreline became littered with abandoned boats and other debris. The Friends of the Rouge initiated kayak tours of the Lower Rouge, and once awareness of the problem arose, volunteers began removing the derelict boats, and also the associated old fuel storage tanks, and other debris. This was funded by a “Marine Debris Program Grant” from NOAA and a similar grant from GLRI. The southern two Detroit area AOCs (the Detroit River AOC and the River Rouge AOC) were heavily polluted by industry and have very high urban population density. The northern two AOCs in this area (River St. Clair and the Clinton River) are somewhat less polluted and less densely populated. For this illustrative purpose, the southern AOCs were reviewed above in greater detail than the two northern AOCs. Because these four ecological systems interact, however, all four together provide worthy and important case examinations.

4

Saint Clair River AOC

River St. Clair is the northern portion of the “Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel” between Lake Huron and Lake Erie. It flows from Lake Huron and into Lake St. Clair (see Fig. 1). It is 40.5 miles in length (65.2 km) and forms part of the international border between Michigan and Ontario. On the southern end where it connects with Lake St. Clair, its delta has several channels and forms an area known as St. Clair Flats. Its watershed drains over 103,000 acres in Ontario and 780,600 acres in Michigan. It has two significant islands: Stag Island toward its north and Fawn Island toward its southern delta (see Fig. 1). On the Canadian side of the river, most of its watershed area is agricultural with few surviving forests or wetlands, but much of the shoreline on both sides is urban and industrial. There is a large petrochemical complex on the Ontario side. Along the St. Clair River’s shores are other petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, paper mills, salt producers, and electric power plants. Several communities use the river as their primary source of drinking water. It is a Binational AOC. The River St. Clair’s beneficial use impairments (BUIs) include: • restrictions on fish consumption, • restrictions on drinking water consumption, • contamination of fish (removed in 2010),

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

105

• restrictions on dredging (removed 2011), • environmental degradation costs imposed on agriculture and industry (removed in 2012), • degradation of aesthetics (removed in 2012), • degradation of benthos (removed in 2015),12 • beach closings (removed in 2016), • bird and other animal deformities (removed in 2016), and • loss of fish and wildlife habitat (removed in 2017). As an example of the industrial pollution found in the AOC, a large blob of toxic perchloroethylene remains at the bottom of the river due to pollution from Dow Chemical Corp in 1985. This blob continues to slowly mix into the water. Between 2012 and 2014, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) provided $21 million (US) to fund 10 habitat restoration projects that covered 13 locations across the St. Clair AOC. They involved restoration of benthos, shorelines, wetlands, and upland habitats. These included: 1. installing three fish spawning reefs with cobble substate and other structures, 2. planting trees, wildflowers, and other native vegetation to anchor and preserve streambanks from erosion, 3. removing 2,200 feet of failing steel seawall, 4. reconnecting wetlands and floodplains to the river, 5. creating new wetlands in an area previously designated as a “brownfield,” 6. dredging 35,000 cubic yards from the three miles of the Krispin Blueway section of the river which reestablished the drainage to provide increased water flow to aviary, fish and other wildlife habitats, and to facilitate fish migrations, plus 7. the creation of river breakwaters that resist erosion during high levels of water flow.

12 “Benthos” consists of the crustaceans and other living entities in the soils on the bottom of the River.

106

R. M. ROBINSON

For an example of coastline restoration, one mile of shoreline was restored at Cottrellville where almost no natural habitat remained. An ecologically appropriate recreational walkway along the river was constructed. “Marysville Living Shoreline Restoration Project” replaced an old steel seawall with a natural habitat that provided spawning and nursery areas for fish, and wetland and upland vegetation for birds and other wildlife. Spawning reefs for sturgeon—which were previously classified as either “threatened or endangered” throughout the Great Lakes—were also constructed. The sturgeon’s natural spawning beds were destroyed by an early twentieth-century construction of a shipping channel. In addition, as reviewed above, a series of river-bottom rock structures were created to provide spawning grounds for fish other than sturgeon. This effort was funded by a GLRI grant of $2,500,000 (US). Table 7 briefly reviews some other St. Clair River habitat restorations and their costs. Also, between 2004 and 2015, more than six acres of spawning habitat were created at three locations on the US side of the river. Table 7

Some other St. Clair River habitat restorations

Project and funding

Description of project

Cuttle Creek $2,600,000 from GLRI

Cuttle Creek is a tributary of the St. Claire River. The project reconnected the creek to the wetland, restored the habitat, and restored fish passage At the Marine City Drain and the St. Clair River, ¼ acre of habitat and 63 feet of shoreline was restored by construction of break-walls, cobble substrate, and woody structures Along the upper St. Clair, invasive species of plants were removed and native vegetation was planted to preserve the shoreline One mile of shoreline was restored south of the Maritime Center in Port Huron by using rock breakwaters, and native vegetation. This provides the site of Port Huron’s “Sturgeon Festival”

Marine City Drain Habitat Restoration $980,000 from GLRI

Port Huron Shoreline $500,000 from GLRI

Blue Water River Walk $2,250,000 from GLRI

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

107

The Friends of the Saint Clair River have both Canadian and Michigan chapters. They act as fiduciaries for grants from GLRI and other government entities, and participate in an advisory capacity with the Binational Public Advisory Council that supervises the restoration efforts and monitors the results. The Friends organization participates in the monitoring efforts.

5

Clinton River AOC

The Clinton River flows into Lake St. Clair on the Lake’s US side (see Fig. 1). Its watershed drains 760 square miles (2,000 square kilometers) of Michigan’s Macomb and Oakland Counties. Dams constructed along the main branch of the Clinton River create a series of small lakes, the farthest downstream being Crystal Lake. The main branch flows under the city of Pontiac, and after flowing fifteen miles farther to the east, it joins two northern branches in the Township of Clinton. The main branch then flows another five miles before flowing into Lake St. Clair. Under the GLWQA, in 1987, the lower portion of the river was designated as an AOC. But in 1995 the AOC designation was extended to the entire Clinton River Watershed including the nearshore area of Lake St. Clair where the Clinton River flows into the Lake. Eight BUIs have been identified within the Clinton River AOC: • • • • • • • •

restrictions on fish consumption, undesirable algae growth, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, beach closings, degradation of aesthetics (removed in 2020), degradation of benthos, dredging restrictions, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

The Clinton River Advisory Council (CRAC) identified three broad categories of restoration projects which address the BUI remediations. These include: • 18 habitat restoration projects that addressed control of invasive species, dam removal, and wetland reconnection and restoration,

108

R. M. ROBINSON

• stream bank stabilization along a former landfill site, and • sediment remediation. The first two of these categories were nearly completed in 2020. Sediment remediation is, however, ongoing. Ten significant projects, and their funding, are briefly reviewed in Table 8. According to the “Remedial Action Plan” of 1988, “impairment of benthos” in the Clinton River largely occurred due to PCB contamination from a variety of sources such as (1) older contaminated sediments, (2) runoffs from waste disposal sites, and (3) industrial point sources. Other contaminants stem from combined sewer overflows. These same pollution sources have caused restrictions on fish consumption. Sediments in the lower portion of the Clinton River watershed—downstream from Pontiac—are moderately-to-heavily contaminated with metals, semi-organic compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, nitrogen, and DDT. The associated problem for the AOC is to identify the point sources of these pollutants. For the purpose of identifying these point sources, a “Dredging Technical Committee” was formed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) which included state and federal experts. It currently conducts AOC-wide assessments of sediments to identify necessary remedial actions (dredging, interrupting of point sources, updating sewer systems, etc.). According to the Clinton River’s 1988 Remedial Action Plan (RAP), the monitoring of water conditions indicated that problems were caused by the combination of turbidity and phosphorous which generated the excessive algae growth in the lower portion of the river. This resulted from stormwater runoff (including sewer overflows). There were a significant number of residential and commercial properties within the watershed that had failing sewer systems and/or illegal connections of sanitary sewers to stormwater systems. A “Technical Committee” of MDEQ and MDNR experts (the Water Chemistry Monitoring Project) together with the Clinton River PAC identified the appropriate remedial actions for solving the problem of excessive algae growth and beach closings. This remediation is ongoing. In the 1990s, Oakland and Macomb Counties led the State of Michigan in new construction. This rapid urban and suburban construction, combined with poor land-use planning, led to significant degradation of fish and wildlife habitat within the Clinton River’s AOC.

3

Table 8

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

109

Nine significant Clinton River AOC projects

Project and funding

Description of project

Clinton River Corridor Project $4,500,000 from the GLRI

The banks of a nine-mile section of the river have been stabilized with elimination of invasive species and planting of native vegetation. Fish habitats have been reestablished The riverbank and 90 acres of upland habitat will be restored. This involves stabilizing the streambank and eliminating invasive species This restored the eastern section of the river’s “spillway” This reconnection restores sections of the north branch of the river’s floodplain to native grasses and forested wetlands This restores the wetlands adjacent to the Galloway Creek. This entails restoration of the natural wetland to provide a stormwater runoff buffer This involves removal of sediment and the restoration of streambanks and streambeds This restores the former coastal wetland where the river meets Lake St. Clair. It restores 4 acres of upland habitat and 6,000 feet of shoreline This restores the river’s streambank and nearshore habitat This restores 3,000 feet of channel and 2 acres of riparian habitat. It also restores and reconnects the floodplain with the river and restores the stream channel This high-quality Creek is home of native brown trout. Dam removal was accompanied by habitat restoration

Partridge Creek Commons and Clinton River Spillway $6,300,000 from the GLRI Clinton River Spillway $2,500,000 from NOAA and GLRI Wolcott Mill “Metro-park” Wetland Project $2,500,000

Galloway Wetland Project $140,000 from GLRI

Sylvan Glen $375,000 Clinton River Mouth $2,694,200 from Corps of Engineers

Shelby Township Streambank $914,400 from Corps of Engineers Galloway Creek $2,202,000 from Corps of Engineers

Dam Removal on Paint Creek $704,725 Corps of Engineers

Wetlands and other habitats have been almost eliminated from the downstream portion of the basin, and natural drainage has been drastically altered throughout the watershed. Wetlands were destroyed or disconnected from the Clinton River drainage. Also, impervious surfaces from

110

R. M. ROBINSON

commercial and residential development, together with the disconnection of floodplain wetlands, have resulted in highly variable water flows in the river. Low flows during dry periods, and high flows that scour stream banks during stormy periods, resulted in loss of fish habitat. Hardening of streambanks and eliminating wetlands and drainage caused hydrological problems. The dams upstream of Pontiac at times reduced the downstream flows to a trickle which severely impacted the habitat and fish populations both above and below the city. The Technical Committee of MDEQ and MDNR experts, together with the Clinton River PAC, developed the plan for remediation of these BUI problems. This planned remediation is reflected in the projects briefly reviewed in Table 8.

6

Some Lessons from the Detroit Area AOCs

The four contiguous AOCs in the Detroit area are demographically, commercially, and industrially diverse. As a group, they include rural, suburban, and urban residential areas. Under the binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement , and the umbrella of this agreement’s International Joint Commission, the environmental restoration efforts of these AOCs are led by their technical and public advisory councils. These consist of local citizen committees and experts from government organizations such as the EPA, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, provincial, and federal fish and wildlife services. The Alliance for the Great Lakes, the Friends of the Detroit River, the Friends of the Rouge, the Alliance of Rouge Communities , the Friends of the St. Clair River, the Clinton River Advisory Council , and the Binational Advisory Council all provide examples of these local citizen involvements. Together with the technical experts provided by our government organizations, these citizen community groups form the remedial action plans (RAPs) for the local environmental restorations. This provides a model for the remediations reviewed in the next chapters. As organized and funded through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), a list of fourteen potential beneficial use impairments (BUIs) was used to identify the AOCs along the Great Lakes. Once identified, they were eligible for federal and provincial funding for local environmental restoration. This restoration occurred through their locally formed and financially supervised RAP. Remediation of the area’s BUIs leads to “delisting” of the AOC, a politically advantageous situation sought

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

111

by local officials, which has already occurred in some AOCs. Once a locality is identified as an AOC, the political impetus favors movement toward this delisting. A variety of areas outside the Detroit area have already been “delisted,” and various BUIs in the Detroit area AOCs have been successfully remediated. This Great Lakes system of restoration is therefore functionally effective as indicated in this chapter and also in the chapters below. This system is currently functioning in the Detroit area which is—or perhaps “was”—one of the most environmentally degraded urban-suburban areas in North America. Therefore, the restoration efforts documented in this chapter are worthy of being noted as providing lessons that are applicable to areas outside the Great Lakes Basin.

Appendix: “Lee” Botts Leila “Lee” Carman-Botts was born on February 25, 1928, in Mooreland, Oklahoma, in the Northwest section of that state where the “dustbowl” of the 1930s began and was particularly severe. She recounts that as an 8-year-old, her grandfather placed her in the saddle on his horse and rode with her to a pasture to inspect a row of drought resistant trees that he planted to prevent soil erosion. This planting was financed by the New Deal soil conservation program to form a functioning “shelterbelt,” a technique that worked well for erosion prevention.13 This experience, she claimed, ignited her passion for environmentalism. She received a B.A. in English from Oklahoma A&M University. Lee Botts’ husband attended graduate school at the University of Chicago. They raised four children in the Hyde Park section, and while there, she developed a life-long interest in the Indiana Dunes . Her volunteer efforts led to the establishment of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in 1966. She became a columnist and editor of the weekly Hyde Park Herald, and in 1969, she became a staff member of the Open Lands Project in Chicago. While using her staff position, she found the Lake Michigan Federation, which evolved into the Alliance for the Great Lakes. This Federation was the first independent citizen’s organization dedicated to the protection of a Great Lake. This organization persuaded Mayor Richard Daly to have Chicago be the first Great Lake’s City to 13 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N7nOkbGLs for a video of Lee Botts recounting this story.

112

R. M. ROBINSON

ban phosphate in laundry detergent. This Federation also played a role in establishing the GLWQA in 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the banning of PCBs via the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. After her successful Federation and Alliance work, in 1972 Lee Botts joined the US EPA. In 1977, President Carter appointed her as “Head” of the Great Lakes Basin Commission. President Ronald Regan’s first federal budget eliminated the “Commission,” and she accepted a faculty position at Northwestern University. In 1977, her long-term efforts resulted in establishing the Indiana Dunes National Park and its “Education Center.” In 2005, she coauthored a scholarly book on the landmark Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). Between 2007 and 2019, she served on Indiana’s Water Pollution Control Board. In 2016, she wrote and produced a 60-minute documentary “Shifting Sands: On the Path to Sustainability.” This documentary depicts the industrial history and restoration of the “Indiana Dunes” and surrounding region, which was shown on public television and elicited considerable praise. She served as a “Board Member” of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. The Alliance named its endowment “The Lee Botts Fund.” She died on October 5, 2019. In a Chicago Tribune profile from 1994, Lee Botts explained her fascination with the Great Lakes, “People ask me why I’m hung up on the Great Lakes. I was a child of the dust bowl. Coming here from Oklahoma in the ‘50s. I couldn’t get over the marvel of a lake that wasn’t made by the Army Corps of Engineers” (Earth Mother, April 17, 1994). At the Alliance for the Great Lakes 50th anniversary in 2020, its CEO and President Joel Brammeier said, “Lee set the Great Lakes Movement on its path. When I read and hear stories about the Great Lakes and clean water every day, when I see water at the center of communities, I remember Lee setting that expectation as if it was obvious all along. We are honored to have been part of her legacy and look forward to amplifying her passion for the Great Lakes for the next fifty years and beyond.”

References Campbell, Maureen, Matthew Cooper, Kathryn Friedman, and William Anderson (2015), “The Economy as a Driver of Change in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41 (Suppl. 1): 69–83.

3

RESTORING AREAS OF CONCERN

113

Graham, Lester (2021, March 11), “U of M Team Makes Discovery About Lake Erie Dead Zone,” at www.greatlakesnow.org/2021/03/university-michigandiscovery-lake-erie-dead-zone/. Lydersen, Kari (2020, October 4), “Toxic Contaminants Past and Present: Creating a Legacy,” Alliance for the Great Lakes, at https://www.greatlakes. org/2020/10/toxic-contaminants-past-and-present-creating-a-legacy/. Robinson, Richard (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave-Macmillan, Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland.

CHAPTER 4

The St. Louis River Area of Concern

1

Introduction: The Twin-Port Cities

The St. Louis River flows for 179 miles through northeast Minnesota to reach the St. Louis River Estuary where it then empties into Lake Superior at its far west corner. At this point, the river flows through the twin ports of Duluth and Superior, the former city being in Minnesota on the River’s northern bank, and the latter city being in Wisconsin on the River’s southern bank. Both cities border on Lake Superior. (See Fig. 1.) The Estuary covers 12,000 acres. It includes shallow backwaters, bays, and islands that ideally would provide ecologically healthy aviary and wildlife habitat. It is potentially a unique ecosystem with regional and global significance. Parts of the upper estuary (the section farthest from the Lake) appear almost pristine, but the lower estuary (closer to the Lake) was both channeled and filled to accommodate shipping. Nearly one-third of the original estuary has been either filled or channeled since the mid-1850s, yet it still remains one of the most biologically diverse and complex bodies within the Great Lakes Basin. During the mid-1800s, logging cleared the St. Louis Estuary’s adjacent landscape. More than fifty dams were constructed in the river’s basin to accommodate logging. Iron, shipbuilding, and grain transportation became Duluth’s industries in the 1880s. Other industries included brewing, railway car manufacturing, and most relevant for environmental © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_4

115

116

R. M. ROBINSON

N

9

Duluth

Lake Superior

13

3 Interlake Tar

und 5 7

2 1

St. Louis River

Clough Island

Superior

8

12 Morgan Park and Duluth Works Superfund

Spirit Lake

4

Nemadji River

11

10 6

Fond du Lac Dam

1. Wisconsin Point and Shafer Beach 2. Minnesota Point 3. Pickle Pond 4. Allouez Bay 5. Kingsbury Bay 6. Radio Tower Bay 7. Knowlton Creek 8. Newton Creek/Hog Island 9. Twenty-first Avenue West 10. Chambers Grove Park and Perch Lake 11. Mud Lake 12. Pokegama River and Bay 13. Interstate Island Fig. 1 St. Louis River AOC

degradation, coke refining from coal. The Duluth-Superior Harbor is America’s busiest inland port with 1,000 vessels using its facilities annually. These vessels shipped cargo worth $2 billion in 2012, and supported 2,000 jobs with a $210 million local economic impact.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

117

As explained above, the City of Duluth in Minnesota is adjacent to the City of Superior in Wisconsin. Only the St. Louis River separates them. They form the Twin-Port Cities on the far western coast of Lake Superior. Duluth is the larger of the two cities. Together they formed port facilities that once primarily served the iron mining interests of the area, i.e. North America’s “Iron Range” is just north of the cities. Duluth has a current population of 87,000. Superior has a current population of 27,000. Their larger combined metropolitan statistical area has a current population of 279,000. The combined Port of Duluth-Superior is the largest port on the Great Lakes. It has processed shipments of coal, iron ore, grain, limestone, cement, wood pulp, steel, and recently wind turbine components. Since the early twentieth century, large freighter ships have operated out of Duluth to carry iron ore from the “Iron Range” (just north of Duluth) to the steel plants on the southern Great Lakes.1 But DuluthSuperior also has several grain elevators that ship grain from the upper Mid-Western Plains. In 1907, on Spirit Lake—which is eleven miles upriver from the Lake Superior but still within the confines of Duluth— the US Steel Company built the Duluth Works steel mill. (See Fig. 1.) Hiring for this manufacturing plant radically increased the area’s population to over 200,000. To establish a company town, US Steel developed Morgan Park, which is now a Duluth neighborhood adjacent to and north of Spirit Lake. European migrants came from the Scandinavian Countries—especially Finland—and also from Eastern Europe to work at the Duluth Works and live in Morgan Park. Today, Scandinavian descent still constitutes the largest ethnic component of the area. Duluth’s economy began declining in the 1950s when high-grade ore ran out from the Iron Range. Low-grade ore shipments, however, remained. But in the 1970s, a US steel crisis caused by global competition resulted in the closure of the Duluth Works . Since the City’s cement manufacturing depended on the byproduct “slag” from the steel mill, the cement manufacturing and shipping also closed. Closure of other industries such as shipbuilding and heavy machinery followed. The area’s population began declining in the 1950s. Since the 1960 Census, Duluth’s population stabilized at approximately 85,000. Duluth became a 1 The popular Gordon Lightfoot song The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald concerns the sinking of an iron ore freighter on Lake Superior on November 10, 1975. The song explains that concerning this sinking, “the gales of November came early.”

118

R. M. ROBINSON

tourism center for those traveling along the upper coast of Lake Superior. The City was architecturally of high quality, and was redeveloped into an attractive area for tourists. In the early years of the twenty-first century, Duluth-Superior became a banking center, a retail shopping center, and a medical center for northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin and northwest Michigan. The 2010 census indicated a Duluth population of 86,265 with 90.4% being Caucasian; Superior’s 2010 population was 27,244 with 94.26% being Caucasian. The 2020 census indicates a Duluth population of 86,697; Superior’s population is 26,751. The St. Louis River and the Nemadji River flow through the cities of Duluth and Superior respectively, the former river being the much larger of the two so that it provides much larger port facilities than the Nemadji. During the industrial era of the last century, these cities shipped iron ore to the steel mills along the Great Lakes, especially the truck and auto manufacturing plants in Detroit in Michigan, and Lackawanna in New York State. Environmental degradation resulted from industrial and municipal wastes combined with unregulated land use policies, unchecked dredging, cavalier destruction of aquatic habitats, unregulated logging, and other manufacturing practices. All this degradation generated a highly polluted locale identified in 1989 as the St. Louis River area of concern (AOC). This AOC is 1,020 square miles in area, but the two combined river basins drain 3,634 square miles. They cross the state boundaries of Minnesota and Wisconsin and encompass the port of Duluth-Superior. This AOC includes Superfund sites, large boat slips, important fish spawning habitats, and Spirit Lake—a site of spiritual significance to the Ojibwe/Chippewa Native American tribe. The legacy industrial pollutions include mercury, PBCs, PAHs, lead, copper, zinc, and other toxins. (See Appendix C to this book for reviews of the effects of these toxins.)

2

The St. Louis River Area of Concern (AOC)

The boundary of the St. Louis River AOC includes the lower 39 miles of the St. Louis River and its surrounding watershed, i.e. from upstream of Cloquet to the River’s mouth at Duluth-Superior Harbor. It also includes the Nemadji River’s watershed and a portion of Lake Superior. This “portion” lies between Dutchman Creek in Wisconsin and Talmadge Creek in Minnesota as depicted by Fig. 1. This AOC includes two Superfund sites: the US Steel’s Duluth Works and the Interlake Tar site.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

119

Prior to being designated an area of concern, some significant efforts improved the environmental habitats of the region. The following lists some of these improvement projects. Note that areas such as Knowlton Creek, Wisconsin Point, Clough Island, and Pokegama River are depicted on Fig. 1. Brief reviews of each of these projects are presented below. • Infrastructure upgrades include: – Creation and expansion of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District in 1978, – Upgrades to the City of Superior wastewater treatment plant in 1980, – Municipal efforts to control stormwater runoff to prevent combined sewer overflows. • Habitat restoration and remediation projects include: – Sturgeon spawning habitat restoration in the St. Louis River, – Restoration of Tallas Island at the mouth of Knowlton Creek, – Piping Plover habitat enhancement, maintenance, and monitoring at Wisconsin Point and Schafer Beach, – Clough Island conifer restoration and invasive species control, – Baseline sampling and analysis of benthos throughout the river basins. • Preservation efforts: – Protection of Clough Island, – Protection of 6,500 acres of sensitive habitat in the St. Louis/Red River Streambank Protection Area, – Protection of more than 4,500 acres within the Pokegama River watershed in two Wisconsin State Natural Areas. The current efforts associated with the remediation of the beneficial use impairments (BUIs) should be viewed as extensions of the considerable efforts by state and local agencies and environmental groups aimed at remediating the overall problems of this estuary. Some of these efforts are reviewed here.

120

R. M. ROBINSON

The Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) Prior to the 1970s, untreated sewerage and industrial wastes were significant sources of pollution in the St. Louis River. The Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) was created in 1978 to resolve the problem. In 1980, controls over stormwater runoff began by separating stormwater systems from sanitary sewer systems. This separation prevented stormwater overflowing into the sanitary system. These overflow problems led to untreated sewerage flowing into the rivers and then into Lake Superior. Also in 1980, the WLSSD began controls of mercury emissions from industry. (See Appendix C for a review of the sources and effects of mercury poisoning.) Clough Island Some of the habitat restorations referred to above, utilized successful methods to initiate, organize, and finance these local restorations. For example, the Clough Island restoration site is a 346-acre island located in Spirit Lake just west of the Superior Municipal Forest (see Fig. 1). Clough Island is named after the first settler who built a home and farm on the island. In 1904, it was purchased by Robert Whiteside, a timber and mining baron. The island was first logged to build the Whiteside residence and farm. In 2003, a golf resort was planned and proposed for Clough Island. Dorothy Anway, an instructor at the University of Wisconsin—Superior, joined the Friends of the Superior Municipal Forest , an organization that opposed this development because it proposed 500 housing units, plus a 300 room seven-story hotel, and a golf course and marina. A planned ferry would transport people from Spirit Mountain Ski Area on the Minnesota side of the River over to Clough Island. The proposed development, Anway said, would be “overbuilt with no consideration of wetlands, geology or other geographic features.”2 Anway organized an economic analysis of the proposed development. She discovered that similar developments on the outskirts of other cities added less to tax revenue than the associated costs of services. Prior to the development, the municipal tax revenues were overestimated but municipal costs were underestimated. The Duluth community’s costs would stem from sewerage disposal and treatment, municipal water provision, 2 See https://stlouisriverestuary.org/restoration.php?tab=1.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

121

electric power provision, and emergency services. Anway also found that the proposed roads and bridges were not adequate for emergency vehicles. She stated, “Building a golf course in the middle of a body of water that you’re trying to clean up is iffy also because of the pesticides used. And around the island is the biggest fish nursery in Lake Superior. To pollute that would be a tragedy too.”3 The Friends brought their analysis to the City Council, and also publicized their findings. The City Council demanded better developed plans before considering a zoning change. No revisions, however, were submitted. But the development proposal caused conservation organizations to find ways to preserve Clough Island. In 2010, the Nature Conservancy purchased the Island from developers. In 2011, the Island was transferred to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to become part of the St. Louis River’s Stream Bank Protection Area. Funding for the preservation of the island came from a grant from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and from several environmental foundations (Wisconsin’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund, the Izaak Walton League of America, the Audubon Society, the Western Skyline Preservation Alliance, the Save Lake Superior Association, the Twin Ports Bass Masters, the Lake Superior’s Chapter of Muskie’s Inc., and the Friends of the Superior Municipal Forest). Clough Island is mostly a broad red-clay plain bordered by extensive wetlands and with an interior of softwood trees. Much of the island was degraded by human habitation and logging, but it has a 15-acre boreal forest on its northwest portion. Invasive and aggressive buckthorn and honeysuckle have become common on the forest’s edge. (See Appendix B for a review of invasive vegetation within the Great Lakes Basin). In 2012, the WDNR received a “Coastal Wetland Protection and Restoration Grant” from the US Fish and Wildlife Service to restore the habitat of the Island. The goals of this restoration were to restore the degraded forest by removing the invasive species, to plant native conifers, to remove the remaining old dilapidated buildings, and to establish an educational facility at the island’s access point. As part of the Estuary’s “wild rice project,” and in partnership with the St. Louis River Alliance, 10-acres of wild rice was also seeded around the Island. In addition, 8,700 pine seedlings have been planted.

3 Ibid.

122

R. M. ROBINSON

Wild Rice Restoring wild rice to the St. Louis River Estuary benefits the indigenous culture, and also the bird life and mammals of the area. When the rice ripens in the autumn, it provides the food for both native birds and migrating waterfowl, and also for mammals such as muskrat. Although some rice is still present in the Estuary, it has been substantially reduced by the industrial degradation of the area. Several hundred years ago, the search for “food that grows on water” led the Ojibwe (Chippewa) to the Upper Great Lakes. This food became their staple. “On reaching the mouth of the St. Louis River … we here saw plenty of wild rice,” wrote Henry Schoolcraft in 1820 on an exploratory expedition through the area.4 As late as the 1930s, locals were actively “ricing” in the Estuary. Although there is little rice left, it can still be found in the upper reaches of the Pokegama Bay (see Fig. 1), and small amounts are scattered throughout the Estuary’s shallow flats. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, thousands of people still harvest rice by the traditional way (by canoe) but very little is now harvested from the St. Louis Estuary. Wild rice is a tall aquatic grass found in the rivers and lakes throughout the Great Lakes Basin. It grows in clear shallow water of 1.5–3 feet in depth, and only in slight current on a silty bottom that is free of toxins. Changes in water depth, excessive wave action from watercraft, plus toxic sediment and foraging wildlife are factors that harm rice paddies. Another damaging factor is residential development and its runoff. The seeds of wild rice require a winter dormancy of about three months with immersion in water at freezing, or near freezing, temperatures. This is needed to breakdown the waxy coating that covers the seed. The seeds then germinate when the water temperature rises to 45° F.5 After germination, the plant develops a system of spongy roots that grow horizontally 9–12 inches. Wild rice develops floating mats of ribbon-like leaves during mid-June. At this time, the plant is sensitive to water depth. Rising water uproots the plant, and lower water levels damage the weak hollow stems. Wind and wave action can also uproot the plants; this includes waves from watercraft, a persistent damaging factor. Seeds of wild rice mature in late August. An important phase is the “shattering” of 4 See Meeker (2000). 5 See https://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Crops/WildRice.aspx.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

123

the mature seed, which refers to the seeds dropping off the plant as they ripen. Amy Eliot, an associate researcher at the Lake Superior Research Institute of the University of Wisconsin—Superior, recalls that the rice beds began to reduce in Allouez Bay when it was dredged to build Highway 2.6 But John Turk, a local who recalls “ricing” in the Estuary, blames the rice reductions on the expansion of Canadian Geese in the area.7 Geese have become a detriment to rice. Their populations have grown, and rice stands have become smaller. The St. Louis Alliance is researching different methods for reducing the foraging of reestablished rice. But Rick Gitar, the AOC Coordinator for the Ojibwe, offers a third reason for rice reductions. He grew up within sight of Lake Superior and has harvested rice in northern Minnesota for most of his life. He states, “In many years, the Bay was loaded (with) wild rice, … But one of the things we think might be a problem is recreational boat activity. Establishing a no-wake zone in these shallow bays might help re-establish wild rice.”8 Wild rice is a nutritional grain that is central to the Ojibwe. It is also important to the ecology of the St. Louis River Estuary where it once grew in abundance in shallow bays and backwaters. The Estuary once sustained up to 3,000 acres of this wild grain. During the area’s industrial development, however, pollution, channelization, and logging came close to eliminating rice producing wetlands. Only remnants are left, only a few acres of the 12,000-acre estuary. Currently, the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa/Ojibwe and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission are working with other partners to restore 275 self-sustaining acres of wild rice within the AOC. The restoration process requires identification of those sites with appropriate conditions; then it requires seeding and controlling of wave action and aviary foraging until it is established. This is a multi-agency effort with funding partners including the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). The Fond du Lac Chippewa/Ojibwe are establishing wild rice at 10 shallow bays downstream from the Fond du Lac Dam. At these sites, they eliminate competing vegetation and fence the restoration areas to deter

6 See https://stlouisriverestuary.org/wildrice.php. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid, parenthesis added.

124

R. M. ROBINSON

foraging. These efforts began in 2015. In Allouez and Superior Bays, which once had extensive rice beds, 25 acres are also being established as funded by the GLRI. Wisconsin Point and Minnesota Point The two linked-together sandbars of Minnesota Point and Wisconsin Point form what is likely the longest freshwater sandbar in the world. They form an isthmus at the mouth of the St. Louis River that separates the River from Lake Superior (see Fig. 1). Wisconsin Point consists of 229 acres with a 2.75-mile beach. Minnesota Point is a 7-mile sandbar. Forests of red and white pine fill the interior of each of the sandbars. Sand dunes, wetlands, and beaches line the Lake Superior side. “The Points” are popular for beach use, bird watching, hiking, and duck hunting, and they are also important wildlife habitats and resting places for migratory birds. Wisconsin Point is also a sacred Chippewa burial site. In 2019, the Wisconsin Point was named as “Best Strolling or Swimming Beach” by Lake Superior Magazine. It lies on the edge of the City of Superior which seeks to both improve public beach access and to protect the Point’s sensitive sand dune habitats. This sensitive ecosystem hosts species adapted to the harsh dune environment which includes drying winds, low soil moisture, intense sunlight, and blowing sand. This makes these sand dunes especially sensitive to human disturbance. Wetlands also occur along the edge of this dune system which provides habitat for migrating and resident waterfowl. But the interior forests are well drained and sandy, and therefore provide habitat for red and white pines. As early as the 1740s, the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa/Ojibwe lived on Wisconsin Point when they first reached the St. Louis River during their great migration westward. Their cemetery dates from 1801. Up to 300 graves (since largely moved) with spirit houses and fences were once on the Point. Today, the Wisconsin Point is primarily (but not totally) owned by the City of Superior which formally protects the Point from development. The Point is now managed as a public open space for the residents of the area. A lighthouse and property at the tip of the Point are owned by the federal government. A small property on the Allouez Bay is owned by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and is used as an aviary. The WDNR is attempting to create 14 acres of new habitat as part of its Wisconsin Point Bird Sanctuary. This project is in partnership with the

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

125

US Army Corps of Engineers. The project placed clean dredged material from the Duluth-Superior Harbor at the Sanctuary in order to build sand and cobble beach for the Piping Plover, an endangered species. In addition, Wisconsin Point’s restoration also focuses on making it resilient to storms. This includes dune revegetation. Degradation of the dunes now demands measures to reduce the human impact. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has partnered with the City of Superior, the Wisconsin Department of Coastal Management, and the WDNR to operate a dune restoration project on Wisconsin Point. This project is listed as a priority in the AOC’s Remediation Action Plan (RAP). An essential component of this plan is the preservation of the endangered Piping Plover. The Piping Plover is a small endangered white and tan shorebird primarily found in the Upper Great Lakes. There were only ten nesting pairs along the Upper Great Lakes in 1990; these increased to seventy pairs in 2014 because of preservation efforts. In 2014, however, only 5 pairs nested along Lake Superior, and none of these were in the St. Louis River Estuary. Previously, the Estuary supported a dozen nesting pairs, the last known was in 1989 near the end of Wisconsin Point in what is now known as the Bird Sanctuary. Piping Plovers require wide barren beaches without trees near their nesting habitat. Their nests are shallow and sand lined with pebbles and driftwood. These wide beaches also unfortunately attract less than knowledgeable beachgoers who therefore must be controlled, i.e. kept out of the nesting area. The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists the Wisconsin Point as a critical habitat for Piping Plover. The previously mentioned Bird Sanctuary is a small property at the end of the Point, on the Bay side, and owned by the WDNR. The Lake Superior Research Institute has formed a “Western Lake Superior Piping Plover Management Plan.” Since 2015, this plan is being administered by local, state, and federal partners including the St. Louis River Alliance which is now monitoring the Bird Sanctuary. North of the Wisconsin Point, the 7-mile Minnesota Point sandbar has more than 300 residences, a fire hall, a hotel, two marinas, two churches, a city park, a community club, both a US Coast Guard Station and an Army Reserve Station, plus 6-miles of beach with trails, and the remnant of the oldest structure standing in Duluth, i.e. the Zero Point Lighthouse. The beaches are all public access. The outer two miles of this Park Point is a protected “Scientific and Natural Area” as designated by the Minnesota

126

R. M. ROBINSON

Department of Natural Resources. But Minnesota Point is therefore not as natural or preserved as the Wisconsin Point. The Urban Area of the Twenty-First Avenue West and Interstate Island The Twenty-First Avenue West restoration site is a complex of open-water flats and shallow sheltered bays which are impaired by the remnants of legacy industry (see Fig. 1). For many decades, the docks of this area were dredged and channeled. An average of forty-three million gallons of treated wastewater from the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) is discharged daily into the nearby bay. This discharge includes stormwater runoff from Duluth. The adjacent land is occupied by the Canadian National Ore Docks, and by numerous industries and a popular public boat access. The expectation is that restoration of the shallow depths of this bay, and the restoration of natural vegetation and benthos will restore the fish nursery and foraging areas. Miller and Coffee Creeks flow into this project site at the northernmost point. Both these creeks drain runoff from the highly urbanized watersheds of Duluth’s largest commercial shopping areas. These streams contribute large amounts of sediment with PAHs and other contaminants to this relatively small bay. (See Appendix C for an explanation of PAHs.) Also within the project area is the Interstate Island, a Wildlife Management Area created with dredged materials. It is maintained to be free of woody vegetation so as to provide nesting habitat for the Common Tern, an endangered species. In 2015, clean sand was deposited to enhance the lost nesting area. The island rests on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border and is co-managed by agencies of both states. It was formed in 1934 when the St. Louis River was dredged, and the sediment was used to build the island. This island is federally listed as critical habitat for the Piping Plover and the Common Tern. The new project restored the height of the island with high-quality sand and stone. Fencing was positioned to provide protection from gulls and other foragers. The project was completed in 2015 and it now provides important nesting grounds for plover and terns. The project was funded by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Minnesota’s Outdoor Heritage Fund.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

127

Radio Tower Bay Radio Tower Bay was historically known as Cedar Yard Bay because it was the site of two sawmills in the late 1800s. This Bay is seven miles upriver from Lake Superior, approximately on the far west reach of the City of Duluth (see Fig. 1). The name “Radio Tower Bay” stems from two towers once constructed there. The concrete foundations of the abandoned radio towers were left in the bay after the towers were removed. The BNSF railroad line also crossed the river on pilings at this site. The sawmills dumped waste slabs and sawdust directly into the bay’s water which greatly degraded the fish habitat and rendered the bay inaccessible for recreation. The restoration project for this site had two phases. Phase 1 required the removal of the wooden pilings that supported the railroad line. With the partnership of the Minnesota Land Trust and NOAA’s “Marine Debris Removal Program,” this first phase was completed in 2012. Phase II required removal of 115,000 cubic yards of slab wood debris and decomposed sawdust. This restored 30 acres of shallow sheltered bay habitat which for fish and wildlife is the most important type of habitat in the Estuary. The bay was restored to a depth of five feet which allowed for aquatic plant growth, improved aquatic habitat, and improved recreational boating access. This Phase II was completed in August of 2015 with funding from the Minnesota Land Trust, NOAA’s “Great Lake Habitat Restoration Program,” and the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund. Post-restoration monitoring indicates substantial recovery of this site. Aquatic vegetation beds have been restored and recreational access is now occurring. Wild rice was planted in 2016 and 2017 in a coordinated effort involving Fond du Lac Chippewa, the Minnesota Land Trust, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Post-restoration monitoring is occurring as part of an overall effort to evaluate the outcomes of all projects associated with the delisting process for this AOC. Pickle Pond Pickle Pond is in the City of Superior (see Fig. 1). It is a long and narrow pond that is separated from the Bay by a constructed railroadtrack embankment. This created a sheltered shallow water habitat within

128

R. M. ROBINSON

the Estuary. The Pond is adjacent to Barkers Island, an area of recreation and tourism with a public beach, marina, hotel, ship museum, and an “environmental research and education center.” The Pond is 2,800 feet long by 140 feet wide with 9 acres in surface area enclosed by a bike path, the Marina Drive, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. Water flows between the Pond and the Estuary through two openings in the rail line. Multiple municipal stormwater outlets discharge into the Pond along with stormwater runoff from the BNSF Train Yard. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources lists the Pond as an “Open Environmental Repair Site.” The pollutants have contaminated the Pond’s sediment and resulted in fish consumption advisories, and chronic aquatic toxicity. The sediments contain heavy metals including lead, zinc, copper and mercury, PAHs and PCBs. (See Appendix C concerning these toxins.) Bacteria from the Barker’s Island runoff plus invasive species also degrade the site. The US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted the analysis that led to the restoration project. The goals of the project were (a) to contribute to the removal of the Fish and Wildlife BUI, (b) to reduce invasive species, and (c) to reduce the stormwater runoff into the Pond. Removing the contaminated sediment, and restoring the water circulation by eliminating the railroad track spur, can potentially restore this site to again being an important fish nursery and also a stopover site for migratory birds. But the control of the stormwater runoff is essential. This restoration effort is ongoing. Newton Creek and Hog Island In 2008, the Great Lakes Commission received funding from NOAA to restore habitat in two Great Lakes AOCs. Along with Muskegon Lake in Michigan (see Chapter 7), the Hog Island area of the St. Louis River AOC was selected to demonstrate the potential of fully restoring what was previously only partly remediated sites of sediment removal. Newton Creek together with Hog Island Inlet constitute the site for the second sediment remediation project performed under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Hog Island site is in the City of Superior along Superior Bay (see Fig. 1). It was cleaned of 68,000 tons of contaminated sediment due to discharge from the Murphy Oil Refinery in Superior. Newton Creek originates in a wetland just west of the Murphy Oil Refinery. This refinery built an impoundment area for its wastewater

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

129

discharge, but this discharge ultimately flowed into Newton Creek. From the wetlands, the creek then flows for 1.8 miles through industrial and residential areas to reach the 17-acre Hog Island Inlet in the southeast corner of Superior Bay (see Fig. 1). Before restoration, the polluted Creek had little aquatic life. NOAA, together with Douglas County and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) organized the cleanup. The contamination was primarily PAHs, but other contaminants included oil, mercury, lead, and chromium. By 2005, over 46,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment had been removed by the “dry bed method.” This method required a diversionary dam followed by the sediment removal and then redirection of the flow back onto its original course. For final restoration, between 2007 and 2010 the WDNR and Douglas County composed and followed the Hog Island & Newton Creek Ecological Restoration Master Plan to complete the following: • Invasive species control: Eight acres of loosestrife and narrow-leaf cattail have been controlled (see the appendix for a review of these invasive species). • Shoreline restoration: Eighteen acres have been restored with native vegetation: white native spruce and other native shrubs. • Emergent vegetation and wild rice restoration: Two acres of emergent vegetation and wild rice have been restored. • Aquatic habitat: Using newly constructed submerged structures of old pine pilings, the aquatic vegetations have been restored. • Culvert replacements: Degraded and sub-standard culverts have been replaced in Allouez Bay to improve the current flowing through the Bay. • Wetland restoration: Twenty acres of wetlands have been restored in the Superior Bay and Allouez Bay areas. • Piping Plover habitat restoration: Three acres of Piping Plover habitat have been restored along Wisconsin Point. All of this was completed in 2010. The cost was $6.8 million. These environmental efforts demonstrated the “remediation to restoration” accomplishments that the NOAA grant sought to elicit.

130

R. M. ROBINSON

Knowlton Creek Knowlton Creek is a tributary of the St. Louis River (see Fig. 1). It drains a 2.5 square mile watershed that includes Spirit Mountain. The creek flows down a steep gradient by Spirit Mountain Recreational Area (a skilift area) and into a shallow bay behind Tallus Island on the Duluth side of the St. Louis River Estuary. The ski resort area, with its multiple ski trails, was first built in 1960. Comparisons of aerial photographs taken in 1961 as compared to those taken in 2003 showed a severe buildup of sediment by Tallus Island over this 42-year period. Before the ski area was developed, the slopes of Spirit Mountain were heavily treed, but these trees were cleared. This naturally caused erosion and sedimentation of Knowlton Creek. In addition, artificial snow creation added to the normal Spring snowmelt so that spring runoff and erosion became more severe. Investigation indicated Knowlton Creek was degraded with sediment and moved considerable amounts of silt downstream from Spirit Mountain. Prior to 1961, the wetlands behind Tallus Island were connected to the estuary to form a shallow sheltered bay. By 2003, however, the Knowlton Creek erosion filled in a large portion of this wetland and converted it into an upland barrier that separated the remaining wetland from the estuary. The “Knowlton Creek Restoration Project” of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) sought to restore the creek through placing rocks, boulders, and log structures to (a) strengthen stream banks so as to avoid erosion, and (b) to redirect and slow the streams’ rapid flow so as to reduce its ability to provide sediment to the wetlands adjoining Tallus Island. This was financed through grants from the GLRI. The project dredged the “upland barrier,” and also the sediment that filled the area behind Tallus Island to restore the shallow wetlands. The project reconstructed 6,500 feet of Knowlton Creek and also restored 18 acres of floodplain. The project was completed in 2017. It was designed by the MDNR and the Army Corps of Engineers. It cost $2.3 million and was financed by grants from the GLRI, the Clean Water Legacy Fund, the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Grassy Point and Kingsbury Bay In 2013, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) combined two restoration sites—Grassy Point and Kingsbury Bay—into a single project aimed at restoring 240 acres of fish and wildlife habitat.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

131

The location is mid-way up the Duluth side of the Estuary (see Fig. 1). The primary objectives of the project were (1) to restore the riparian emergent wetland vegetation, and (2) to control the invasive vegetation at Grassy Point. This complex project was completed in October, 2021. The project required three years of construction; it cost $18 million; and it restored 230 acres of coastal wetland habitat on the St. Louis River. It was MDNR largest habitat restoration project.9 Previously, Grassy Point was the site of two sawmills constructed on stilts over the St. Louis River’s water. More than 130,000 cubic yards of sawmill waste (sawdust) and wooden debris were left that covered the river bottom for up to 16 feet thick near Grassy Point. This debris was dredged and removed. At the same time, one mile and a half upstream from Grassy Point, 140,000 cubic yards of healthy sediment was removed from Kingsbury Bay. This sediment had been deposited during a massive flood in 2012. It needed removal to improve the habitat of Kingsbury Bay, and to improve river access for boaters and anglers. Some of the timber recovered from the water of Grassy Point was used to create small islands to provide aviary habitat and to shelter the Bay from wind and waves. This allowed aquatic plants to grow and fish habitat to be established. The healthy sediment from Kingsbury Bay was used to cap the new islands which were then seeded with native vegetation. The healthy sediment from Kingsbury Bay was also used to cover the river bottom where Grassy Point’s debris and sawdust was removed. This reestablished a healthy benthos previously destroyed by the thick sawdust and abandoned timber (the benthos being the lower level of the river’s food chain). During Spring of 2022, the Minnesota Land Trust began restoring native vegetation on the newly constructed islands. This rather complex project required the following actions at Grassy Point: 1. remediation of wood waste to the extent possible as necessary to improve sheltered bay habitat, 2. removal of non-native invasive vegetation, 3. the beneficial reuse of the material dredged from Kingsbury Bay to provide a substrate for habitat restoration at Grassy Point.

9 See Kraker (2021, October 31).

132

R. M. ROBINSON

The project included the following actions at Kingsbury Bay: 4. removal of excess sediment deposited from the 2012 flood, and also the removal of invasive vegetation as necessary to improve shallow sheltered bay habitat, 5. transporting the dredged sediment for reuse at Grassy Point, 6. improving public boat access and trails. The project will be completed in July, 2023. The cost is projected to be $18.7 million. The funding sources for this MDNR-led project includes the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) with oversight from the EPA, and the Interlake Tar Superfund Site Settlement. These early habitat restorations helped with BUI removals but did not address the numerous other issues required for AOC delisting. The next section addresses some of these issues.

3

Remedial Action Plans

As indicated above, the St. Louis River flows directly through Duluth and contains most of Duluth-Superior Port’s facilities at its junction with Lake Superior. But the Nemadji River also drains the southern portion of the AOC. These two rivers form the foci of the area’s beneficial use impairments (BUIs) and the AOC’s remedial action plans (RAPs). These RAPs specify the following BUIs: 1. Restrictions on fish consumption, 2. Degraded fish and wildlife populations, 3. Fish tumors and deformities (remediated and removed in 2019), 4. Degraded benthos, 5. Dredging restrictions, 6. Undesirable algae growth and associated dead zones (remediated and removed in 2020), 7. Beach closings, 8. Aesthetic degradations (remediated and removed in 2014), 9. Loss of aquatic habitat.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

133

For the St. Louis River AOC, remedial action plans (RAPs) were formed in 2013 and 2021. The earlier RAP planned to remove most of the beneficial use impairments (BUIs) by 2024. But these planned removals were only partly accomplished as indicated by Table 1. The formation of the RAPs were the responsibility of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). These two agencies plus the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) were, and are, responsible for the RAP’s implementation. Managers from these three agencies plus a Fond du Lac Chippewa Board representative comprised the leadership team for this RAP effort. The St. Louis River Alliance (SLRA) is the designated Public Advisory Committee (PAC) for public consultation and financial review of the effort. The US Army Corps of Engineers, the US EPA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA are active “partners” who, together with environmental advocacy organizations and the PAC, provide public advice to the process of formation and management of the RAP’s actions. The material below summarizes and explains the nine BUIs identified in the AOC. The following briefly reviews the nine identified BUIs for the St. Louis River AOC. BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories (Still Impaired) Concerning the actions to remove the fish consumption advisories, these restrictions addressed the presence of mercury and/or PCBs in samples of fish in particular offending locations. The results of a 2017 “mercury study” of the St. Louis River published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in 2021. It assessed the sources of mercury in the AOC and the data gaps that required further study. Additional mercury and PCB sampling was collected in 2021, and the analysis will be completed in 2022. The sources of PCBs were also identified, and removals planned. This “presence of mercury or PCBs” means that the levels are found to be above the standards set by the Wisconsin and Minnesota state authorities. Removing this BUI from the list requires that the fish sampled from “control areas” (areas known to not be contaminated) are then compared to fish from areas suspected of contamination. A 2012 “survey” indicated that sediments in the St Louis River at the Chippewa Reservation (upstream from the AOC) are not contaminated. Fish from this noncontaminated area were therefore compared to samples from AOC areas that might be contaminated. After the removals of sediments at various

Done

Aesthetics Algae dead zones Fish and wildlife populations Beach closings Benthos degradations Dredging restrictions Fish deformities Fish consumption Habitat loss

2015

2016

2017

2018

Done

2019

Done

2020

“x” indicates largely remedied but still ongoing “y” indicates progress has been made but projected complete remediation date is 2025 or beyond

2014

BUI removals for the Duluth Area AOC (as of April 2022)

BUI Removal

Table 1 2021

x

2022

2023

2024

y y

y y y

2025

134 R. M. ROBINSON

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

135

locations, the laboratories of the EPA evaluate whether sufficient progress is made as evidenced from the fish samples. Hence, removal of “BUI 1: Fish Consumption Advisories” is a goal both worthy in its own right and as an index of the health of benthos and toxicity of sediments. As stated above, establishing non-toxic sediments underlies remediation of eight of the nine BUIs within this AOC. The monitoring of future fish consumption is planned. All of the RAP’s actions required for eventual delisting are currently underway. BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations (Still Impaired) Remediation of “BUI 2: Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations” primarily requires restoration of habitat, e.g. restorations of wetlands and elimination of noxious invasive species (purple loosestrife) (see Appendix B for a description of these invasive vegetations). Removal of this BUI requires “that diverse native fish and wildlife are not limited by physical habitat, food source, water quality, or contaminated sediments.”10 The targeted native species include Piping Plover, the Common Tern, the Great Blue Heron, the Bald Eagle, other wetland bird species, and semi-aquatic mammals. The Piping Plover and Common Tern are listed as endangered species. The targeted fish populations include walleye, sturgeon, and muskellunge. The Lake Sturgeon have been endangered in the Great Lakes. The removal strategy for this BUI requires the following: 1. A thorough inventory and assessment of targeted bird populations must be organized. 2. A thorough inventory and assessment of the targeted fish populations must be organized. This includes assessments of the fish tissues for evaluation of toxins. 3. An analysis must be completed of the presence of an invasive fish (Ruffe) in the habitat, and also whether it is inhibiting the targeted fish population (see Appendix A on invasive species).

10 See “St. Louis River AOC 2021 Remedial Action Plan. Section 1: AOC Delisting Roadmap, BUI 2” at www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/2021-siraoc-rapfinal.pdf.

136

R. M. ROBINSON

4. A survey and analysis of estuary-wide semi-aquatic mammals— beaver, otter, muskrat, and mink—as compared to a near but non-impaired reference area must be completed. 5. A restoration of the Piping Plover nesting habitat in Allouez Bay must be completed (see Fig. 1). 6. A restoration of the critical nesting habitat of the Common Tern, and also the stopover and nesting habitat of the Piping Plover, both on Interstate Island must be completed. In April of 2021, construction was completed for the Interstate Island avian restoration projects. Monitoring and management of these restored areas are now the responsibility of MDNR, WDNR, and the University of Minnesota Duluth’s Natural Resources Research Institute. A long-term maintenance plan is being formed. Construction is also completed on the Allouez Bay Piping Plover habitat, and the WDNR is implementing a monitoring and maintenance plan for this area. In addition, Chambers Grove restoration project should also help to restore the habitat of Walleye and Lake Sturgeon within the estuary. The populations of Walleye and Lake Sturgeon are also being monitored for health. The avian habitat restoration at Interstate Island was completed in the Spring of 2021 along with the Lake Sturgeon assessment. It found that there were no AOC-specific factors affecting the sturgeon population. The draft “removal report” is now (as of April of 2022) in development, and this BUI removal is expected during 2022. All of the management actions required by the RAP for eventual BUI delisting have been completed. BUI 3: Fish Tumors and Deformities (Removed) With respect to “BUI 3: Fish Tumors and Other Deformities,” this was removed in February of 2019. This required compiling measures of internal and external tumors especially liver cancers. Samples from the AOC were compared to similar control areas external to the AOC. These external areas were without pathogens. BUI 4: Degradation of Benthos (Still Impaired) With respect to “BUI 4: Degradation of Benthos,” delisting this impairment requires that the benthos within the AOC not be materially different

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

137

from that found in clean control areas. In 2018, some 600 sampling sites were established, some in areas with no degradation, and some in degraded areas. The number of sites was later increased to 1,032. This sampling and comparison project is expected to be completed in 2024. Where the benthos is found to be impaired and therefore in need of restoration, the sediment will be removed to the extent feasible. Any remaining toxic sediment will be capped with clay or other appropriate material, and the riverbed is then restored with multiple layers of clean river-bed sand and aggregate. BUI 5: Restrictions of Dredging (Still Impaired) Before removal of “BUI 5: Restrictions on Dredging,” an entire inventory of contaminated sediments within the AOC was required. The allowed “dredging” would actually be channeling required for navigation, i.e. the clearing of channels for navigational purposes. Channel clearing of this sort has long been routine, but once sediment had been removed and restored, then special handling instructions must apply that restrict future channeling. In addition, special permits are required in which priority navigation channels need to be properly identified within the “St. Louis River Sediment Database.” Restricted sites due to Superfund or EPA cleanup settlements where capped sediments must not be disturbed, also must be identified and prohibitions must be established for any dredging. Completion of these actions is expected in 2025. BUI 6: Excessive Loading of Nutrients and Sediments (Removed) With respect to “BUI 6: Excessive Loadings of Sediment and Nutrients,” this BUI was removed in 2020. This contamination began prior to the establishment of wastewater treatments in the 1970s when water quality in the St. Louis River was poor because of low oxygen and high phosphorous. Removing this BUI required compliance with all federal and state point-source wastewater requirements for treatment. The Nemadji watershed, however, suffered from high levels of non-point source runoffs, particularly from agricultural sources. Six chemical indicators were established by the 2013 RAP. They apply to the St. Louis River. These requirements have all been met.

138

R. M. ROBINSON

BUI 7: Beach Closings and Body Contact (Still Impaired) With respect to “BUI 7: Beach Closings and Body Contact Restrictions,” eight public beaches previously had frequent common closings and restrictions, but all of those were prior to the establishment of proper wastewater treatments. These closings and restrictions were remedied in 1978 by the establishment of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District. No water bodies within the AOC are now contaminated with wastewater pathogens. The combined stormwater sewer overflows have been remedied by new stormwater systems. When the Superfund and other EPA directed cleanups at the US Steel’s Duluth Works site on Spirit Lake (see Fig. 1), and also at Munger Landing and Crawford Creek, are all successfully monitored and indicate that there are no remaining contamination problems, then this BUI will be removed. Two of the four management actions required by the RAP for eventual delisting have yet to be completed. “No swimming” and “warning” signs are still present at the US Steel/Spirit Lake site and at Crawford Creek and Munger Landing (see Fig. 1 for depictions of this location). Removal of this BUI is expected in 2025. BUI 8: Degradation of Aesthetics (Removed) With respect to “BUI 8: Degradation of Aesthetics,” this BUI has been removed. A systematic collection of qualitative and quantitative data indicated that the degraded visual and odiferous locations were remediated. These included elimination of significant amounts of floating solids, scum, visible oil slicks or film, other discolorations, obnoxious odors, sludge deposits, chemical residues, taconite pellets on shorelines, decomposing scum, and other harmful effects. Complaints for this BUI historically occurred at Hog Island and Newton Creek (see Fig. 1). This BUI was especially severe at the US Steel Duluth Works site on Spirit Lake. This BUI was removed after repetitive surveys indicated its remission. BUI 9: Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat (Still Impaired) With respect to “BUI 9: Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat,” the primary problems were municipal and industrial wastewater treatment, agricultural runoff, and other contaminated runoff. But significant habitat impairment occurred due to dredging, and also from the filling of the Bay especially

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

139

from invasive species. Programs to control these and to restore at least fifty percent of the degraded habitat (1,700 acres) is the target for this BUI removal. Only ten of the 21 management actions required by the RAP for remediation of this BUI have been completed. Eleven are still underway. The restorations at Kingsbury Bay and Grassy Point will be concluded in 2021. The Twenty-First Ave West site is now completed. BUI removal is expected in 2025. (See Fig. 1 for depictions of these locations.) All of the management actions identified in this AOC’s RAP are either underway or are completed. As of September of 2021, 47 of the 80 required management actions are completed. There are eleven remediation projects in progress; eleven habitat restoration projects in progress; and eleven other projects in progress that require either analysis and/or data gathering. The progress made in remediating these BUI’s has been substantial. In their periodic reports, the various partners and stakeholders involved in managing these remediation efforts assert that this AOC will be “delisted” by 2025. (A list of these partners and stakeholders is provided below in the section titled “Public Engagement.”) Table 1 presents a partial timeline of progress on the remediation efforts. As in the AOCs examined in the previous chapter, sediment removal and/or remediation has been the key action for restoration of the habitats within this area. Sixty-seven sediment removals and habitat restorations have been identified as necessary for this AOC, and thirty-six have been completed. Also, toxic sediments were found to be either directly or indirectly responsible for eight of the nine BUIs. Hence, sediment removals and remediations are necessary for delisting the AOC. Furthermore, to delist the St. Louis River AOC, a goal of fifty percent (1,700 acres) of the restoration of degraded habitat has been set. The 2013 RAP estimated that $300–$400 million of finance will be required for all the remediations. To develop the 2013 RAP, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) conducted an AOC-wide survey in 2012. This survey included profiles of all the sediment and habitat characteristics throughout the AOC, i.e. it composed an AOC Data System. This provided a tool for the “Sediment Technical Team” to organize the toxic sediment removals. This “Technical Team” consists of experts from the MPCA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Table 2 gives the chronology of these restorations. Figure 1 indicates their locations.

140

R. M. ROBINSON

The “2024+” restorations require that the management team (agency staff) secures continued funding and continues to maintain stakeholder engagements.

Table 2

Habitat restoration sites (see Fig. 2)

Project name

Project description

Date of completion

Chambers Grove Park

Soften and restore shoreline in Duluth Remove non-native material and restore native vegetation Reduce runoff and restore stream habitat Conifer restorations Restore shorebird nesting habitat Provide access while protecting dunes and prevent invasive species Remove invasive species and restore native vegetation Remediate contaminated sediments and restore habitat Restore wetlands Sediment restoration Replace two culverts for fish passage Remediate contaminated sediments and restore habitat Remediate contaminated sediment and restore wetlands Remediate contaminated sediments, establish hydrologic connection, and restore wetland habitat including wild rice Restore connection between estuary and Perch Lake Removal of invasive species and restore native vegetation Remediate contaminated sediment, restore stream habitat, wetland and floodplain Wild Rice restorations at various sites

2015

Radio Tower Bay Knowlton Creek Watershed Nemadji River Watershed Hog Island Wisconsin Point Dune Grassy Point Twenty-First Avenue W. Kingsbury Bay Pickle Pond Fish Passage Culverts Fortieth Avenue West Spirit Lake Mud Lake

Perch Lake Allouez Bay Crawford Creek

Wild Rice

2015 2017 2018 2018 2019 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023

2023 2024+ 2024+

2024+

4

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

141

Public Engagement

The 2013 RAP outlined an extensive public engagement process for composing, directing, and monitoring the management of BUI remediations. This included involvements by the county governments in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and affected area businesses. It also included the “partners” as listed below. These “partners” included the local environmental advocacy organizations, i.e. the St. Louis River Alliance and AOC Advisory Committee, plus the various state agencies responsible for providing the expertise and data necessary for a successful RAP fulfillment. Currently, ninety-eight percent of the “management actions”—the necessary remedial efforts to remove BUIs—have either been completed or are ongoing. The above mentioned “partners” include among others: • • • • • •

St. Louis River Alliance, St. Louis River AOC Citizen Advisory Committee, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Fond du Lac Chippewa Tribe.

Of particular note is that the staff of the AOC’s Citizen Advisory Committee is provided by the St. Louis River Alliance. They organize an Annual St. Louis River Summit to further engage the public. Updates on the “progress made” are publicized at the Summit, and also at an Annual Celebration of Progress event. This publicity effort provides relevant lessons for other AOCs’ management teams that struggle with engaging their public concerning their accomplishments and the needs for further progress. No other AOC appears to be more organized in propagating their efforts among the public. (Note the example of publicity problems associated with the Saginaw River and Bay AOC as reviewed in Chapter 7. The publicity efforts of the Saint Louis River AOC are, therefore, germane for this associated case.) In addition, a 2020 “Public Engagement Survey” was conducted by the St. Louis River Alliance. This survey was administered to the various partners and stakeholders so that adjustments could be made concerning the effectiveness of the AOC’s efforts.

142

R. M. ROBINSON

Note that the Fond du Lac Chippewa Tribe’s Reservation is immediately adjacent to the western edge of the AOC—upriver from the Fond du Lac Dam. (See Fig. 1) It has been negatively and substantially affected by the environmental degradations of the area so that this restoration poses an important issue of social justice. In addition to the Detroit examples reviewed in Chapter 3, the Duluth case presents a “rust belt” urban example of necessary “old industrial” cleanup that serves the physical and psychic health of those living in the area. Although this area included old industry, with restoration it is, and will be, much closer to being a natural semi-pristine area with considerable environmental assets. The cleanup of the industrial poisons left in the sediments and habitats of this area is, however, necessary for the ecological health of the entire Great Lakes Basin. Progress is ongoing and worthy of note for this AOC. It is documented in this chapter as being relevant for similar locally managed but mostly federally funded initiatives as reviewed in the latter chapters of this book. This “relevance” refers to areas outside of the Great Lakes Basin.

5

The St. Louis River’s Superfund Sites

The St. Louis River AOC has two Superfund sites: the former site of US Steel’s Duluth Works , and the former site of the Interlake Tar Company. The Duluth Works is eleven miles upriver from Lake Superior at the location called “Spirit Lake.” It operated from 1916 to 1979, with its peak production being in the 1940s for World War II armaments production. Interlake Tar’s peak production also coincided with World War II. Prior to its demolition in 1979, the Duluth Works facility consisted of more than 40 buildings, some a half-mile in length. All of these were located in a square mile. The plant was “integrated” in that starting with iron ore and coal, it produced finished steel goods. Coal was transported by rail across the site from the handling yard and turned into coke at a blast furnace. Another open-hearth furnace turned ore into pig iron, and another turned pig iron into steel. Various on-site mills hammered out nails, rolled and milled wire, and produced fence posts. Wastes were reprocessed and transported downstream to the Interlake Tar plant for making various derivative tar products. Much of the finished steel was shipped to Chicago, but pig iron ingot was also shipped to US Steel’s Gary Works on Lake Michigan. For over sixty years, the Duluth Works shaped the area’s history, its economy, and its neighborhoods. Coke,

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

143

iron, and steel production was active at the Duluth site until 1979. Wire production continued at the mill until 1987. Water quality surveys for this area were conducted by the state in 1928, 1948, and 1973. The results showed a progressive deterioration in the water quality and biota of Spirit Lake and the Estuary in the vicinity of the Duluth Works . In 1973, the water standards for ammonia, cyanide, and phenol contamination were found in violation of state standards. In 1979, US Steel informed the state agencies—Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)—of its intentions for closing the Duluth Works . In 1979, the MPCA requested a hydrological study of the site. In response, US Steel funded two reports from independent investigators: “Soil and Groundwater Investigation” in 1981, and “River Water Quality Impact Investigation” in 1983. These reports led to the discovery of surface and groundwater contamination on and from the 640-acre site. The EPA then placed the Duluth Works site on the National Priorities List, i.e. the Superfund List. Since the steel plant’s closing, all site facilities have been demolished or removed. Since 1989, the site’s remediation has been led by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Coke tar, sludge, blast furnace byproducts, asbestos, petroleum fuels, oils, lubricants, and solvents contaminated the soils, the river sediments, and the groundwater. These wastes deposited PAHs, and heavy metals such as mercury, lead, copper, and zinc, into the sediment, the soils, and water in the Spirit Lake area (see Appendix C for the effects of these toxins). This contamination is currently being remediated by hydraulic dredging, then capping with layers of clean river bottom, and then monitoring of the area. A fiveyear review indicated that most of the contamination has been cleaned. City and State agencies now plan to convert the fully cleaned 640-acres of this site into parks, trails, and housing developments. In addition, in August of 2020 the Duluth City Council agreed to allow the EPA and US Steel to access property around the Duluth Works site to remove and cap more than 100 additional acres of polluted area. These additional acres are now planned to be remediated and protected, and a 1.4 mile hiking trail is planned for the site. As an offshoot of the Duluth Works , the St. Louis River Duluth Tar Company was built on a site that was previously a pig iron smelter, a coking plant, and a coal gasification plant. This site is on both the EPA’s National Priority List (a Superfund site) and the State of Minnesota’s

144

R. M. ROBINSON

Permanent List of Priorities. The site is located within the City of Duluth on the north bank of the St. Louis River, four miles downstream from Spirit Lake. The site includes approximately 255 acres of land, wetlands, and boat slips. (See Fig. 1 for the location of this area.) In 1916, the Duluth Tar Company was formed, but it closed in 1924. A new tar refining operation, the Barret Tar Company, was built adjacent to this Duluth site. It purchased coal tar and refined it to manufacture tar products. But in 1929, the Interlake Iron Company (later Interlake Tar) was formed to produce tar from the coking operations of the upstream US Steel plant. In 1948, the Barret Tar Company closed; the Interlake Tar plant closed in 1960. In 1966, Hallett Dock Company purchased the former Interlake Tar portion of the site. Hallett used the site for storage of coal, coke, and other materials. The source of this site’s contaminated sediments were primarily wastewater discharges from the various on-site entities that originated with the coking and tar manufacturing begun in the early 1900s. In 1979, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) detected PAHs in the sediments around Interlake Tar. PAHs are carcinogens produced by combustion of coal, oil, gas, or wood.11 (See Appendix C.) Analysis showed that the area’s surface water contained PAH compounds. Oil from the coal tar sediments rose to the surface of what became the St. Louis River Interlake Duluth Tar Superfund Site. In 1983, the EPA evaluated the Interlake Tar site, and the Duluth Works site, which is four miles farther upstream from the tar site. Both were added to the EPA’s National Priorities List (list of Superfund sites) as a single site: the St. Louis River Interlake US Steel site. The two sites, however, are listed separately on the Minnesota Permanent List of Priorities, the State’s superfund list. They are being investigated and cleaned separately. Community input on concerns is gathered from a group of neighboring representatives, plus local community associations, environmental groups, and Duluth City Officials. The MPCA identified four responsible parties for the Interlake Tar contamination, three of which began remedial actions: XIK Corporation (formerly Interlake), Honeywell, and Domtar. The cleanup project was divided into three operations: (i) tar seepage, (ii) contaminated soil, and (iii) contaminated sediment. Contaminated groundwater was addressed

11 See Mahler et al. (2012).

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

145

by the soil cleanup efforts. By 1994, the tar seepage was fully remediated. The toxic sediment was fully remediated in 2004 when 450,000 cubic yards were removed. The site is now being developed into parks and residences.

6

Conclusion

A fundamental question posed for all of the local restorations examined in this book concerns the economic impact of their remediation efforts. With respect to the St. Louis River AOC, Table 3 presents some statistics for Duluth’s “Median Household Nominal Income” for 2019, and the percentage change in this measure since 2009. The percentage change in median income for the 2009–2019 decade indicates that the progress made in environmental restoration (as reviewed above) did not inhibit the economic well-being of the Duluth area. As compared to the rest of the US, the income growth rate was higher in Duluth. The argument made in this monograph and chapter is that environmental restoration is both necessary for socio-economic welfare, and it is actually an important contributing component of this economic growth. For example, the economic activity of restoration requires contractual work for dredging and disposing of toxic sediments, plus other contractual work for the habitat reconstructions. In addition, the Superfund sites and other areas are contractually remediated. New housing, for example, is being constructed in these areas. All of this directly improves measures of economic activity. But it is too early to measure whether these environmental improvements will draw new migrations to the Duluth-Superior Twin Port Cities; and it is also too early to measure the long-lasting economic impacts of the activities reviewed above. The Duluth-Superior area is now a medical center for the larger Northeast Minnesota and Northwest Wisconsin area, and it is also a tourist area for those interested in Lake Superior. It is likely, however, that other environmentally clean industries will be drawn to the area because people will be drawn to its renewed environmental assets. Table 3 Some nominal household income statistics

Year

Duluth

Minnesota

US

2019 % Change since 2009

$79,332 36.80%

$93,584 34.90%

$80,944 32.51%

146

R. M. ROBINSON

As reviewed above, the restoration of this AOC has been led by the Minnesota and Wisconsin state agencies (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) together with the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa/Ojibwe, and the St. Louis River Alliance. Funding came from the GLRI through the EPA and NOAA, and also from a significant number of environmental advocacy organizations (the Friends of the Superior Municipal Forest¸ the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, The Minnesota Land Trust, the Clean Water Legacy Fund, and numerous other significant environmental funds). The Lake Superior Research Institute, The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the abovementioned array of agencies all contributed to both the direction of the restoration, and also the monitoring of results. Of particular note is the public communication effort by the AOC’s Public Advisory Committee. They effectively communicated the progress of the AOC effort and solicited input reviews from the concerned public. These efforts have made the environmental restorations of this area popular. The old heavy industry has abandoned the Twin-Port Cities, but the environmental restoration has led a resurgence in the area that rebuilds the local economy along with the ecology. For example, John Lindgren, a fisheries biologist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and a twenty-year resident, stated that formerly, “You didn’t go into the water; it was smelly and had different colors. The estuary has certainly gotten much better in the last twenty years. The economics associated with that zone right next to the water is greatly improved—from people not wanting to be there to having million dollar plus houses situated around the bay. That wasn’t the case fifty years ago.”12 John notes that there has been a “slow healing” in the estuary, particularly for the small aquatic animals that rely on the benthic habitat destroyed by pollution.13 Lynelle Hanson was the Executive Director of the St. Louis River Alliance Citizen Advisory Committee (the AOC’s “Public Advisory Committee”). She was instrumental in getting the “Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan” completed in 2002. When Lynelle was a student at the

12 See https://stlouisriverestuary.org/fishing.php?tab=1. 13 Ibid.

4

THE ST. LOUIS RIVER AREA OF CONCERN

147

University of Minnesota—Duluth, the colony of nesting birds in the Port Terminal provided her introduction to the Estuary. The Port Terminal area once supported nesting plovers and terns. “The last nest in the St. Louis River Estuary that a piping plover fledged from was in the Port Terminal,” she recalls. In the latter part of the 1990s, Lynelle Hanson was hired as the Executive Director of the St. Louis River Citizen Advisory Committee. She recalls the days of pulling people together across state boundaries. Lynelle is a firm believer in the power of community. “There were people from 54 different entities involved in the Lower St. Louis River Habitat Plan … that was wonderful.”14 Now working for the University of Wisconsin—Extension in Superior, Lynelle is a “Sustainability Specialist” active in the Lake Superior BiNational Program, working with agencies from other states to protect and restore Lake Superior. One of her favorite places to go bird watching is the Port Terminal in the Duluth Harbor. “It’s a great birding spot in the spring, you’ve got Interstate Island that you can look at, you’ve got Twenty-First Avenue … Port Terminal is a cool place.”15 When development was proposed on Clough Island, long-term resident Bob Cragin sent letters out to several friends asking what they thought about the proposal. He couldn’t believe the response he stirred up for protecting this unique area in the middle of the Estuary. “It was unbelievable.”16 Through the efforts of many in the community, Clough Island was purchased in the Fall of 2011 by the Nature Conservancy to protect the island for future generations. The 358-acre island provides habitat for wildlife, and unaltered shorelines and feeding areas for birds like the Common Tern, a species that is threatened in Minnesota and endangered in Wisconsin. Dave Zentner, the Conservation Chair for the local chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, observes that the near-wild places upriver in the Estuary are “exhilarating.” “You don’t need ‘Big Wilderness’ to find wilderness, and very often you might even be better off finding your own little patch in the middle of some very busy stuff, and

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid.

148

R. M. ROBINSON

so the estuary really provides that opportunity if you’re smart enough to exploit it.”17 The personal commitments cited above indicate the interest and involvement of the local residents to restoring and maintaining the St. Louis River AOC. They, clearly, are dedicated environmental advocates involved with local organizations; they will likely see the restoration through to completion.

References Kraker, Dan (2021, October 31), “Minnestota Moves Closer to Completing St. Louis River Restoration,” Minnesota Public Radio News. Mahler, Barbara, Peter Van Metre, Judy Crane, Allison Watts, Mateo Scoggins, and E. Spencer Williams (2012), “Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealcoat and PAHs: Implications for the Environment, Human Health, and Stormwater Management,” Environmental Science and Technology, 46 (6): 3039–3045. Meeker, J. (2000), “Ecology of Wild Rice in the Sakagon Sloughs, a Riverine Wetland on Lake Superior,” in Wild Rice Research and Management, edited by L. S. Williamson, et al. (pp. 68–84). Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI.

17 Ibid.

CHAPTER 5

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin’s Areas of Concern

1

Introduction: Another “Twin Cities”

As reviewed in Chapter 4, the Cities of Duluth and Superior form “Twin Cities” along the St. Louis River. But there are similar cities along a river that flows into Lake Michigan’s Green Bay. The City of Marinette in Wisconsin and the City of Menominee in Michigan also form “twin cities” on the Menominee River. This river forms the border between northeast Wisconsin and southeast Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (see Fig. 2 in Chapter 1). The Menominee River flows into Lake Michigan at the water inlet of Green Bay, a few miles north of the City of Green Bay. The Lower Menominee River was declared an AOC in 1987, and having remediated all six of its BUIs, it was delisted in 2020. Figure 1 illustrates the AOC. It shows the City of Marinette on the south side of the Menominee River where it empties into Lake Michigan, and the City of Menominee is shown on the north bank. The 2010 census indicated that the population of Marinette was 10,968. It experienced a steady decline since 1950 when its population was 14,178. Its peak population was 16,195 in 1900 when the City was a logging center. Its demographic makeup was 96.9% Caucasian in 2010. The 2010 census also showed the population of the City of Menominee had a population of 8,599; its peak population was also in 1900 when it

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_5

149

150

R. M. ROBINSON

N John Henes Park

Lake Michigan

Menomine Park Mill Dam Boom Island

Lloyd Flanders Paint Sludge Site

Strawberry Island Rio Vista Slough Blueberry Islands

Menominee Dam

Turning Basin

WPSC Coal Tar Site Ansul Arsenic Site

Marinette

Menekaunee Harbor

Segal Bar

Fig. 1 Lower Menominee River AOC

was 12,818. Menominee has experienced a steady decline in population since 1960. Its demographic makeup was 96.7% Caucasian in 2010. Four substantive causes drove the degradation of the Menominee River: i. The late nineteenth-century logging and latter industrialization destroyed and filled in the wetlands at the mouth of the river. The shoreline was filled and hardened for docking purposes. ii. In the first half of the twentieth century, five hydroelectric dams were installed that disrupted fish passage and spawning habitats. iii. Inadequate storm and sanitary sewer systems caused elevated bacteria and toxic sediment buildups.

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

151

iv. Invasive vegetation overran the remaining wetlands. This destroyed aviary rookeries. In the 1980s, samples from a routine navigational dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers showed sediment contaminated by arsenic in the “turning basin” of the Menominee River (see Fig. 1). This led to a portion of the Lower Menominee River being designated as an AOC in 1987. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) together with Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) composed a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in 1990. The toxins eventually found in the Lower Menominee included arsenic, paint sludge, coal tar, mercury, PCBs, and oil and grease (see Appendix C for a review of these toxins). The problems that generated the river being categorized as an AOC included its history of logging, urbanization, the spreading of invasive species, habitat destruction, loss of wetlands, and combined sewer overflows. The six BUIs identified included: • • • • • •

restrictions on fish consumption, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, restrictions on recreational contact, degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging, and loss of natural habitat.

The actions specified by the RAP, and its revisions, were completed thirty years later after coordinated work by federal and state agencies, plus significant cooperation from numerous stakeholders (local advocate organizations, academic researchers, and others) who defined and studied the impairments and specified the actions required. As depicted by Fig. 1, this AOC includes the lower three miles of the Menominee River. This extends from Park Mill Dam to the river’s mouth in the southeast corner of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula at Green Bay on Lake Michigan. From the river’s mouth, the boundary also extends three miles north along the coast to John Henes Park, and also three miles south to include Segal Bar on Green Bay. The 1990 RAP also recognized two specific sites that contained legacy contaminated sediments in need of remediation: the Lloyd Flanders Paint Sludge Site, which is north of the river’s mouth and along the coast of Green Bay, and the

152

R. M. ROBINSON

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) Coal Tar Site along the river in Marinette. But in 2011, an additional site was added, one that contained PCB and heavy metal contamination from non-point industrial pollution—Menekaunee Harbor in Marinette. These are depicted on Fig. 1. The two co-lead agencies that managed the AOC’s remediations included the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The US EPA provided funding for the restoration projects at a formula of sixty-five percent federal and thirty-five percent state or other funding. In addition, the Menominee River Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed in 1988 to assist the state and federal agencies with identifying local issues, developing specific targets for BUI removal, and coordinating local assistance. The CAC also managed support grants for the various projects involved. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was also formed in 1988 to assist in both the RAP formation and to manage and monitor the remediation projects. This committee consisted of academics and other experts needed for technical expertise and advice. 1.1

This AOC’s Sources of Impairment

The Ansul Fire Protection Company—now known as Johnson Controls— generated arsenic salts at its Turning Basin manufacturing site in Marinette (see Fig. 1). Arsenic salts were generated as a byproduct of herbicide manufacturing between 1957 and 1977. The waste salts were stored on-site in uncovered piles. Stormwater runoff and wind erosion washed the salts into the river, and also groundwater leaching conveyed the salts into the river and ultimately into the Lake. Through a Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA) consent order with Ansul, the EPA arranged for 302,000 cubic yards of arsenic contaminated sediment to be removed from the river and properly disposed of between 2012 and 2014. As established in the consent order, every five years the site will continue to be monitored for contamination. (See Appendix C of this book for a review of the effects of arsenic poisoning.) Since the early 1900s, Lloyd Flanders Manufacturing produced highend wicker furniture and metal seating. This production involved plating of metal parts and spray-painting wicker and metal components. Until the late 1980s, the painting and plating processes used heavy metals including lead. The wastes from the processes were dumped behind the plant to be

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

153

washed into Green Bay, or were directly flushed out to the Bay. Through an RCRA “Administrative Order of Consent,” the EPA required Lloyd Flanders to remove over 30 million pounds of contaminated sediment from Green Bay between 1993 and 1998. The Consent order requires monitoring of the site by the EPA. The WPSC Coal Tar site is in Marinette (see Fig. 1). It operated two coal gasification processes between 1910 and 1960. Retort gasification involves heating coal in an airtight chamber at temperatures up to 2,200° F so that the coal decomposes into gas and tar, along with the impurities of sulfur, carbon dioxide, cyanide, and ammonia. During the carbureted coal gasification process, air and steam is passed over highly heated coal to form a combustible gas which is then enriched through injection of oil mist, and is then stored in holders for distribution. Coal tars are byproducts of coal gasification. They contain PAHs and other impurities including sulfur, heavy metals, mercury, and arsenic. An EPAarranged RCRA “Administrative Order of Consent” required that 15,000 cubic yards of PAH contaminated sediment be removed in 2012 and 2013. The Menekaunee Harbor is a 13-acre natural embayment on the Menominee River located immediately south of the main channel. The City of Menominee owns the property around the harbor. Its sediment was degraded since it is located at the most downstream segment of the watershed, and therefore it received contaminants from a century of industrial effluents. As a result, liability could not be assigned for the contamination. In addition, much of the harbor’s shoreline consisted of seawall constructed in the 1930s from dilapidated vertical wooden pilings. The 2014 phase of the remediation project removed 59,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated by heavy metals and PAHs which probably originated from older industries and sustained stormwater runoff. Twenty-four acres of wetland and 0.6 miles of degraded shoreline were also restored in the harbor. Between the Ansul arsenic site and the Harbor lies the South Channel. Along this site, a total of 110 acres and 1.6 miles of shoreline were restored through removal of invasive vegetation and new plantings of native vegetation, and also the construction of fish habitat structures. The project also improved the connectivity of water flows between the Harbor and the South Channel which facilitated fish passage.

154

R. M. ROBINSON

The Menominee and Park Mill dams were constructed in the 1920s to produce hydropower for industries in the cities of Marinette and Menominee. The Park Mill Dam is located 3.8 miles upstream from the river’s mouth. These dams created barriers for fish (particularly lake sturgeon, an endangered species in the Great Lakes) that prevented access to their natural upriver spawning grounds. Fish passage was reestablished in 2016 which restored an eighteen mile stretch of spawning grounds for sturgeon. Fish are now lifted over the dam through transports that take them to release points in the upriver spawning grounds. The “Lower Menominee Islands Rookery and Habitat Management Project” reestablished rookery habitats on four of the river’s islands in the upper reach of the AOC—Little Blueberry, Big Blueberry, Strawberry, and Boom Islands. These small islands are seventeen acres in total which once provided habitat for resting and nesting wetland birds such as great blue herons, black crowned herons, and egrets. The project aimed to eliminate the invasive vegetation of bush honeysuckle, river grape, and buckthorn, and to reintroduce native vegetations that are more amenable to aviary populations. (See Appendix B concerning invasive vegetation.) For example, the heavy vines of river-bank grape were eliminating the crowns and branches of trees used for egret nesting on Strawberry Island, which is owned and managed by the US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. After removal of these invasive vines, Strawberry Island is now home to large breeding colonies of egrets, herons, and other wildlife. Boom Island is underdeveloped and owned by the City of Marinette. Although it is crossed by a railroad bridge, it is a partly forested habitat for a variety of wildlife including white-tailed deer and the aviary species mentioned above. Blueberry Island is 4.8 acres; Little Blueberry Island is 1.3 acres. Both are owned by a local energy utility. The restorations of all four of these islands were funded by GLRI grants, and were completed in 2016. For this AOC, there were six BUIs identified in the 1990 RAP. They have all been remediated and therefore “delisted.” The six included: 1. beach closings—removed in 2011, 2. restrictions on dredging—removed in 2017, 3. degradation of Benthos—removed in 2017, 4. restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption—removed in 2018, 5. degradation of fish and wildlife populations—removed in 2019, and

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

155

6. loss of natural habitat—removed in 2019. In 1990, the RAP identified elevated levels of bacteria at beaches within the AOC. These were associated with wet weather events, and therefore associated with the combined stormwater and sanitary sewers in the twin cities. Consequently, these sewer systems were redesigned and reconstructed. In 2010, the evaluation by the “technical advisory committee” (TAC) concluded that the reconstruction of the sewer systems resolved this bacteria problem; that the bacteria was eliminated. This was the first BUI delisted (in 2011). The 1990 RAP also recognized the need for restrictions on navigational dredging. The contaminations of concern were arsenic, coal tar wastes, paint wastes, and other heavy metals; PCBs were not found in the river’s sediments. As reviewed above, the Ansul site was contaminated by arsenic associated with pesticide production. The 2009 RCRA consent decree established by the EPA required remediations to the toxic sources, and all of these were completed by 2014. Monitoring of the site is required by the consent decree and is ongoing. The paint sludge generated by the Lloyd Flanders’ wastes were remediated by removal and capping. This was completed in 2000. The WPSC coal gasification site was contaminated by coal tar wastes. The toxic sediment was removed, and the area was properly caped to contain any residual poisons. The sediment removal was completed in 2013, and the capping was completed by 2015. The sediments of Menekaunee Harbor were contaminated with PAHs and heavy metals. The source was the stormwater runoffs from legacy industries. This sediment was dredged and the harbor bed capped to contain the low-level poisonous residuals. The remediation was completed in 2014. This second BUI was removed in 2017. Throughout the Great Lakes Basin, the BUI of degradation of benthos is generally remediated once harmful sediments are removed. In addition, this degradation was generally found at or downstream from the sites where the AOC’s toxic sediments were found. Studies show that once the toxins are removed, the healthy benthos begins to return within two years provided no further contamination occurs.1 Therefore, after monitoring 1 See https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/wrd-aoc-menominee-bui-benthos_6 65795_7.pdf and also https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/GreatLakes/documents/MRBenthos Removal.pdf.

156

R. M. ROBINSON

the dredging sites, and observing the healthy benthos returning, this BUI was also removed in 2017. BUIs 4, 5, and 6—“restrictions on fish consumption,” “degradation of fish and wildlife,” and “degradation of natural habitats” respectively— are all linked through the effects of contaminated sediments. The effects of these elevated toxins and their methods of elimination are reviewed above. But after the elimination of toxins through dredging, the rehabilitations of natural habitats remain. As reviewed above, this largely required elimination of invasive vegetation on four upstream islands (Little Blueberry, Big Blueberry, Strawberry, and Boom Islands) and the restorations of wetlands along the river and harbor area. These were all accomplished by 2019. Nesting and resting aviary populations—particularly herons and egrets—have been reestablished. In addition, as reviewed above, the five hydroelectric dams have now been altered to facilitate fish passage to spawning grounds. As a result of all these restorations, BUI’s 4, 5, and 6 have all been delisted. 1.2

Environmental Leadership for the Lower Menominee River

The Lower Menominee River was delisted in 2020, thirty-five years after it was identified as an AOC. Who might be identified as the organizers and leaders of this rather lengthy local restoration? The whole restoration effort was precipitated by the EPA along with Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), and Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The AOC’s “Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC) consisted of: • 5 representatives of federal agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA, and US Bureau of Land Management), • 2 local government representatives, • 4 EGLE representatives (all biologists), • 6 WDNR representatives (all biologists), • 2 representatives from the Citizen’s Action Committee (CAC), • 3 representatives from engineering/consulting companies, • 2 representatives of environmental advocacy organizations (NGOs), • 2 representatives of industry (pulp and hydroelectric), and • 1 academic representative.

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

157

As required by the GLWQA and GLRI, this TAC was formed in 1988 to offer the technical expertise necessary to form and implement the AOC’s RAP, and to identify the BUIs and monitor their removal. It also formed post-delisting plans for monitoring. The “Citizens Advisory Committee” (CAC) consisted of 26 positions categorized into 6 groups: • • • •

2 from education, 4 from environmental advocacy organizations (NGOs), 6 from local business and industry, 6 from local government (the Cities of Menominee and Marinette and the Counties of Menominee and Marinette), • 4 local residents, and • 4 recreational users. As of March, 2018, only 12 of these 26 positions were filled. One should note that having 6 positions from industry allows the possibility of dominance by this subgroup, particularly since the monthly meetings had only 6–12 members attending. As explained below, some issues arose perhaps because of this low attendance. The TAC is dominated by scientists from state and federal agencies. Their expertise was necessary for identifying BUIs, and therefore for forming the original RAP, and also for its updates. This expertise was also necessary for delisting BUIs when they were judged by the TAC as remediated, and ultimately the final overall AOC delisting in 2020. These delisting evaluations were channeled through EGLE and WDNR, and then through the EPA, and then the Great Lakes Binational Commission. The delisting recommendations, however, needed approval by both the TAC and CAC. The industry representatives on the CAC included those from the Ansul arsenic site and the Lloyd Flanders paint waste site, the latter representative being the Co-chair of the CAC. The other Co-chair was a local realtor. One of the issues the CAC confronted concerned the Rio Vista Slough, an area between Park Mill Dam and Menominee Dam (see Fig. 1). Scott Paper historically discharged coal ash and other effluents at this location. PAHs and copper were found there. Minutes of the CAC’s February, 2013 indicated that the CAC meeting rejected inclusion of this locale as being in need of remediation because the Committee

158

R. M. ROBINSON

was “opposed to seeking out new problems in the AOC.” The meeting’s minutes indicate, Its not the CAC’s job to decide which sediment questions to investigate further, Rio Vista Slough sediment should be investigated if the agencies have concerns. … The CAC cannot say whether or not there is support for work in Rio Vista Slough, the community in general hasn’t been asked and probably isn’t aware.2

But what was the responsibility of the CAC? Between 2013 and 2020, there was sufficient time to address discoveries of other toxic sources within this AOC. In other AOCs, revisions in RAPs were common. When other sources of contamination were discovered, they were included as necessary for remediation. The actions necessary for an AOC’s restoration are not, and should not be restricted to only those originally identified in 1988. Federal funding has been made available for remediations identified later at other AOCs. Also, the restoration task likely requires more than remediating only legacy pollutions as though a newly discovered stormwater problem, or sceptic problem (as in Saginaw Bay’s AOC examined in Chapter 7) would not also be under the responsibility of this committee. The responsibility is to fully remediate and not just to cleanup the legacy pollutions. This Rio Vista Slough problem illustrates that environmental leadership did not reside in a CAC. It might also be resided in the environmental experts of the TAC, particularly with those of the WDNR and MDNR (or EGLE), plus the EPA and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The whole conception of restoring the Lower Menominee as an AOC originated in these latter groups, which also conceived the actions required by the AOC’s RAP. But to at least some extent, the public communication obligations associated with the AOC’s restoration efforts should reside with the CAC. If the public was unaware of the problems at RIO Vista Slough, it was the responsibility of the CAC to properly publicize this issue. This sort of communication was one of the more important reasons for formations of the CACs under the GLRI. As an example, this is the sort of

2 See “Lower Menominee River Area of Concern, Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting, February 21, 2013.” See https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/aocs/menominee/cit izen-advisory-committee/.

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

159

communication demonstrated by the Muskegon River’s CAC as reviewed in Chapter 7. This AOC’s CAC has specific “Bylaws, Roles, and Participation Expectations” as approved in 2016. These bylaws state, We, together with the agencies, seek to determine the status of the Beneficial Use Impairments identified for the Lower Menominee River, with the ultimate goals of removing those impairments and delisting the Area of Concern. We seek to establish and maintain a broad based and balanced group of stakeholders. We expect all members to respect other’s opinions. We expect the co-chairs to provide balanced leadership with mutual respect and ensure that everyone’s voice is heard. All members must strive to develop the partnerships needed to move restoration work forward to meet our ultimate goal of delisting the Area of Concern.

The ultimate goal of the entire effort, including that of the CAC, is not just “delisting.” That could be achieved easily by a simple declaration that “all is well!” The objective is restoration, and not just closing the process short of restoration even when we recognize that pristineness is not the goal. The minimum goal is to clean the poisons from the local environment and the Great Lakes. Restoration of environmental assets then follows. With these goals in mind, revisions in the RAP might well be justified and warranted as we observe in the case of the Grand Calumet River and the Saginaw River and Bay, and other AOCs as reviewed in Chapters 6 and 7. An AOC’s Citizen Advisory Committee should be focused on the objectives of restoration, not just an official delisting.

2

Introduction to the Milwaukee Estuary AOC

The Wisconsin port city of Milwaukee is on Lake Michigan’s west bank. The Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers flow through the City3 (see Fig. 2). These three rivers were used to dissipate toxic industrial discharges, insufficiently treated sewerage, combined sewer overflows, and agricultural and urban runoffs. Under the GLWQA, this area was identified as an AOC in 1987, but its boundaries were expanded in 2008.

3 The Menominee River differs from the Menomonee River.

160

R. M. ROBINSON

The remediation programs for this AOC have concentrated on sediment removal, toxic discharge preventions from both point and non-point sources, and habitat restorations. Milwaukee is the thirty-first most populous US city and has the thirty-ninth most populous Metropolitan Statistical Area. The City of Milwaukee has a 2020 population of 577,222 of which 37.8%

N

Little Menomonee River

2. 3. 4. 5.

Moss American Site Mercury Marine Site Kletzsch Park Blatz Lagoon Solvay Coke and Gas Site

2

1

Lincoln Creek 1.

Cedar Creek

4

Lake Michigan

3

Lincoln Park Estabrook Falls Park

Milwaukee River

Menomonee River Bradford Beach

Burnham Canal

Milwaukee Estuary City of Milwaukee

Kinnikinnick River Fig. 2 Milwaukee Estuary AOC

5 Bay View Beach

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

161

self-identifies as African-American. The City’s population reached its maximum in 1960 (741,324) and has declined steadily since. The city was formed by nineteenth-century German and Northern European migrations. It is now, however, recognized by at least one metric analysis as being the most segregated of the 100 largest US cities.4 A large portion of the mid-nineteenth-century Northern European migrations into Wisconsin were wheat and cattle farmers. Consequently, the marshlands of the Milwaukee Estuary were drained to construct flour mills, packing plants, breweries, tanneries, and port facilities. Consequently, Milwaukee became a shipping center for agricultural goods. Given the German and other Northern European demographics, brewing beer became Milwaukee’s predominant industry. Schlitz, Blatz, Pabst, and Miller became some of the best-known brands of beer brewed in Milwaukee. As late as 1981, Milwaukee had the largest brewing capacity of any city in the world. Milwaukee is also a city of ethnic festivals. Remediation of the Milwaukee Estuary and that area’s beneficial use impairments (BIUs) have substantially progressed due in part to the efforts of the “Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Office of Great Waters.” These efforts are highlighted in this chapter. This Milwaukee Estuary AOC is, however, partly unique due to its many and strongly supportive environmental advocacy organizations and their interactions with government agencies. For example, the AOC benefits from the Waterway Restoration Partnership, a group of local and federal government agencies, plus private not-for-profit advocacy organizations, and environmental foundations. These private advocacy organizations and environmental foundations include: • • • • • • • • •

The The The The The The The The The

Fund for Lake Michigan, Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Milwaukee Riverkeepers, Milwaukee Water Commons, Partners for a Cleaner Environment, Port of Milwaukee, River Revitalization Foundation, Urban Ecology Center, University of Wisconsin—School of Freshwater Sciences,

4 See Frey (2018) for the measurement method for this segregation index.

162

R. M. ROBINSON

• The Menomonee Valley Partners, and • The Great Lakes Restoration Fund. For example, the “Fund for Lake Michigan” (FLM) is a flow-through fund of $4 million paid per year from public utilities to be expended on projects to improve the health of Lake Michigan. The Greater Milwaukee Foundation serves as FLM’s grant administrator. Examples of the projects funded include phosphorous reductions from agricultural and suburban runoffs and fish habitat restorations. Another example includes the Milwaukee Riverkeepers who volunteer to take samples at 18 sites within the Milwaukee River Basin. These are monitored for a wide variety of contaminants as analyzed at University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee’s “School of Public Health.” Another important example is the River Revitalization Foundation, a “land trust.” It is establishing a parkway for public-access walkways that border the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. The purpose is to revitalize the surrounding neighborhoods.5 Yet another example is the Menomonee Valley Partners which seeks to organize public and private collaborations to redevelop and revitalize the Menomonee Valley, which is now largely abandoned land and buildings. This requires environmental restorations of brownfields, the establishment of greenways and green buildings, and restoration of the Menomonee River and its shorelines. The UW-Extension, together with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is helping to organize the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Estuary. They are offering to pay $75/hour for those who commit to a two-year term on the Council, and are willing to participate in the Council’s meetings and educate themselves concerning the issues. Currently, “Milwaukee Estuary Waterways Restoration Partnership,” and the “Milwaukee Riverkeepers,” and the “Friends of Lincoln Park” are participating in the Estuary’s CAC. The current projects for Estuary restoration include removal of contaminated sediment, restoration of natural channels in the Estuary, and reestablishing fish passages.

5 A similar parkway development effort is being established along the Mystic River, north of Boston. See Chapter 10.

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

163

This particular examination of an AOC focuses on the considerable involvements of the federal and local government agencies that play both leadership and facilitator roles for this restoration. 2.1

Milwaukee Estuary AOC

Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), the Milwaukee Estuary was identified as an AOC in 1987. This original AOC included: • the lower 3.1 miles of the Milwaukee River—the river below North Avenue Dam, • the lower 3 miles of the Menomonee River—downstream of ThirtyFifth Street, • the lower 2.5 miles of the Kinnickinnic River—downstream of Chase Avenue, • the Inner and Outer Harbor, and • the nearshore waters of Lake Michigan as indicated by Fig. 3. The AOC’s boundary was expanded in 2008 to include sites that contributed large amounts of contaminated sediment to the estuary. This expansion included: • Cedar Creek, downstream from Bridge Road, • the Milwaukee River from the confluence with Cedar Creek to former North Avenue Dam, • the Little Menomonee River from Brown Deer Road to the confluence with the Menomonee River, and also the Menomonee River downstream from its confluence with the Little Menomonee River. These borders are indicated by Fig. 2. The eleven identified BUIs include: • • • • •

Restrictions on fish consumption, Undesirable algae growth, Degradations of fish and wildlife populations, Beach closings, Fish tumors or other deformities,

164

R. M. ROBINSON

Long Tail Point

N

Dutch Creek

Au Sable Point

Green Bay

Port of Green Bay East River

Fox River

De Pere Dam Fig. 3 Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC

• • • • • •

Aesthetic degradations (removed in 2021), Aviary deformities and/or reproduction problems, Degradation of benthos, Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations, Dredging restrictions, and Loss of fish and wildlife habitats.

5

2.2

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

165

EPA’s Milwaukee Cleanups Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

As with other AOC restorations, Milwaukee has had EPA-led cleanups prior to and outside the domain of the AOC efforts. There have been three RCRA cleanups of contaminated sites under direct EPA responsibility in Milwaukee (or under joint responsibility with the WDNR): the Solvay Coke and Gas site, the Moss-American Company site, and the Cedar Creek site. Solvay Coke and Gas encompasses 46 acres primarily located in the industrial area north of Kinnickinnic River (see Fig. 2). Various industrial activities occurred at this site since the late 1800s. These activities included blast-furnace production of coke, coal gasification and recovery of byproducts, coal storage and transportation, and tannery operations. (See Chapter 4 for reviews of the technology and processes of coke manufacturing and coal gasification.) Following the shutdown of these operations in 1983, the site became a scrap salvage business, but these salvage operations also closed in 2017. Under the RCRA, the EPA reached agreements with current and former owners which required both the removal of buildings and of 40,000 cubic yards of hazardous wastes. The hazardous wastes included PAHs and asbestos. The estimated costs of removal are $1.9 million. The Moss-American Company is owned by Kerr-McGee Oil. This EPA directed RCRA site includes 88 acres along six miles of the Little Menomonee River. Currently, 65 acres are underdeveloped Milwaukee Parkland, and 23 acres are owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. The latter acreage is currently used for manufacturing purposes. From 1921 to 1976, Moss-American operated a wood-preserving facility on this site that treated railroad ties with creosote. The EPA’s analysis indicated that these wood-preserving activities contaminated the mud and groundwater that polluted the Little Menomonee with PAHs, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene. (See Appendix C for a review of these toxins.) In 2017, the WDNR supervised the removal and proper disposal of the contamination. The EPA monitored the site through 2022. Cedar Creek is in a residential suburb of Milwaukee (see Fig. 2). This contaminated site was the location of the Mercury Marine Plant where between 1951 and 1982, fiberglass boats were manufactured at this site. PCBs from this manufacturing contaminated the Creek. Fluids containing PCBs leaked from equipment and were washed into storm sewers and

166

R. M. ROBINSON

then into the Creek. The Mercury Marine Plant was demolished in 2005. But Amcast, an automotive parts manufacturer, was also located close to the Mercury Marine Plant. Amcast also contaminated the Creek with PCBs. This site was cleaned through EPA funding. The cleanup was completed in 2012. 2.3

The AOC’s Restorations

As shown in Fig. 2, the Kinnickinnic River is one of the three rivers that flow into the Milwaukee Estuary. A short distance upstream from the Estuary there is a ninety-degree bend. Sediments carried by the current have naturally accumulated at this bend in the river. They formed a natural barrier to navigation, but these sediments were also contaminated with PCBs and PAHs. They were legacy pollutions in that they originated prior to the regulations established in the 1970s, and they were from unidentified sources. To initiate a local economic revitalization, 170,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment was removed. This included 1,200 pounds of PCBs and 13,000 pounds of PAHs. The project’s costs were $23 million with 65% coming from the federal Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA), and the remaining amount from the State of Wisconsin. The improved navigation and toxic sediment removal facilitated development of the area. The Milwaukee River flows on the north side of Milwaukee, the opposite side from the Kinnickinnic. Lincoln Park is on this north side (see Fig. 2). WDNR, Milwaukee County, and the EPA organized the removal of 4,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Milwaukee River at Lincoln Park. The sediment was contaminated with PCBs. Blatz Lagoon is in Lincoln Park. It is the site of the popular Blatz Pavilion Community Center which brought the community’s residents in close proximity to the contamination. In addition, the Lincoln Creek area of the Milwaukee River—which has a long heavy-industrial history—contained significant sediment deposits contaminated with PCBs. Between 2012 and 2015, over 100,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment were removed from Lincoln Creek. The Estabrook Falls site is a short distance downstream from Lincoln Park (see Fig. 2). The Falls were created through mining limestone bedrock. This is a low falls that blocked fish passage to the upper Milwaukee River. A fish ladder was constructed on this site to facilitate passage. The Kletzsch Dam, however, is upstream from Lincoln Park.

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

167

Restoration also required creating a fish passage on this dam that allowed access to the upper twenty-five miles of the Milwaukee River and twentynine miles of tributaries with 2,400 acres of wetlands. The construction of this passage was accomplished through the partnership of the EPA, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, and the WDNR. Before the mid-1800s, the natural estuary of Milwaukee was a wild rice filled marshy wetland. By the mid-1800s, this natural estuary was being filled with gravel (and other unstable fill such as cow manure) to create dry land for industrial development. A series of canals were created to facilitate this industrial development, particularly for shipping goods such as grain and cement for which storage silos were constructed to serve shipping interests. Burnham Canal was one of these constructions. This canal is located as a spur off the Menomonee River close to where it joins the Estuary. Milwaukee journalists labeled the Burnham Canal the deadest of the dead zones in the estuary. This canal had no current of fresh water. After the canal was constructed, a March 18, 1872, Milwaukee Sentinel advertisement indicated that shippers of coal, iron, salt, lumber, or manufactured goods should be interested in locating along the canal. This canal, however, had spent grain, sawdust, and cow manure dumped into its water. A June 19, 1874, story titled, “Holding Noses,” recorded the “sickening atmosphere” and “the intolerable stench of its waters.” An 1880 Milwaukee Sentinel story indicated that there were “several hundred dead suckers floating belly up” in the canal. It was repeatedly described as “an abomination” with one alderman calling for it to be declared a public nuisance. In 1989, one-hundred thousand fish were found dead in the canal. Miller Compressing, a scrap metal recycler, added heavy metals (copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, and zinc) plus PAHs to the canal’s toxic muck. In 2008, the EPA reached an RCRA agreement with Miller Compressing. The EPA’s partners in directing this restoration included the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD), and the Army Corps of Engineers. The project cost $3.1 million to restore 4.5 acres. The Fund for Lake Michigan contributed $105,000. Miller Compressing is contributing $1.6 million. The EPA is administering the remaining GLRI funding. A multi-staged process recently restored the canal to a natural wetland with native vegetations. But this is not the only canal or area in need of restoration within this AOC. Table 1 indicates a lengthy list of remediations.

168

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 1

Remediation and restoration projects for Milwaukee Estuary AOC

Project

Completion date

BUIs targeted

Burnham Canal Wetland Restoration: This GLRI funded project transforms the Burnham Canal former Superfund site into wetland habitat Greater Milwaukee Estuary Sediment Remediation: This GLLA funded project is in study and might remediate 1.4 million c.y. of sediment across the AOC Currie Park Fish Passage: This GLRI funded project removes barriers to fish passage Kinnickinnic River Habitat Remediation: This GLRI funded initiative reestablishes healthy benthos and improves river negotiation Little Menomonee River Corridor Habitat Restoration: This GLRI funded project restores natural habitat Grand Trunk/Bay View Wetland Restoration: This GLLA funded project restores a 7.5 acre wetland within the Port of Milwaukee Kletzsch Park Dam Fish Passage: This GLRI funded project construct a fish passage to allow access to the upper Milwaukee River Estabrook Dam Fish Passage: This GLRI funded project removed the Estabrook Dam reconnecting the Milwaukee River to upstream river and wetlands Menomonee and Milwaukee River Feasibility Study: This GLLA funded analysis of remediation alternatives supported revised the AOC’s RAP Menomonee River Concrete Removal: This USACE and MMSD funded project removed concrete in the Menomonee River, reconnecting 37 miles of the river to Lake Michigan

2026 (Est.)

3, 11

No date set

1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11

2023 (Est.)

11

2024 (Est.)

11

2023 (Est.)

11

2022

11

2024 (Est.)

11

2018

11

2018

1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11

2016

11

(continued)

5

Table 1

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

169

(continued)

Project

Completion date

BUIs targeted

Little Menomonee Grassland Restoration: This GLRI funded project restored grasslands to improve aviary habitat Milwaukee River Fish Habitat Restoration: This Lake Michigan Fund project reestablished a spawning reef Wheelhouse Gateway Restoration: This GLRI funded project removed invasive vegetation and restored native vegetation on riverbanks Five Low-Flow Barriers Removed in Hoyt Park: This project is funded by the Lake Michigan Fund, NOAA, and MMSD. It removes five barriers to allow for fish passage Lincoln Park Sediment Remediation: This GLLA funded project remediated 175,000 c.y. of contaminated sediment from Lincoln Park Kinnickinnic River Sediment Remediation: This GLLA funded project removed 167,000 c.y. of contaminated sediment

2015

11

2014

11

2014

11

2016

11

2015

1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11

2009

1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11

BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI BUI

1: Restrictions on fish consumption 2: Undesirable algae growth 3: Degradations of fish and wildlife populations 4: Beach closings 5: Fish tumors or other deformities 6: Aesthetic degradations 7: Aviary deformities and/or reproduction problems 8: Degradation of benthos 9: Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations 10: Dredging restrictions 11: Loss of fish and wildlife habitats

2.4

Environmental Leadership for the Milwaukee Estuary

For the Milwaukee AOC, the WDNR is the lead agency. It (i) identified the BUIs, (ii) formed and updated the AOC’s Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and (iii) is managing the actions necessary to delist these BUIs and ultimately delist the AOC. To accomplish this, the WDNR organized seven committees—or “teams”—that function as task administrators. Each of these seven are reviewed here:

170

R. M. ROBINSON

The Management Action Implementation Team (MAIT): This is the critical overall organizational team. It consists of 15 members, only two of which are from the WDNR; 8 are from local government agencies (the City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County Parks, and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Department), 2 are representatives of local advocacy organizations (NGOs), and 3 represent local businesses. Project Management Team: This Team operates under MAIT for day-to-day coordination of the technical teams’ operations for purposes of efficiency. It consists of 9 members, 4 of which are WDNR staff, and 2 are federal government employees (the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA); 3 are from local government agencies. Fish and Wildlife Technical Advisory Committee: This Committee addresses the tasks of habitat restoration and other BUIs that directly concern fish and wildlife. It consists of 31 members, 10 of which are WDNR staff; 4 are from federal agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey, and EPA); 5 are from local government agencies; 3 represent advocacy organizations (such as Riverkeepers); 2 represent local businesses; and 3 are academic biologists with expertise in fish and wildlife. Beaches Work Group: This Group addresses the monitoring and locations of beach contamination and closings. It consists of 19 members, seven of which are WDNR staff and 2 are from federal government agencies (Geological Survey and EPA); 7 are from local government agencies (Milwaukee Health Department and Milwaukee Parks); 1 is from an advocacy organization (Riverkeepers); and 2 are academics (University of Milwaukee School of Public Health). Sediment Work Group: This is a critical Group that addresses the most fundamental restoration issue of toxic sediment removal and disposal. It consists of 45 members, 12 of which are from the WDNR. There are also 12 from federal government agencies (the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA); 9 are from local government agencies; 8 are from business interests; 1 is from an advocacy organization (Riverkeepers); and 3 are academics. Communications Outreach Team: This Team addresses the issues concerning community communications. It consists of 12 members, 3 of which are from the WDNR; 1 is from the federal government

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

171

(EPA); 6 are from local government agencies; 1 is from an advocacy organization; and 1 represents business. Community Advisory Leadership Team: This Team organizes outreach to various community interests for the purpose of their representation in restoration decisions. It consists of 5 members of which 2 are from business; 2 are from advocacy organizations; and 1 is from local government. These committees are largely composed of state and federal government experts who are capable of addressing the environmental issues involved with restoration. Table 2 lists the 14 committee members who serve on multiple committee positions. Of these 14, there are 5 from the WDNR including Brennan Dow who serves as “AOC Coordinator.” Among these 14, there are also 3 from county government. Federal, State, and local government personnel—all having the expertise necessary for the tasks of remediation—dominate the seven committees, and therefore dominate the restoration effort. Of the 136 committee positions, 39 are filled by WDNR personnel, all of whom have the relevant expertise. But other expertise stem from the environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs) such as the Riverkeepers. Other community input comes from business and citizen representatives, and there are two committees that directly concern community outreach. It is necessary to clearly communicate the reasons for these considerable local efforts, and the positive socio-economic effects of the restorations.6 Forming a sense of the community’s reactions is also necessary for adapting management decisions, hence the need for two community outreach committees in addition to the CAC. The AOC’s “Citizen Advisory Committee” (CAC) differs from the “Community Outreach” and “Community Advisory Leadership Teams” reviewed above. This CAC appears to be utilized for environmental justice considerations. This is a small group with a self-composed mission that explicitly states, “… to ensure Milwaukee residents, especially those underrepresented in/excluded from environmental decision making, play

6 For examples of communication difficulties, see the Saginaw River and Bay AOC’s problems reviewed in another chapter.

172

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 2 Milwaukee Estuary AOC Committee members with two or more committee positions Name

MAIT

Project

F&W

Beaches

Brennan Dow WDNR and Coordinator Michelle Soderling WDNR Olivia Colaianni WDNR Rebecca Fedak WDNR Stacy Hron WDNR Andrew Struck County Benji Timm City Natalie Dutack County Sarah Toomsen County Tom Chapman MMSDa Aaron Zeleske Business Cheryl Nenn Riveerkeepers Megan O’Brien EPA Hayley Olds USGS

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sediment

Outreach

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Advisory

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

a “MMSD” is the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

“MAIT” the Management Action Implementation Team “Project” is the Project Management Team “F&W” is the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee “Beaches” is the Beaches Work Group “Sediment” is the Sediment Work Group “Outreach” is the Communication Outreach Team “Advisory” is the Community Advisory Leadership Team

X

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

173

an active role in shaping the decisions made …”7 The goals of this Committee include: 1. “Strive for racial justice in everything we do and every decision that is made.” 2. “Translate AOC projects and related activities for all our audiences.” 3. “Create community awareness and interest in the AOC projects.” 4. “Build Community voice into planning and decision-making about the AOC projects.”8 5. The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) did not provide the motive energy for this AOC’s establishment, or the formation of its RAP, or its restoration efforts. This seven member CAC largely represents a community oriented asset for consultation with minority groups by the various state, federal, and local government agencies. The WDNR describes the role of this CAC as to “provide a forum for meaningful resident and stakeholder input,” and to “share information with (the) public.”9 In 2019, the CAC held three community outreach events concerning the 2020 RAP revision. But according to the WDNR, the “Communication and Outreach Team” (see above) has the responsibility of drafting the communication plans and the calendar of public events for its AOC’s oriented efforts. Perhaps, the CAC should therefore be considered a tangential committee and not a primary mover of the restoration efforts.

3 Introduction to the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC The City of Green Bay is at the head of the large inlet of Green Bay on Lake Michigan (see Fig. 2 in Chapter 1 and Fig. 3). The Fox River flows through the City of Green Bay before emptying into the waterbody of Green Bay. The Fox River begins at the Menasha and Neenah

7 See https://www.milwaukeeestuaryaoc.com. 8 Ibid. 9 See “Remedial Action Update for the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern,” August 2020, WDNR—Office of Great Waters.

174

R. M. ROBINSON

channels that flow from Lake Winnebago. The River then flows northeast for 40 miles, through the City and then into the waterbody of Green Bay. Approximately 270,000 people live in the communities along the Fox River. This River has 12 dams and forms the highest concentration of pulp and paper mills in the world. During the 1950s and 1960s, these mills discharged PCBs which contaminated the river. Table 3 lists the mills along the Fox River, their locations and daily discharges of effluents during 1966–1967. Table 3

The Paper Mills along the Fox River and their effluent discharges

Paper mill source

Kimberly Clark—Neenah Kimberly Clark—Badger Gilbert Paper John Strange Paper Bergstrom Kimberly Clark—Lakeview George A. Whiting Paper Riverside Paper Consolidated Papers Kimberly Clark—Kimberly Combined Paper Mills Thilmany Pulp and Paper Nicolet Paper US Paper Mills Fort Howard Paper American Can Charmin Paper Products Green Bay Packaging

Location (miles)

Daily effluent (gallons)

Daily discharge of suspended solids (tons)

40.1

530,000

0.46

39.9

530,000

0.18

39.9 39.8 39.8 39.2

890,000 1,600,000 4,200,000 5,250,000

0.32 1.57 21.41 3.38

38.7

320,000

0.75

33.3 32.1 29.0

2,530,000 8,130,000 11,490,000

3.91 4.13 26.09

27.0 23.0

3,050,000 26,160,000

5.53 13.98

7.0 6.8 3.7 1.4 1.0

1,620,000 620,000 11,400,000 16,300,000 15,380,000

0.98 7.23 13.94 7.23 14.07

0.8

2,830,000

2.97

Location is measured in miles upstream from the mouth of the River Source “Lower Green Bay & Fox River Area of Concern, Beneficial Use Removal Recommendation: Tainting of Fish and Wildlife,” WDNR, April, 2020

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

175

In 1850, the town of Green Bay had a population of 1,923. The area’s inexpensive agricultural land brought Belgians, Germans, Scandinavians, Irish, and Dutch immigrants, particularly after railroads arrived in 1860. From 1860 to 2020, each census showed a consistent population increase in the City, i.e. the population has never declined. In 2020, eighty-six percent self-identified as Caucasian; only 1.4% identified as African-American. The average household income was $65,026 in 2019 for Green Bay. (Wisconsin’s average household income was $64,148 in 2019; and the US average household income for 2019 was $65,712.) Green Bay is known as the “toilet paper capital of the world” because of the numerous paper companies: Northern Paper Company, Georgia Pacific, and Proctor and Gamble are among many in the area (see Table 3). The City now, however, has become a health and insurance center for Upper Wisconsin. The lower seven miles of the Fox River—the stretch below De Pere Dam—plus 22 square miles of the Bay constitute the AOC (see Fig. 3). The discharges of pulp and paper mills and also a gas manufacturing plant, plus non-point stormwater runoffs from agricultural lands, all degraded the area’s environment. PCBs from the pulp and paper mills, and PAHs from manufactured gas plant contaminated the river’s sediments. In addition to these pollutions, stormwater runoffs sent excess nutrients into the lower Green Bay which caused algae blooms that resulted in toxicity problems for drinking water, for fish and wildlife habitat, and for recreational use. In addition, wetland habitats were filled in for industrial and other urban use. These industrial pollutions, plus agricultural and urban-suburban stormwater runoffs, plus the landfills, form the familiar combination in need of remediation. 3.1

Sediments, Impairments, and Restorations

In 1998, the EPA placed the Fox River on its National Priorities List, i.e. its Superfund list. In 1999, the EPA initiated and oversaw the Fox River dredging efforts. The problem primarily concerned the PCBs generated by the pulp and paper mills along the 40 miles of the river from which 6.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were removed, and also for which 275 acres were properly capped, and more than 780 acres were covered with sand. All of this endeavor was to contain the PCB contaminants.

176

R. M. ROBINSON

Under an RCRA consent decree, the pulp and paper companies along the river agreed to pay $670 million to cover the EPA’s costs. The entire dredging project was expected to exceed $1 billion. The companies involved included Georgia-Pacific, NCR, Appleton Papers, CBC Coating, Kimberly-Clark, Menasha, New Page, P.H. Glatfelter, US Paper Mills, and Wisconsin Tissue Mills. These companies produced carbonless printer paper with a byproduct of PCBs. Two sewerage systems were also sued by the EPA for the Fox River PBC contaminations. Additional funds were raised by subsequent settlements in 2019. Despite the 1999–2000 dredging, between 2004 and 2020 samples of sediment showed that PCB and PAH contamination continued along the entire 40 miles of the Lower Fox River. Five-year reviews concluded that the dredging and capping along the many sites had not yet adequately protected human and environmental health, i.e. PCB levels are not yet at safe levels. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists estimate that it will take 10–30 more years for the fish advisories to be removed from the BUI list. Therefore the sediment sampling will continue for the next several years. As of 2020, 6 million cubic yards of PCB contaminated sediment had been removed from the 40 miles of the Fox River at a cost of approximately $1 billion. When the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC was identified in 1987, thirteen BUIs were listed: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Restrictions on fish consumption, Tainting of fish flavor—removed in 2020, Degradation of fish or wildlife populations, Fish tumors or deformities, Aviary deformities or reproduction problems, Benthos degradation, Dredging restrictions—removed in 2021, Undesirable algae blooms, Restrictions on drinking water, Beach closings, Degradation of aesthetics—removed in 2022, Degradation of plankton populations, and Loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

177

The key restoration activity for this AOC has been the overall contaminated sediment removal along the entire Fox River (both within the AOC and upstream of it), for which 2019 marked its near completion. This dredging included the 35,000 cubic yards from the manufactured gas plant site at the confluence with the East River. This also removed massive amounts of PAHs and heavy metals. In total, this dredging addressed all of the BUIs listed with the possible exception of “beach closings.” Also of considerable importance to the restoration was the 2019 expansion into the Bay of the benthos sampling sites. Sampling of this sort is necessary to properly focus the restoration activities. This action is being led by UW—Sea Grant, and UW—Green Bay researchers. In addition, through GLRI grants, the TACs further developed the metrics necessary for effective evaluations of the area’s habitats. These habitat metrics are aimed at preserving: • • • •

multiple wetlands, adequately functioning spawning grounds, islands that serve colonial nesting birds, amphibians, and furbearers, shoreline and water migration corridors for fish and aviary populations, • adequate beach lands for shorebirds, and • adequate habitats for threatened or endangered species. In 2016, the WDNR and EPA explored how Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) grants could be applied to improve practices that address toxic algae problems. (The Rouge and Clinton River AOCs reviewed in Chapter 3 are also examining and applying these same practices.) The grants are to establish those agricultural practices necessary to control the non-point sources of nutrients from the stormwater and/or irrigation runoffs that feed toxic algae blooms. These practices establish streambank buffer protections so that the runoffs feed the vegetation within the established buffers rather than flow into those streams which then flow into the Fox River and then the Bay. (The same practices would apply to parklands where grass turf is fertilized.) The GLRI grants would establish vegetation areas, perhaps ten feet wide (perhaps larger or smaller) along these streams. Buffers along wetlands could also be

178

R. M. ROBINSON

established that would assist in preventing algae blooms. (Similar practices are also being applied in the Chesapeake Bay area. See Robinson 2021, pp. 262–265.) 3.2

An Activist Community Advising Committee

Working with community stakeholders, the WDNR developed an initial Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for this AOC in 1988. This plan had extensive public involvement and input from federal, state, and local government agencies, plus academic scientists, and representatives of industry and environmental groups. Incorporating the studies and actions that occurred since 1988, the WDNR updated the RAP in 1993. In 2009, the WDNR developed delisting targets for the RAP. In 2011, with a newly re-formed Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the WDNR developed a revised RAP which summarized the current status of the area’s impairments, and declared the specific actions necessary to achieve restorations. It also formed three technical advisory groups to address the problems of (i) toxic substances, (ii) natural habitats, and (iii) the community’s recreational use of the Fox River and Green Bay. The newly formed 2011 CAC consisted of 20 people (expanded soon after to 22) who represented a balance of public representation, private business interests, and environmental advocacy organization (NGOs). The members were selected by the WDNR for their backgrounds and their ability to serve as liaisons to the larger public interests. Initially, the WDNR also convened meetings of this CAC until 2015 when this committee transformed into the “Clean Bay Backers” with leadership provided by the UW—Sea Grant Program. The makeup of the “Backers” consists of: • • • • •

6 4 4 4 4

representatives from local government, nonprofit recreational users, outreach and education representatives, private citizens, and business representatives.

Their activities are classified into: (i) involvement in restoration projects, (ii) public education and outreach, (iii) setting restoration

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

179

targets, (iv) evaluative monitoring of BUIs, and (v) sediment remediations. The Clean Bay Backers now provide both a degree of expertise that assists with AOC restoration, and also acts as a liaison to the various Green Bay community interests. In recent years, the “Backers” have organized an annual “Bring Back the Bay Tour” targeted for community leaders and elected officials. This tour highlights the environmental problems and the restoration progress accomplished through the AOC’s projects. 3.3

Remediations

Being the lead managing agency for this restoration, the WDNR formed four committees in addition to the “Backers” CAC: • • • •

Benthos and Plankton TAC, Toxic Algae TAC, Fish and Wildlife Habitat TAC, and Toxic Sediment TAC.

Various WDNR and EPA personnel also serve as members of these committees which consist of: Benthos and Plankton TAC : This technical committee consists of 9 WDNR representative, 3 EPA representatives, 2 from the US Geological Survey (USGS), and 5 academicians. All have expertise relevant to the problem in need of remediation. Toxic Algae TAC : This technical committee consists of 4 representatives from the WDNR, 2 academicians, 3 from Fish and Wildlife Service, 3 from county government, and 5 business representatives. These committee representatives also have expertise relevant for the algal problem. Fish and Wildlife Habitat TAC : This technical committee has 7 representatives from the WDNR, 2 from the EPA, 4 from the Fish and Wildlife Service, 6 from the University of Wisconsin Green Bay (UWGB), 1 from the Corps of Engineers, 2 from the City of Green Bay, 1 from County Government, and 3 from business. All on this Committee have expertise relevant for habitat restoration.

180

R. M. ROBINSON

Toxic Sediment TAC : This technical committee consists of 10 representatives from the WDNR, 3 from the EPA, 2 from Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 from the Army Corps of Engineers, 1 from the USGS, and I from UWGB. All have expertise relevant for toxic sediment identification, removal, and proper disposal. Table 4 indicates those committee members who serve multiple positions. It shows that 6 representatives from the WDNR serve two or more AOC committee positions. Of the 82 TAC positions, 31 are filled with WDNR personnel, 9 are from the EPA, and 14 are from the University of Wisconsin. The WDNR therefore dominated this AOC’s processes of restoration. They organized the CAC and the four TACs, and also applied the WDNR’s own expertise on these AOC committees, and also placed the expertise of other federal agencies and of local governments and universities on these TACs. These committees are effectively addressing the restoration problems, but the problems of contaminated sediment persist in this river, and monitoring must also therefore persist. Table 4 Committee members holding multiple positions on Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC Member

Benthos TAC

Andrew Hudak (WDNR) Donalea Dinsmore (WDNR) Rebecca Fedak (WDNR) Jesse Weinzinger (WNDR) Madeline Magee (WDNR) Courtney Winter (EPA) Sue Virglio (EPA) Chris Houghton (UWGB) Brianna Kupsky (WDNR) AOC Coordinator

X X

Toxic Algae TAC

F&WS TAC

Sediment TAC

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

181

A fundamental problem associated with the formation of this AOC concerns the extent of the sources of contamination. As indicated above, the entire 40 miles of the Fox River is inhabited by 18 pulp and paper mills. These mills generated the PCB contaminations along the entire 40 miles. The AOC, however, includes only the lower 7 miles of river. The entire river has a local environmental advocacy organization supporting its restoration—the Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance.10 Also, the whole 40 miles has been under EPA managed Superfund remediation. Perhaps, the entire river should have been organized into a single restoration district and AOC effort.

4

Introduction to the Sheboygan River AOC

The Sheboygan River is 81-miles long and flows through Fond du Lac, Sheboygan, Calumet, and Manitowoc Counties in eastern Michigan. Its watershed is southeast of Lake Winnebago. The river discharges into Lake Michigan in the City of Sheboygan (see Fig. 2 in Chapter 1 and Fig. 4). The Sheboygan River AOC encompasses the lower 14 miles of the Sheboygan River downstream from the Sheboygan Falls Dam and includes the entire harbor and nearshore water of Lake Michigan. This AOC was designated in 1987 under the GLWQA. The 2020 census indicates that the City of Sheboygan has a population of 49,929. Since 1970, the population has been relatively stable at approximately 50,000. Its demographics indicate that 82.5% self-identify as Caucasian, 0.8% identify as African-American, 0.5% identify as Native American, and 9.0% identify as Asian. The average household income in 2019 is $60,706 when Wisconsin’s average is $64,168 and the US average is $65,712. 4.1

Restorations

This AOC’s sources of pollutants include effluents from industry, inadequate sewer treatments, improper dumping of household wastes, and rural and urban non-point sources. The contaminants include PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and excessive amounts of

10 See https://fwwa.org.

182

R. M. ROBINSON

N Sheboygan River Kiwanis Park

Sheboygan Falls

Lake Michigan

Taylor Drive

Boat and Wildwood Islands

Harbor

Weedons Creek

Onion River

City of Sheboygan

Fig. 4 Sheboygan River AOC

phosphorous. The contaminations degraded fish and wildlife populations, natural habitats, human environmental interactions, and the overall perceptions of the area. Nine BUIs were identified: • • • • • • • • •

restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, tumors and deformities in fish, aviary deformities or reproduction problems, degradation of benthos—removed in 2020, restrictions of dredging—removed in 2015, undesirable algae blooms—removed in 2016, plankton degradation—removed in 2021, and loss of fish and wildlife (natural) habitat.

The Sheboygan AOC is one of eleven AOCs that has completed all remediation actions necessary for delisting. These project actions

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

183

remediated sediment, restored natural habitat, and improved navigation. Approximately 400,000 cubic yards of sediment have been removed and 72 acres of habitat remediated. The EPA describes this AOC as being “a shining example of successful collaboration efforts between the federal, state and local partners in cleaning up contaminated sediments and restoring degraded habitat to increase environmental productivity and improve recreational potential.”11 Increased connectivity between habitats, more breeding and spawning habitats, the removal of invasive vegetation, and the stabilization of shoreline habitats have all been the objectives of the AOC’s restoration. As with the other Wisconsin AOCs reviewed above, the EPA initiated and directed cleanups of PCB and PAH contaminated sediments prior to this AOC’s RAP formation. These Superfund projects included: • PCB contaminated sediments were removed from the lower Sheboygan River, and from floodplains in the upper River in 2011 and 2012. • Within the City, close to Boat Island, sediments containing PAHs were removed in 2002. These were left from the early 1900s operations of the Sheboygan Gas and Light Company. • In the lower Sheboygan River by Kiwanis Park, contaminated sediment was removed through Great Lakes Legacy Act funds. The AOC projects organized by the WDNR, included: • The Sheboygan Harbor Navigational Dredging which removed lightly contaminated sediments from the outer harbor in 2012. The project was funded by the Corps of Engineers and the GLRI. • The Sheboygan River AOC “Habitat Conservation and Restoration” projects included remediation of the Kiwanis Park shoreline, the Wildwood Island, the Taylor Drive Wetlands, and other shorelines’ habitats, islands, and wetlands. These projects were funded through the GLRI. • Several other completed evaluation and monitoring projects were aimed at restoration of fish and wildlife.

11 See www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/sheboygan-river/aoc.

184

R. M. ROBINSON

4.2

Advisory Committees

The WDNR was the lead agency for the remediations of this AOC. Brennan Dow of the WDNR was the AOC’s Coordinator. This AOC’s Technical Advisory Committees consisted largely of WDNR representatives plus a few who represented other federal, state, and local government agencies, environmental advocacy organizations (NGOs), and academicians. The composition of specific committees that addressed individual BUIs varied only slightly from one to another. The non-WDNR personnel who served various committees included representatives of the Sheboygan River Basin Partnership, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the City of Sheboygan, Sheboygan County, and the University of Wisconsin Extension (UWEX). For example, a TAC subcommittee provided technical expertise and project management to remediate the BUIs of degraded fish and wildlife populations and degraded habitat. It consisted of 8 representatives of the WDNR, and 2 other government agencies. This specific TAC (or subcommittee) prepared the assessment projects and RAP initiatives that were funded by the 2010 GLRI. These projects and RAP initiatives have now been completed. In a similar way, 8 representatives of the WDNR constituted the TAC subcommittee that addressed the degradation of benthos. As with the other Wisconsin AOCs, the Community Advisory Committee for this AOC was also appointed by the WDNR. It consists of representatives of community NGO organizations, individual citizens, adjacent landowners, businesses, and local governments. The expressed purpose of this committee was to provide feedback on proposed or ongoing projects and for organizing community educational efforts. This committee was to act as a communication conduit for community interests and stakeholders.

5 Conclusion Concerning the WDNR and Its Activist Leadership The four AOCs reviewed above (the Lower Menominee River AOC, the Milwaukee Estuary AOC, the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC, and the Sheboygan River AOC) demonstrate the organizational leadership and involvements of a dedicated state agency: the Wisconsin’s WDNR. (Minnesota’s EGLE was involved in the Lower Menominee River AOC).

5

THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES …

185

In particular, the scientists of the WDNR were the coordinators of the AOCs’ restoration efforts. They also were the dominant force behind the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) that implemented the Remediation Action Plans (RAP). As a group, they formed, revised, and evaluated the results of the RAPs. These accomplishments are documented in the sections presented above. In addition, the WDNR organized the Citizen Action Committees (CACs) for these AOCs. Only one of these committees was particularly active, the “Clean Bay Backers.” This CAC was largely led by the representatives of University of Wisconsin’s—Sea Grant Program. They organized significant community outreach and communication efforts, in particular the annual tours of the restoration accomplishments within the AOC. The CACs of the other Wisconsin AOCs acted merely as sounding boards for the efforts organized by the Technical Advisory Committees. As such, these CACs were not particularly active in demonstrating environmental motivation. This direction from a strong state agency (WDNR) addressed and met the demands of restoration. This is an agency of dedicated environmental scientists who were essentially trained for these tasks. It presents a robust model perhaps effectively applicable for restorations elsewhere.

References Frey, William H. (2018), Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics Are Remaking America, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. Robinson, Richard (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham Switzerland.

CHAPTER 6

The “Most Polluted River”: The Grand Calumet

1

Introduction to the Grand Calumet and Its History

The Grand Calumet River has been titled “America’s most polluted river.”1 Of course, many of America’s rivers could compete for this title, but the “Grand Cal” flows entirely through old highly industrialized and urbanized areas and is consequently heavily contaminated. Figure 1 illustrates the AOC’s location and its relation to nearby urban areas. This river has little sustainable natural character in its watershed, and it expels large volumes of poisons into Lake Michigan. Like the River Rouge and the Detroit River (both reviewed in Chapter 3), the “Grand Cal’s” AOC is worthy of investigation because of the difficulties its extreme pollution has posed for restoration within urbanized settings. Restoring this area to not being a source of poisons flowing into Lake Michigan poses a considerable task of significant national accomplishment. It could pose a most important illustrative lesson for potential restorations of highly industrialized rivers and watersheds outside the Great Lakes Basin. It is this potential that justifies an examination of the Grand Calumet AOC. The Grand Calumet River—as differentiated from the “Calumet River” which is mostly located farther to the west of Chicago—is only 1 See Lydersen (2013, January 6).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_6

187

188

R. M. ROBINSON

thirteen miles long. It originates at Miller Lagoons in the Indiana Dunes National Park and then flows through the old industrial City of Gary in Indiana. (Fig. 1 depicts its course.) It then flows through the suburban industrial municipalities south of Chicago: East Chicago, Gary, and Hammond in Indiana, Calumet City and Burnham in Illinois. A small portion of the river’s flow drains into the Calumet River (as distinct from the Grand Calumet River) and into the Chicago-Area Waterway System. But most of this river’s flow—approximately one billion gallons per day on average—empties into Lake Michigan via the “Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal.” A much smaller amount flows into the Calumet River. Ninety percent of the Grand Calumet’s flow originates as industrial and municipal effluent, but also as stormwater drainage that washes over hardened asphalt and concrete surfaces. As of 2015, the “Grand Cal” has been in the late stages of a large dredging project aimed at removing thousands of tons of contaminated sediment that accumulated over the twentieth century. Prior to the middle of the nineteenth century, the Grand Calumet flowed west to east and emptied into Lake Michigan in the area of the Indiana Dunes in the northwest corner of Indiana. But in the Midwest, 1825 to 1850 was the era of canal construction for the purpose of serving the transportation needs of mid-west agriculture which used the Great Lakes to ship goods back to the East Coast of the US.2 The Illinois and Michigan Canal was completed in 1848, but it had insufficient water flow. To remedy this, in 1848 the Calumet Feeder Canal was constructed to feed water into the Illinois and Michigan Canal. This reversed the flow of the Grand Calumet into an east to west direction that drained out of southern edge of Lake Michigan. But by 1872, the river’s junction with Lake Michigan was completely blocked by sandbars. The Miller Lagoons formed behind this buildup of sand dunes, and these lagoons became the source of the Grand Calumet which now flows mostly west and then turns northerly to reach Lake Michigan at the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal . (See Fig. 1.) Industrial development along the “Grand Cal” began in the late nineteenth century with the establishment of packing plants (slaughterhouses) along its course. This industrialization continued in the early part of 2 The construction of the Erie Canal in the 1830s linked Lake Erie to the Hudson River at Albany, NY. This began the construction of canal networks in the Midwestern states.

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

Lake Michigan Chicago Illinois

Amoco Oil

N

Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal

BP Oil

Calumet River

189

Inland Steel

4 East Chicago

3

Miller Lagoons and Marquette Park

US Steel Gary Works

1 Indiana Dunes National Park

2 Calumet City, Illinois

Hammond Indiana

Grand Calumet River Gary Indiana

1: Estech Pesticide 3: USS Lead Site

2: Roxana Marsh 4: Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal (Lake George)

Fig. 1 Grand Calumet AOC

the twentieth century with steel mill development. By the mid-twentieth century, the river “had become an industrialized sewer incapable of supporting any life except algae and sludge worms.”3 The largest extent of the river’s beneficial use impairments (BUIs) stems from its accumulated poisonous legacy-sediments, which are “among the most contaminated and toxic ever recorded.”4 Only sludge worms inhabit the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal which indicates the severity of the pollution. Although the “Grand Cal” watershed is only fifty square miles, it drains old industrial areas so that it currently suffers from sediments with PCBs,

3 See Hurley (1995, p. 34). 4 See Ingersoll, et al. (2002, pp. 156–167).

190

R. M. ROBINSON

heavy metals of various sorts (mercury, cadmium, chromium, and lead), high fecal coliform bacteria, suspended solids, oils, and grease. These toxins originate from both point and non-point sources. The Grand Calumet’s AOC suffers from all 14 of the BUIs identified under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and recognized by its Canadian-US International Commission. It is the only AOC to continue to suffer from all fourteen BUIs. But toxic industrial discharges have yet to be controlled from the old steel mills and other industries of the area. Due to its legacy pollution, the area has been identified as an AOC since 1987, and it also contains several various “Superfund” sites. The “Grand Cal” flows through an area—the three counties of northwest Indiana plus Cook County in Illinois (the county of Chicago)—that has fifty-three Superfund sites. This author recalls driving just a few years ago along Interstate Route 80/90 through Gary, Indiana. Many of the readers of this monograph will also recall trying to hold their breath rather than breathe in the heavy soot from the large US Steel Mill located along this highway and adjacent to the Grand Calumet.5 There is little residential area along that section of Route 80/90 or along the entire course of the Grand Calumet. It appears to be engulfed by the sort of pollution that comes from an earlier era, a time of a more cavalier attitude to such externalities. The high costs of cleaning these industrial mistakes now lie on the current generation. The particular problems of this AOC, as recorded from sources listed by the US EPA, include: • The Grand Calumet River and the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal contain 5 to 10 million cubic yards of heavily contaminated sediment which lies up to 20 feet deep in various contaminated sites. The contaminants include both toxic compounds (e.g. PAHs, PCBs, and heavy metals) and more conventional pollutants (e.g. phosphorous, nitrogen, iron, magnesium, volatile solids, oils, and grease). • The stormwater runoff from 11 to 38 disposal and storage sites in the AOC—all located within 0.2 miles of the river—are also degrading the water quality. The contaminants from these non-point

5 For a similar recounting, see DeBruler (2015), “US Steel: Gary Works,” in Industrial History, at http://industrialscenery.blogspot.com/2014/05/introduction.html.

6

•

•

• •

• •

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

191

sources include petroleum oil, heavy metals, arsenic, PCBs, PAHs, and lead. There are 52 sites within the AOC that are listed in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability System (CERCLA) with five of these sites listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)—those generally termed “Superfund sites.” There are 423 hazardous waste sites in the AOC as regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These include landfills and surface impoundments where hazardous waste has been deposited. Twenty-two of these sites are treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. There are more than 460 underground storage tanks in the AOC; 150 of these are leaking as reported since 1987. Atmospheric deposition of toxic substances from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, and evaporation have accumulated in the AOC. Toxins from these include dioxins, PCBs, insecticides, and heavy metals. The rainwater passing over paved industrial areas washes grease, oil, and toxic PCBs and PAHs into the AOC. The groundwater is contaminated with organic compounds, heavy metals, and petroleum products which also contaminate the AOC’s surface waters. The US EPA estimates that at least 16.8 million gallons of oil float on top of the groundwater aquifer that lies beneath this AOC.

The continuing and troublesome sources of existing contaminants within this AOC also include: • Industrial wastewater discharges, which include the effluents from three steel mills, combine to provide ninety percent of industrial emission into this AOC. One chemical manufacturer also discharges arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, copper, chromium, lead, and mercury into the Grand Calumet. (See Appendix C for a review of these toxins.) The three municipal treatment works of the Sanitary Districts of Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago also discharge insufficiently treated domestic and industrial wastewater into this AOC.

192

R. M. ROBINSON

• Fifteen combined sanitary and storm-sewer systems are also within this AOC. Annually, the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) contribute an estimated 11 billion gallons of untreated raw wastewater into the river. Since the “Grand Cal” empties into Lake Michigan, this results in nearshore fecal coliform contamination. All of this historically accumulated and current pollution means that the restoration of the Grand Calumet AOC requires an heroic national effort of uniquely significant importance. This is particularly true given that on average, one billion gallons of toxic effluent flow daily from the Grand Calumet River into Lake Michigan. The restoration is environmentally essential for the North American Continent. Basically, the entire Grand Calumet Watershed is so industrially and heavily contaminated that it demands our top priority for remediation.

2

Citizen Advisors

The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) requires that for each AOC, a public advisory committee (PAC) must be formed to be involved with the management of the restoration effort. The GLWQA requires that the advisory committee be involved in the RAP process and perhaps in supervising the finances for accomplishing the restorations. But AOCs other than the Grand Calumet—such as those reviewed in other chapters—have local environmentally concerned and involved citizens who dwell within the particular area. Because the Grand Calumet AOC is largely a declining heavily industrialized and polluted area, there are relatively few residents, and there is a distinct paucity of those environmentally knowledgeable citizens who reside within this AOC. The Citizen’s Advisory for the Remediation of the Environment Committee (CARE) is the PAC for the Grand Calumet. It includes few local residents. It does include representatives of various environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, and it also includes academics who are experts in the associated environmental issues. It also includes experts from federal and state agencies such as the EPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), and also representatives of the businesses that were involved in developing the problems, but who nonetheless may also be involved in the restorations. The IDEM Commissioner appoints the Indiana representatives. CARE functions as the supervisor of the restoration effort, but it should be noted

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

193

that much of this restoration is being accomplished by the EPA through Superfund and CERCLA efforts, and that this restoration is qualitatively, and considering the costs involved, quantifiably different from the efforts of other AOCs. It should also be noted that the Grand Calumet AOC has a lengthy list of “Partners” who are extensively involved in the restoration—partners such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The AOC’s “Partners” also include: • the Citizen’s Advisory Committee for the Remediation of the Environment (CARE), • the East Chicago Waterway Management District, • the Grand Calumet River Restoration Fund Council, • the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, • the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, • the Atlantic Richfield—British Petroleum Company, • the Lake County Parks and Recreation Department, and • the Northern Indiana Public Service Company. As explained above, the AOC’s list of “partners” does not appear to include substantial and knowledgeable involvement of local citizen organizations in the AOC’s management as is found in some other Great Lakes AOCs. But also as explained above, this is not a residential area with many citizens dedicated to restoring the area to being a habitable domicile. But it does have an active “Citizen’s Advisory Committee,” and also “The Grand Calumet River Restoration Fund Council” which manages grants from the “Fund” for environmental restoration. This fund was generated from EPA CERCLA settlements with the industries that polluted the “Grand Cal.”

3

EPA Directed Cleanups

A major EPA settlement for the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal was declared in a consent decree recorded in the Northern District Court of Indiana on August 20, 2004. The settlement was with eight companies: Atlantic Richfield, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours, Exxon Mobile, GATX, Georgia Pacific, ISPAT-Inland, US Steel, and LTV Steel. The settlement was for a cash payment of $56.3 million to be managed by the “Fund’s Council” (see above) for the purpose of restoration of the AOC’s

194

R. M. ROBINSON

wetlands and beaches. Despite essentially being an industrial sewer, there are nevertheless habitat restorations underway via reconstructions of these wetlands and beach areas. There is hope that these areas might actually be restored to a natural state that supports fish and wildlife plus native vegetation, and that also enables safe human interactions. Within this AOC, there are twelve projects of sediment remediation, five of which have been completed and three are currently underway (as of November 2022). The other four projects are being planned. Given that natural habitat functionality has been completely lost within the AOC, habitat restoration projects are also currently underway as directed by the EPA and the other partners listed above. Nonetheless, some key characteristics of this highly polluted AOC include the following: 1. The restoration of the “Grand Cal” requires the transformation of a watershed and river that contains little natural attributes or amenities. This river is now essentially an industrial sewer devoid of any other contribution to society. It dumps massive amounts of very toxic poisons daily into Lake Michigan—a source of drinking water for 6.6 million people. 2. This twenty-two square mile AOC should perhaps be considered as one connected and large “Superfund Site” since five of the separate EPA managed sites within the AOC’s borders are either Superfund or CERCLA sites. 3. Since the Grand Calumet is entirely comprised of an old industrial area, its restoration has little citizen involvement and is largely directed by federal and state agencies. Table 1 lists various interrelated restoration projects for the Grand Calumet. Three of the larger and more significant projects include (i) Stateline Remedial Action, (ii) the East and Middle of the Lake George Canal, and (iii) the Dune, Swale, and Shelf Wetlands. The Great Lakes Legacy Act financed the Stateline Remedial Action as directed by the partnership of the EPA, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), and the Northern Indiana Public Service Company. This project began in 2015 and is expected to be completed in 2024. It removes sediment contaminated by heavy metals, PAHs, and PCBs

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

195

from a 0.4-mile length of the “Grand Cal” along the Illinois-Indiana state border. This dredging is accomplished hydraulicly through an 8-inch intake pipe which removes the upper two feet of sediment. The removed Table 1

Remediation and habitat restoration projects for the AOCa

Project title

Project description

Date completed

West Branch

Dredged and capped 148, cubic yards of sediment and restored habitat Dredged and capped 585,000 cubic yards of sediment and restored 19 acres of Marsh and bird habitat Dredged and capped 1.1 million cubic yards and restored habitat of wetlands Dredged and capped 46,000 cubic yards and restored habitat Mitigated the impacts of nuisance gull management at Lake Michigan Beaches within the AOC Eliminated invasive species to restore 80 acres of wetland surrounding Lake George branch of Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal Prescribed fire is utilized to control invasive plant species and then the reestablishment of native species to over 700 acres Restoring rare dune and swale habitat and riverine wetlands by controlling woody and herbaceous invasive species Restoration of Pine Station Nature Preserve involves bank stabilization in North Pond and invasive species control in wetlands and uplands surrounding both the North and South Ponds Removed 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from East Section of Canal, and 60,000 cubic yards from Middle Portion of Canal

2011

Roxana Marsh of West Branch

East Branch

Stateline Action Nearshore Bird Management at AOC Beaches Lake George Wetlands

Prescribed and Controlled Fire

Dune, Swale, and Shelf Wetlands

Pine Station

East and Middle Sections of Lake George Canal

2012

2015

2016 2019

2021

2022

2024 estimated

2024 estimated

2024 estimated

a See https://epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/documents-restoring-grand-calumet-river-aoc, and https://epa.

gov/great-lakes-aocs/remediation-and-restoration-projects-grand-calumet-river-aoc

196

R. M. ROBINSON

sediment is then placed in a Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) which processes and ultimately disposes of the contaminated material. A cap is then placed over the remaining riverbed sediment to seal it and restore the benthos. The cap consists of a layer of sand and fine aggregate on top of a layer of “organoclay” that seals the contamination. The project has removed invasive plants and replaced them with native shrubs and trees. The East and Middle Sections of the Lake George Canal was managed by the East Chicago Waterway Management District and Atlantic Richfield— British Petroleum. It also removed contaminated sediment by dredging and capping along the East and Middle portions of the Lake Harbor and Ship Canal. (See Fig. 1.) As of February of 2022, twenty thousand of the projected sixty thousand cubic yards have been removed. This project is projected to be completed in 2024. The AOC border actually extends into Lake Michigan to include beach and shore wetlands. The Dune, Swale, and Shelf Wetlands Restoration Project is financed through the GLRI. It is directed by the partnership of IDEM, the IDNR, the Nature Conservancy, and the Lake County Parks and Recreation Department. It seeks to restore the globally rare dune, swale, and shelf wetland habitat that is home to a variety of rare species and also various migratory birds. The project will restore at least 900 acres of habitat spread over 15 sites in the AOC. The project will control invasive vegetations and restore native plants, and this should increase the fish and wildlife populations. The 25-acre Roxana Marsh (see Fig. 1) is an essential area of the West Branch of the Grand Calumet. Prior to the 1960s, it provided some natural habitat for fish and wildlife, and also provided flood control and a buffer that filtered some pollutants from the river. Beginning in the 1960s, the industrial and urban areas along the river poisoned the Marsh with heavy metals and other toxins and choked it with sediment that bred invasive vegetations. The Marsh was left devoid of aquatic life. Dredging began in 2011. This project was completed in 2012.

4 The “Grand Cal” and the Politics of EPA Cleanups There are three EPA Superfund sites within this AOC that have significantly destructive impacts: (i) a pesticide manufacturing site in Calumet City, (ii) a lead smelter site in East Chicago, and (iii) the “Gary Works”

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

197

steel plant in Gary. The political impacts of these three are substantial, and each is examined in this section. 4.1

The Pesticide Site of Calumet City

Two of the Grand Calumet Superfund sites, plus an EPA organized RCRA cleanup area, are examined in this section for their extensive pollutions and difficulties of remediation. They include: (i) the Estech pesticide manufacturing Superfund site in Calumet City, Illinois, (ii) US Steel’s Gary Works in Indiana, for which the EPA pursued a cleanup under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and (iii) USS Lead, a smelter facility in East Chicago, Illinois, which was also a Superfund site. Tables 2, 3, and 4 present some 2019 basic economic data on population, median income, and poverty rates in Calumet City, the location of the Estech pesticide site. As shown, the median income level and median property value are significantly below the US National average, and the percentage of households below the poverty rate is significantly above the US average. This is a severely polluted locale, and it is accordingly economically depressed. The area’s income distribution is skewed toward the lower poverty levels, and its population is largely minority, i.e. African-American. The Estech General Chemical Company manufactured pesticides on a 54-acre site in Calumet City. The southern and western borders of this site are bounded by the Grand Calumet River. (See Fig. 1.) A 7.5-acre wetland area with three linked lagoons connected the main chemical plant with the river. Estech manufactured, stored, and disposed of pesticides, Table 2 Basic economic statistics for Calumet City, Illinois, 2019

Population Median Household Income Poverty Rate Employment Median Property Value Median Age

Calumet City, Illinois

US

36,551 $44,456

334.32 million $61,937

18% 16,671 $106,000

13.4% 157.53 $240,500

37.1 years

37.9 years

198

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 3

Household income distribution for Calumet City, Illinois, 2019

Year

Calumet City

US

Calumet City

US

Calumet City

US

2019

Below $10k: 7%

6%

$75k-$100k: 10.5%

13%

Above $200k: 1%

8%

Table 4 Indiana poverty rate by race, 2020

Race

% of Calumet City Pop

Calumet City Poverty Rate %

US Poverty Rate %

Black White Non-Hispanic Hispanic

74.3% 9.54%

72% 12%

25.2% 10.3%

15.6%

10%

22.2%

fertilizers, and sulfuric acid in its facilities between 1952 and 1969. Backfilling of the lagoons occurred during this period when pesticides were buried behind the manufacturing building prior to the plant closing in 1969. In 1970, Strom Machinery Company purchased the site and used it for machinery storage until 1974 when it was sold to a vehicle wrecking company. In the late 1980s, Gordon Martin Wrecking demolished all of the on-site buildings except the one used for pesticide manufacturing. On this 54-acre site, it established a 27-acre dump for what is termed “auto fluff,” i.e. the shredded soft interior parts of automobiles. In 2002, the EPA engaged TN & Associates to analyze the site for potential listing in the National Priorities List (the “Superfund” listing). Their analysis indicated that high levels of pesticides, PCBs, PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), harmful organic compounds, mercury, and lead contamination, existed in the site fluff and sediment. (See the appendix for a review of these toxins.) These compounds were leaking into the Grand Calumet through groundwater and through the lagoons. The EPA established temporary mitigations in 1999, but the site was placed on the “Superfund” National Priority List in March 2015, the 16th such site in Cook County, Illinois. Note also that there are 18 Superfund sites in northwest Indiana. As of June 2022, the Estech pesticide site remains under EPA jurisdiction as a restoration area. Calumet City and its Superfund site continue to be polluted, depressed, and under federal restoration efforts.

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

4.2

199

USS Lead in East Chicago, Indiana

East Chicago, Indiana, lies within the Grand Calumet AOC. It is a former lead smelter site associated with the environmental deterioration of the city. Recently, East Chicago’s environmental problems are being addressed by the US EPA. These efforts have given some improvement in property values as explained below. As with Calumet City, this is a severely polluted locale, and it is depressed accordingly. Tables 5, 6, and 7 indicate that the area’s income distribution is skewed toward the lower poverty levels, and its population is largely minority (African-American). Table 5 Basic economic statistics for East Chicago, Indiana, 2019

Table 6

Population Median Household Income Poverty Rate Employment Median Property Value Median Age

East Chicago, Indiana

US

28,201 $32,839

334.32 million $61,937

32.3% 10,115 $74,500

13.4% 157.53 $240,500

33.8 years

37.9 years

Household income distribution for East Chicago, Indiana, 2019

Year

East Chicago

US

East Chicago

US

East Chicago

US

2019

Below $10k: 14.5%

6%

$75k-$100k: 9%

13%

Above $200k: 1%

8%

Table 7 Indiana poverty rate by race, 2019

Race

Black White Non-Hispanic Hispanic

% of East Chicago Pop

East Chicago Poverty Rate %

US Poverty Rate %

37.4% 6.7%

30% 10%

25.2% 10.3%

34.9%

34%

22.2%

200

R. M. ROBINSON

In 1959, the City of East Chicago constructed the Carrie Gosch Elementary School in the vicinity of a long-established lead smelter— USS Lead. The school was rebuilt on this same site in the late 1990s. During 1970–1973, the City of East Chicago also constructed the West Calumet Housing Complex on the former site of the smelter; it was actually constructed in the footprint of the old-demolished facility. This was a publicly subsidized housing facility financed through a federal grant.6 In preparing the sites, no remediation was performed to remove the lead and arsenic left by the smelter. In 2009, the US EPA placed the site on its “Superfund” National Priorities List. By that time, the number of people and children affected by lead poisoning incurred on this site was significantly large. Since the discovery of the contamination problem in 1992, the City’s officials have accused the EPA and other federal agencies of a lack of diligence in their remediation efforts. Only since 2016 have the citizens affected by the lead, and other heavy metal pollutions within this AOC, been informed of the extent of the problem. Potentially, “tens of thousands of people” have been severely affected.7 The effects of living on land saturated with lead and arsenic have long been known, so this severe local problem should have been publicly aired decades before. In 1997, the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), together with Indiana state and other federal agencies, organized blood tests for both adults and children in the smelter area. A 1998 ATSDR report recommended that the City “Remediate the area of lead contamination at the (smelter) site, including the vicinity of the elementary school, to prevent further exposure.” In 2016, the City of East Chicago then recommended that 1,000 residents of the West Calumet Housing Complex—including 680 children—relocate. Blood tests of residents further indicated the severity and extent of the problem in that many area residents had 3 to 6 times the CDC’s acceptable limits of lead in their blood. Pregnant women and children, especially those younger than 6 years, are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure. Among the young, even low levels of exposure can cause irreversible behavior and learning problems, or even death. 6 A grant of $313.4 million from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 7 See Reese, Sara (9/4/2016, updated 4/2022), “Lead in East Chicago: Old lead smelter site went unaddressed for years,” Town News Content Exchange at nwitimes.com.

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

201

The USS Lead smelter began as Delamar Copper Refinery in 1906. It was purchased by Anaconda Lead and became USS Lead at that time. The facility was demolished for the construction of the West Calumet Housing Complex during 1970–1973. But, as stated above, prior to this housing construction, no remediation of the lead and arsenic laden soil was performed. In 1985, the EPA sampled the soil in the area and found high arsenic and lead concentrations. The EPA pursued cleanup under its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program—which is designed to work with companies that can pay for cleanup of its contaminations. USS Lead began this cleanup in 1993, and it completed the remediation in 2002. Based on ATSDR evaluations of blood tests of locals, in 2009 the EPA placed the old 79-acre smelter area on the Superfund’s National Priorities List, and it also included the adjacent 320-acre residential area in this Superfund site. After being placed on the Superfund list, the EPA continued to take soil samples. The City’s Mayor and Attorney continued to complain that the severity of the problem had not been adequately explained by the state and federal agencies, and that federal funds should have been allocated for relocation of all those in the area, as well as for the construction of a new elementary school to be located outside the old smelter site. The City’s officials deny any responsibility for locating the housing complex, or the school, on the respective sites despite knowing the location’s history. The implication is that City’s officials believe there was no reason for them to know of the risks of lead and arsenic poisoning prior to the EPA’s original investigations, and that the EPA should have immediately provided stronger warnings concerning the dangers. In May of 2022, the EPA reached a settlement with four companies (Atlantic Richfield, du Pont de Nemours, US Smelter and Lead Refinery, and US Metals Refining) for $18 million in reimbursement for the already completed cleanup of this site. This settlement also leaves the four companies liable for required future cleanups as directed by the EPA. The plan is for this site to be reconstructed into being zoned a “light industrial area” on which a warehouse and transportation facility will be constructed for the City of East Chicago. What was once a toxic abandoned smelter site will be transformed into a nonpoisonous vehicle storage facility for the city.

202

R. M. ROBINSON

4.3

US Steel’s Gary Works

Indiana continues to be the US’ leader in steel production, and since 1909, US Steel’s Gary Works has been its largest producer. Gary, Indiana—located in the northwest corner of Indiana, approximately 30 miles southeast of Chicago—was found in 1906 as a company town for US Steel. It was named after Elbert H. Gary, US Steel’s first Chairman. The steel mill facility was constructed in 1906–08. It was a fully integrated mill in that it converted iron ore (from the Iron Range adjacent to the northern border of Duluth, Minnesota as reviewed in Chapter 4) into pig iron, and then converted the pig iron into steel, and then into finished products. Today, the mill continues to produce finished steel at this 4,000-acre site that extends for seven miles along the southern shore of Lake Michigan. This site shares its eastern boundary with the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, but between the site and the dunes, there is a 1,000 foot-buffer zone used previously as a waste disposal area by US Steel. The Gary Works has been and remains Gary’s largest employer and taxpayer. During Gary’s industrial rise, it was called both “The Magic City” and “The City of the Century” by Life magazine.8 By 1920, the City’s steel production rose to utilize 12 blast furnaces when it employed 16,000 workers. After World War II, American steel accounted for more than 40% of the world’s export trade in the product. The mills of Indiana produced most of this production with the Gary Works being the largest of its producers. It employed over 30,000 workers in 1970 when the City of Gary had 175,415 residents. But by 1990, Gary Works employed only 6,000, and then only 5,000 in 2015. The decline in the Gary Works came suddenly. In 1971 tens of thousands were “let go.” Andrew White, Director of Steel Workers’ Union District 31 stated at the time, “We had expected some layoffs but now it seems like this thing is going to be a lot rougher than we had expected. Frankly, we hadn’t foreseen anything like this.”9 By 1972, Time magazine wrote that “Gary sits like an ash heap in the northwest corner of Indiana, a grimy, barren steel town.” By 2005, the City’s population had dropped to 100,000 from its high of 175,415 in 1970. By the early 1990s, Gary was no longer called the “Magic City,” instead it became 8 See Ishak, December 16, 2019. 9 Ibid.

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

Table 8 Basic economic statistics for Gary, Indiana, 2019

Population Median Household Income Poverty Rate Employment Median Property Value Median Age

203

Gary, Indiana

US

76,010 $31,936

334.32 million $61,937

36.6% 27,067 $66,100

13.4% 157.53 $240,500

39 years

37.9 years

Household income distribution for Gary, Indiana, 2020

Table 9 Year

Gary

US

Gary

US

Gary

US

2019

Below $10k: 16%

6%

$75k-$100k: 8%

13%

Above $200k: 3%

8%

the “Murder Capital” of the US and also the “drug capital.” An estimated 20% of Gary’s buildings are now totally abandoned. One of its formerly grand buildings, the beautiful limestone City Methodist Church, is now abandoned, scrawled with graffiti, and overgrown with weeds. It is now called “God’s Forsaken House.” Along with immigrants from eastern Europe, Gary’s employment opportunities once drew southern blacks in large numbers. Now after its “white flight to better employment prospects found elsewhere,” 80.1% of Gary’s population is African-American. As of 2018, about 75,000 people remain in Gary. More than 25,000 live below the poverty income level. It is now called, “The Most Miserable City in the United States.”10 Table 8 indicates the deteriorated income distribution which is skewed toward the lower end. Table 9 indicates its demographics. The 2020 US Census indicates that there were 61,997 blacks in Gary; 8,932 non-Hispanic whites; and 4,476 Hispanics. Tables 8, 9, and 10 indicate that Gary’s household income, property values, and widespread poverty, all indicate its economic depression. The story of the rise and decline of Gary Works illustrates the political difficulties faced by the EPA in its restoration efforts. The older style blast-furnace technology used coke, ores, and limestone supplied at the 10 Ibid.

204

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 10 Gary Indiana poverty rate by race, 2020

Race

Black White Non-Hispanic Hispanic

% of Gary Population

Gary Poverty Rate %

US Poverty Rate %

80.1% 11.5%

35.7% 33.5%

25.2% 10.3%

5.8%

37.8%

22.2%

top of the furnace while a hot blast of air is blown into the lower section. This process is used for smelting pig iron or making steel from pig iron. Blast furnaces are estimated to have been responsible for producing 4% of global greenhouse gasses between 1900 and 2015.11 Coal and coke, however, are highly polluting. They produced a gritty and sooty smoke which enveloped Gary in a cloud of pollution that produced respiratory diseases among workers and area residents. The disposal of production wastes was also a difficulty for the Gary Works. EPA generally deals with these difficulties through both Superfund cleanups and through RCRA agreements with the polluters. The latter agreements allow the company’s operations to continue with cleaner production processes, but these agreements also require cleanup activities—on-site corrective actions that are funded by the polluter. The EPA established “corrective actions” with respect to the Gary Works. In 1998, the EPA and US Steel agreed to an “on-site corrective action” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This agreement included: • US Steel removed 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the Grand Calumet River. This sediment was deposited into the Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU), the remediation depository for these wastes. • US Steel also removed drums of toxins from the West Grand Calumet Lagoon. • Other contaminated soil was excavated and deposited into the CAMU.

11 See Pooler, January 2019.

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

205

• Slurry cut-off walls and groundwater extraction wells were installed to control groundwater flowing into Lake Michigan. • Several waste disposal sites used by US Steel were closed. In May 2020, the Gary Works closed one of its remaining blast furnaces and laid off 2,700 workers due to the covid pandemic. It reopened this facility in December of 2021, but with a $60 million upgrade to its pig iron production facility. The upgraded facility will produce pig iron for US Steel’s electric arc furnace at its Big River Steel plant in Arkansas.12 The electric arc technology provides both a lower cost and cleaner production method. The target for its final product is electric vehicles.13 But for Gary, the air pollution continues.

5

The Politics of Restoring the Severely Degraded and Economically Depressed

The difficulties with establishing the EPA’s Superfund listings and RCRA arrangements are illustrated by those established in the Grand Calumet AOC. The EPA is “walking a tight line” in trying to push toward a cleaner locality while being confronted with a situation of strong economic decline. The politics of establishing cleanup remediation versus noninterference poses this “tight line.” Environmental regulation and remediation can be politically demagogued by claiming that it is the reason for the area’s decline. But the evidence supports the opposite conclusion, that restoration, and regulation results in economic prosperity. For example, this “restoration for prosperity” is precisely what we witnessed in Duluth. (See Chapter 4.) If Gary’s pollution remains at severe levels, then this would provide a barrier to economic recovery. But this argument can be more complex as compared to the simple claim that, “Those liberal environmentalists destroyed your life.” The evidence provided in the chapters of this book supports the opposite conclusion, that restoration supports economic prosperity and welfare enhancement. This environmental argument needs to be made by the area’s elected officials and government agencies, e.g. the EPA and state agencies.

12 See Argus, October 29, 2021, at https://www.argusmedia.com/metals-platform/ newsandanalysis/article/. 13 Ibid.

206

R. M. ROBINSON

Because the Grand Calumet AOC is an old-industrialized location of abandoned waste sites, but that still has ongoing industries that utilize less-than-clean technology, the cleanup is difficult. Among the poor, the promise of future prosperity generally appears to be an elusive goal. The promise of restoration to ongoing environmental health is even more difficult to make. The “tales of three cities” (Calumet City, East Chicago, and Gary), reviewed in this chapter, illustrates these difficulties. In North America, people no longer migrate to areas like the Grand Calumet; they do not wish to reside in extensively polluted areas of legacy toxins that offer no natural appeal, but only degraded environmental amenities. These areas have been abandoned as waste dumps. Those who remain behind suffer from poverty and poor health. For example, consider that the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute of the School of Medicine and Public Health ranks all US counties by “health factors and health outcomes.” Gary is in Lake County, Indiana. That County is rated ninetieth (close to the bottom) out of Indiana’s 92 counties in health factors (such as air quality), and seventy-fourth in health outcomes. Indiana is not rated as one of the Nation’s healthier states, and Gary is the worst area for health in Lake County, one of the state’s unhealthiest counties. But in the Grand Calumet AOC, there is little uprising from the environmentally enlightened citizenry to save their health and property from decay, or to give their children opportunities to interact with clean waters and natural settings. Why? Because the environmentally enlightened have left the area. Therefore, the environmental leadership must come from the outside politic, from federal and/or state agencies, or from national environmental advocacy organizations. The areas of concern (AOC) program is built on the impetus of local politics—that local political concerns motivate environmental restorations as necessary for socio-economic health. It is a local anthropomorphic view of restoration, but it must be recognized that preserving the Great Lakes requires the cleanup of the toxic dumps found at various locales (more than forty of these locales) such as in Gary, Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Duluth. These poisoned sites must be cleaned to preserve the health of the Great Lakes. We, therefore, have two political forces behind the Great Lakes cleanup: the local forces manifested in local advocacy groups, and the broader state and federal agencies. The latter groups is most often the residence of the expertise necessary for effective restoration, but in the

6

THE “MOST POLLUTED RIVER”: THE GRAND CALUMET

207

former resides the political and emotional energy behind the environmental movement. The restoration of the Grand Calumet is not energized by local politics. It is energized by state and federal forces who recognize that pouring one billion gallons per day of liquid poisons into Lake Michigan is unacceptable to the Nation’s body politic.

References Hurley, Andrew. (1995), Environmental Inequalities: Class, Race, and Industrial Pollution in Gary. Indiana: University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Ingersoll, C.G., D.D. MacDonald, W.G. Brumbaugh, W.G. Johnson, B.T. Kemble, et al. (2002), “Toxicity Assessment of Sediments from the Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Canal,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 43 (2): 156–167. (https://www.worldcat.org. issn/0090-4341). Ishak, Natasha and Jaclyn Anglis (December 16, 2019), “33 Haunting Photos of Gary Indiana—The Most Miserable City in America,” ati, at https://all thatsinteresting.com/gary-indiana. Lydersen, Kari (2013, January 26), “Grand Calumet River Delivers Toxic Load to Lake Michigan,” WBEZ, Chicago, (https://www.wbez.org/news/grandcalumet-river-delivers-toxic-load-lake-michigan-105165) Pooler, Michael (January 2019), “Cleaning up steel is key to tackling climate change,” Financial Times, at https://www.ft.com/content/3bcbcb60-037f11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1.

CHAPTER 7

Restoration Sites in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula: Saginaw and Muskegon

1

Introduction: Michigan’s Coastal AOCs

Chapter 6 examined the areas of concern program’s attempt to restore the Grand Calumet River from being the most toxic of American rivers— an area that currently provides no sustainable natural habitat—to at least being nonpoisonous as it flows into Lake Michigan. This chapter, however, examines two opposite types of AOCs: the Saginaw River and Bay on the east coast of Michigan, and Muskegon Lake on the west coast. The first of these areas currently provides considerable natural habitat for fish and wildlife and also environmental interactions and recreation for the population of Central Michigan. Saginaw Bay is on Lake Huron, and the region around this River and Bay encompasses the largest contiguous freshwater coastal wetland in the US. But the Bay is shallow with elevated plant growth. It is highly stressed with more than half the land-use in the watershed being agricultural. But the rural counties along the Bay are largely served by aged and less than effective septic systems. The Saginaw River watershed comprises fifteen percent of the land area of Michigan and provides fresh water to 500,000 residents. The Saginaw River and Bay have also been threatened and adversely affected by industrial wastes, sewerage, and by agricultural runoffs. Nevertheless, it is far from being destroyed by these toxins; it can be restored to some degree of pristineness. This is the aim of the AOC’s Public Advisory Council © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_7

209

210

R. M. ROBINSON

(PAC). Progress, however, has been slow, perhaps due to inconsistent citizen leadership. The Muskegon Lake AOC is on the West Coast of Michigan; it is formed by the confluence of several rivers and creeks. This confluence forms a lake with a single narrow outlet to Lake Michigan. The area has been badly polluted by multiple industries, but through citizen involvement and direction, it is now being restored to more sustainable natural settings. Muskegon Lake is almost directly west of Saginaw Bay, the latter being on Lake Huron and the former being on Lake Michigan. Juxtaposing these two AOCs allows us to compare a restoration effort with consistent, and cohesive citizen leadership to one with perhaps inconsistent involvement. The former AOC’s progress has been dramatic. The latter AOC’s progress has been hesitant in recent years. The reasons for this difference are explored in this chapter.

2

Saginaw River and Bay

The Saginaw River flows twenty-two miles in an easterly direction from East Central Michigan. It empties into the Saginaw Bay on the West Coast of Lake Huron. The Saginaw River and Bay AOC extends from the head of the Saginaw River—the confluence of the Cass, Shiawassee, and Tittabawassee Rivers upstream from Saginaw City—to Saginaw Bay. This includes all of the Bay out to a line connecting Au Sable Point on the north side to Pointe Aux Barques on the south side. Figure 1 depicts the AOC’s area. Along its course, the Saginaw River flows through the middle of Saginaw City and also Bay City. The River and Bay have been classified as an AOC since 1987. Originally, the waters of the Saginaw River were industrially polluted from the upstream plants of Dow Chemical and General Motors. The Bay also suffers from sewerage problems and agricultural runoff. In recent years, invasive species have also become a significant problem. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and also eutrophication due to algae, add to the environmental degradation. For many decades, the Saginaw River and Bay furnished popular recreational uses. A paved surface “River Walk” extends through both Saginaw and Bay City to provide recreation and marina access. The Saginaw Bay Yacht Club was established in 1894 and is still popular. Ice fishing and

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

N

211

Au Sable Point

Iosco County

Lake Huron Arenac County

Point Aux Barques

Saginaw Bay

Bay County

Huron County

Midland Saginaw River

1

Tuscola County 4

Bay City 5

2 Shiawassee River

3

Cass River

1 Dow Dam 2 Chesaning Dam 3 Frankenmuth Dam 4 Tittawassee River 5 Saginaw City

Fig. 1 Saginaw River and Bay AOC

summer fishing for walleye, and other species, are popular. But contaminants in the AOC include dioxins, furans, PCBs, chlorides, heavy metals, untreated sewerage, and agricultural runoff. (See Appendix C for reviews of these toxins.) These toxins threaten the fish and wildlife habitats of the River and Bay. Twelve of the fourteen possible BUIs recognized by the GLRI are present in the Saginaw AOC, but the most severe of these involves the effects of the above-listed toxins on the Bay’s fish and wildlife. The runoff from agriculture drains phosphorus and nitrogen from fertilizers into the Bay. Toxic sediments and other contaminants such as

212

R. M. ROBINSON

PCBs also drain into the Saginaw River and Bay. Excessive algae growth, degradation of fish and wildlife, and human health problems result. Consequently, Saginaw and Bay Cities initiated a phosphorus reduction program in 1978. As a result, harmful algal blooms did decrease in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but this reduction was short lived. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, large blooms of cyanobacteria occurred in the Bay which caused liver and skin diseases in area residents.1 In addition, the decline in water levels in the Great Lakes due to global warming caused algae to wash up and decompose on the expanded beach areas along the Bay. The accumulation of this decomposing algae is called “muck.” It causes strong odor and aesthetic problems and also taste problems for the water. A new phosphorus abatement effort began in 1987 with the International Joint Commission setting targets for the “total phosphorus loads” into Great Lakes’ areas such as the Saginaw Basin. The expectation was that these “load” limits would resolve the eutrophication dead zones and muck problems. A “muck survey” indicated, however, that the phosphorus input to the Bay remained high. It came from non-point sources (agriculture mainly but also sewerage) especially from along the smaller tributaries within the Basin. The problem was that in addition to the phosphorous, the stressors from non-native invasive species such as the quagga and zebra mussels have fundamentally changed the ecosystem of the Bay by filtering large quantities of phytoplankton (microscopic green aquatic plants) from the water. As a result, native populations of zooplankton and benthic animals that would normally feed on the phytoplankton have declined thereby decreasing the amount of food available for the native fish such as yellow perch. This process has actually increased water clarity, but the increased clarity has allowed more sunlight to reach the bottom of the shallow bay which stimulates algae growth. The algae accumulate in the shallow areas along shoreline and then decays which causes “muck accumulation.” The drinking water and odor problems are thereby exacerbated. The twelve identified BUIs for the Saginaw River and Bay include: 1. restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption due to contaminants, 2. tainting of fish and wildlife flavor,

1 See Stow (2014).

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

213

3. degraded fish and wildlife populations, 4. bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems, 5. benthos degradations, 6. restrictions on dredging due to contaminants, 7. undesirable algae, 8. drinking water restrictions due to taste or odors, 9. beach closings, 10. aesthetic degradations due to unnatural appearance or turbidity or odor such as surface scum or oil slicks, 11. degradation of phytoplankton or zooplankton, and 12. loss of fish and wildlife habitat. Habitat and fish loss in this AOC are significant and obvious given the following: (a) There has been an observable decline in fish and wildlife populations—particularly fish-eating birds—due to toxic contaminants from inadequate wastewater treatments and industrial sediments. These cause algae growth and eutrophication. (b) There has been a degradation and loss of coastal wetlands caused by land-use changes toward agriculture. The wetlands that once provided nurseries for fish and bird populations have been converted to agriculture. (c) There has also been a loss of fish spawning areas due to non-point contaminated agricultural and suburban runoffs. (d) Numerous dams were constructed along tributaries of the Saginaw River which prevented fish from migrating to spawning grounds. A series of updates to the AOC’s Remediation Action Plans (RAPs) addressed these issues. When the Saginaw AOC was formed, high levels of toxins were found to be present in the river’s sediments. These toxins caused deformities and reproductive problems for fish and wildlife. Similarly, the nutrient enrichment in the River and Bay was caused by point source wastewater from defective septic systems and also from non-point source agricultural and suburban runoffs. These nutrients caused algae growth and consequent oxygen depletion. As a result, since 1972 more than $830 million has

214

R. M. ROBINSON

been invested in wastewater treatment systems by the communities in the watershed.2 The Saginaw Bay watershed is estimated to have covered approximately 700,000 acres of wetlands prior to the area’s twentieth-century development. Most of this wetland has now been filled. The original 1988 RAP identified the importance of these coastal wetlands for the Saginaw Bay’s fisheries and also for migrating waterfowl. During each of the Spring and Fall waterfowl migrations of the mid-twentieth century, more than 250,000 ducks found rest in the Bay each year. But due to agricultural expansion, significant reductions in wetlands occurred.3 The RAP explained the importance of remediating the coastal wetlands for the purpose of at least partly restoring the fish and wildlife populations. Since 1988, updates to the RAPs focused on restoring these critical fish spawning grounds and nurseries for walleye, perch, herring, trout, and also for various waterfowl. In the 1995 RAP update, the Habitat Technical Advisory Subcommittee of the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) emphasized four major effort categories for habitat restoration: (1) appropriate land-use restrictions, (2) coastal wetland preservation, (3) prevention of habitat fragmentation, and (4) restoration of spawning grounds. Saginaw Bay has honeycombed rock reefs located from six to 120 feet below the surface. These previously provided the key spawning and nursery areas for the fisheries, especially for walleye, but also for a wide variety of other fish.4 But the flow in the Saginaw was altered by the silty storm runoff from agriculture so that sediment buildup on these rocky reefs destroyed the spawning grounds. Therefore, control of the agricultural runoff is a key component of restoring the fishery habitat. An additional reason for the reductions of fish populations was the decrease in spawning areas caused by the construction of more than 300 dams on the Saginaw River’s tributaries. These dams were constructed without fish passages, and they, therefore, eliminated tributary spawning for walleye, sturgeon, and other anadromous fish. Many of these dams no longer have a practical use so they are either being removed or bypassed

2 See PSC, 2012, and 2018. 3 See MDNR, 1988. 4 See Stow, 2014.

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

215

by fish ladders. In 2005, a Public Sectors Consultants’ (PSC’s) study evaluated the modification of these dams, and the City of Frankenmuth on the Cass River participated in a case study that led to the removal recommendations. The Chesaning Dam on the Shiawassee River and the Dow Dam on the Tittabawassee River were also included in this study. These dam removals were judged beneficial for restoring the upstream spawning grounds.5 In addition, a ramp was constructed at the Chesaning Dam to provide fish passage. These dam removals and alterations restored fish migration and spawning on these tributaries. By EPA and MDEQ directive, the fish and wildlife components of the RAP must contain the following: 1. a short narrative that describes the issues that cause the water degradation, 2. a description of the location and impairments and for each relevant aquatic habitat or site, 3. a locally derived restoration target for each habitat, 4. a listing of all other ongoing planning processes that affect habitat in the AOC, 5. a scope of the work necessary for restoring the habitat which must include: a. a timetable, b. the funding source, c. the responsible entities, d. the monitoring indicators, e. the evaluation process based on the indicators, and f. the public’s involvement in the restoration planning. These improvements in the planning process are now being addressed by the AOC’s Public Advisory Council . 2.1

The Partnership

In 1995, the Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed became the AOC’s Public Advisory Council (PAC). It is charged with overseeing and implementing the restoration efforts that would ultimately lead to

5 See PSC, 2005.

216

R. M. ROBINSON

delisting the AOC. Operable restoration targets were set in 2000 which specified indicators for the habitats of coastal wetlands and marshes and key fish and wildlife species. These targets were revised in the 2008 Habitat Restoration Plan, especially in light of the development of the invasive specie problems that modified the use of various fish populations as being useful indicators of habitat health. In this plan, the elimination of the various invasive species became the more significant focus of habitat restoration efforts. The Partnership became the conduit of technical advice to direct the BUI remediations. Since 2012, this PAC has consisted of the following: a. The Conservation Fund (TCF) is one of the North America’s most significant environmental foundations. Its efforts conserve seven million acres across all fifty states in the US. b. Ducks Unlimited (DU) is the world’s leading advocacy organization for conserving wetlands and waterfowl. It began in 1937 during the “dust bowl” era when North America’s severe drought and waterfowl populations were heavily depleted. c. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is focused on sustainable land and water management. d. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), “Fisheries Division,” conducts aquatic surveys and assessments for managing fish populations. Its biologists and managers provide the public and other government agencies with the information to facilitate sustainable fish populations. e. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), “Wildlife Division,” is exclusively responsible for managing Michigan’s wildlife and their habitats. f. The Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy (SBLC) acquires and conserves land to protect the waters of the Basin. g. Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network (WIN) is led by leaders of The Conservation Fund. It organizes community-based projects that preserve the watershed and that strengthens the identity of the Basin as an environmentally sustainable community. h. Bay County Department of Environmental Affairs and Community Development. i. US Fish and Wildlife Service.

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

217

This Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed is particularly active. As such, it offers an opportunity for agency and citizen involvement in restoring the rural and semi-rural areas of the Great Lakes Basin.6 This requires scientific expertise and therefore must involve the expert agents of various state and federal departments and also various environmental advocacy organizations. The restoration efforts show some degree of success in this endeavor. It also shows, however, some limitation in accomplishments in that after 2012, only a few of the RAP’s objectives have been accomplished. (There is much more about this below.) The 2000 RAP-update set wetland preservation as a priority, and Ducks Unlimited—a contributing organizational member of the Partnership—played a strong role in the Saginaw restoration process. In coordination with the Partnership’s effort, it conducted an analysis of the extent of coastal wetlands within the AOC, an analysis that indicated that progress occurred between 2000 and 2012. Of the areas targeted in 2000, sixty percent of coastal wetlands below the 585-foot contour (585 feet above sea level) have been protected either through public ownership, or permanent easements.7 The remaining have been prioritized for follow-up protection through either easements or public purchase. The citizen advocacy group Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network (WIN) is also an organizational member of the Partnership. It is particularly involved in community efforts throughout the Basin. Its leader (President Michael Kelly) is from The Conservation Fund. WIN organizes local projects, but it opposes being involved in regulatory bureaucracy such as some of the more formal structures directed by the PAC. (See below.) WIN’s Advisory Committee includes leaders from the Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Michigan State University Extension, the East Michigan Council of Governments, Saginaw Bay Resource Conservation and Development, the Conservation Fund, Bay Sail, and the Saginaw Bay Water Trail Alliance. Almost all of these are community advocacy organizations. WIN has the experience to organize diverse groups of members into being involved with various local environmental tasks. To this end, WIN has five specific task groups: (1) Agricultural Pollution Prevention, (2) Wildlife

6 See https://www.psbw.org/water-quality/saginawaoc_id/. 7 The 585-foot level refers to the USGS estimated highest 100-year floodplain.

218

R. M. ROBINSON

Stewardship, (3) Water Resources, (4) Land Resources, and (5) Communication. For example, the task force on Agricultural Pollution Prevention focuses on reducing soil erosion and therefore non-point runoff. Also, WIN’s task force on Communication educates Basin residents about the environmental problems of the Bay. All of the Great Lakes’ AOCs suffer common problems caused by toxic sediment from industrial wastes, and also from non-point agricultural and/or suburban storm runoff, and from point sources of nontreated or inadequately treated sewerage. In Michigan, and especially around the Saginaw Bay, a common problem is failing septic systems, but the extent to which these failing systems are impacting the environment is generally unknown. When the resulting pollution is too high, however, beach closings and other disruptions occur. The frequencies and locations of these occurrences are known and numerous. The Watershed Initiative Network (WIN) engaged Public Sector Consultants (PSC) to research the problem in Saginaw Bay. This study focused on the five counties along the Bay (see Fig. 1): • • • • •

Arenac County, Bay County, Huron County, Iosco County, and Tuscola County.

PSC estimated the total number of septic systems in these counties, and the number that might be failing. It also analyzed the current public management practices for controlling this problem. Other than Bay County (which has the highest population of the five counties along the Bay), most of the Saginaw Bay region relies on septic systems to treat household wastes. More than 60,000 homes in the region—approximately 50% of all houses in the region—have septic systems. (By comparison, 60,000 homes with septic systems is more than the total number of houses in Bay County.) The key determinant of whether a system fails is its age, i.e. after 30 years failure is common. The distribution of this age-failure profile indicates that as many as 15,000 systems are failing in the five counties. This implies that at least 505 million gallons of sewerage enter the local environment

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

219

each year. By comparison, the Bay County’s wastewater treatment facilities have largely eliminated untreated discharges from “combined sewer overflows” (CSOs) into the Bay. These CSOs were previously the most significant contributor of sewerage into the Bay. These overflows were caused by severe storm events, but the infrastructure of storm drainage was expanded in the immediate years prior to 2017. In that year, 332 million gallons of treated sewerage wastewater was discharged into the Bay, but these discharges met legal quality standards. Therefore, with more than 505 million gallons of untreated septic discharge, it is these old systems that pose the significant and immediate problem in need of resolution. A 2016 survey of county government leaders conducted by PSC, however, indicates that they believe the public does not yet recognize the problem, and that there is insufficient data to persuade the public otherwise. These leaders indicate the need for an integrated information system that identifies the sources, the extents, and the locales of the pollution. That information could generate public recognition of the problem. Because many of these residents have limited means, they might also need financial support to remedy their septic systems. The PSC’s report, therefore, suggests the following: • Information management needs improving. This requires modernizing the information systems of the various health departments for reporting and recording associated illnesses. • By better identifying the locales of E. coli and other bacteria breakouts, and the deficient septic systems that lead to these outbreaks, possible solutions might then be facilitated. • The public should be made aware of the results of water sampling and the locations, the extents, and the causes of the problem. • Financial support mechanisms should be developed to finance remediations for those with limited means. • The public needs to understand the costs and benefits of updating codes for remediating the sanitary problem for the Basin. In 2016, WIN hired Public Service Consultants (PSC) to also help with two other evaluations:

220

R. M. ROBINSON

(1) to assess the extent to which there is a regional identity for the Saginaw Bay watershed, and to assess the efforts that might lead to strengthening and continuing that identity, and (2) to determine whether there is a consensus among community leaders for ongoing restoration priorities. To accomplish this, the PSC conducted interviews among representatives of local, state, and federal agencies, advocacy organizations, businesses, and other community organizations who had interests in the watershed. The community leaders indicated that a sense of regional identity was growing in the environmental community. The interviewees, however, also believed that an identity of “living in an area of pollution and contamination” also exists among the watershed-wide general public. Despite the considerable and successful AOC-related restoration efforts in the Basin, the interviews found that the public did not yet recognize the resulting improvements. The narratives concerning these improvement efforts were yet to be communicated to the public. There was, therefore, a need for enhanced coordination and collaboration among the environmental organizations to publicize the relevant restoration successes. (For comparison, see the review of communication efforts within the St. Louis River AOC as reviewed in Chapter 4, and also of the Muskegon AOC as presented below.) Furthermore, the community leaders generally suggested that the Basin should develop a consensus concerning the remaining restoration efforts to be pursued. The community leaders suggested the following as priorities for a local plan: 1. enhancing the coordination of restoration efforts, 2. managing non-point sources of pollution which include stormwater runoff and bacteria from agriculture and septic systems that lead to beach closings, algae blooms, and beach muck problems, 3. preventing invasive species, 4. enhancing public education concerning the restoration efforts, 5. promoting the region as a destination for natural resource-based recreation, and 6. establishing a sustainable funding source for further restoration and maintenance efforts.

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

221

The same community leaders consistently identified the following as priorities: 1. convening regional stakeholders to develop a consensus strategy for Saginaw Bay, 2. propagating a sanitary code that addresses failing septic systems within the watershed, 3. establishing a Saginaw Bay Watershed Endowment Fund for sustaining restoration efforts, 4. developing new public access points along the Bay and its tributaries, and connecting these points with water trails, and 5. continuing to remove BUIs so as to eventually delist the AOC. Considerable restoration progress has been made in the Saginaw River and Bay AOC, and much more effort needs to occur to complete the BUI remedies. But if the PSC report accurately indicates the Basin’s preferences, then more coordination and effort remain. Public involvement motivates these restoration efforts, and as the report indicates, continued public involvement is required for further progress and maintenance. The next section highlights the organization of an AOC directly west of Saginaw Bay. This is an area similar to the Saginaw River and Bay AOC, but one that is located on Lake Michigan: the Muskegon Lake AOC on the west coast of Michigan. Their communication efforts need to be examined as valuable components of a coordinated and long-lasting restoration endeavor.

3

Muskegon Lake

Muskegon Lake is a 4,149 acre slightly inland coastal-lake on the west shoreline of Michigan’s lower peninsula. Muskegon River (Michigan’s second longest) flows 227 miles southwest from Houghton Lake in Central Michigan, and then into Muskegon Lake. The river’s tributaries of Ruddiman Creek, Ryerson Creek, Green Creek, Four Mile Creek, and Bear Creek were all heavily polluted. Muskegon Lake is connected to Lake Michigan by a short navigation channel. The City of Muskegon borders the south side of the Lake. Ryerson Creek and Ruddiman Creek flow through the City. Figure 2 depicts the area.

222

R. M. ROBINSON

N Bear Creek

Muskegon River North Channel

Bear Lake 2

Green Creek

1

South Channel

State Park

3 Muskegon Lake

4 Ryerson Creek

Pigeon Hill

Ruddiman Creek

City of Muskegon Lake Michigan

1 Nature Preserve 3 Ryerson Outfall

2 Zephyr Wetlands Site (Oil Refinery) 4 Coal Fired Plant

Fig. 2 Muskegon Lake AOC

Prior to 1910, Muskegon Lake was a center of Michigan’s lumber industry with 47 sawmills established on the Lake’s shores. Since 1910, chemical and petrochemical industries, foundries, a coal-fired power plant, and a paper mill were all established on its shoreline. The Lake’s water was heavily polluted; its natural habitat was degraded; its south shorelines were extensively filled and hardened; and toxic sediments were deposited that contained mercury, poisonous hydrocarbons, and other environmentally poisonous compounds.

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

3.1

223

Muskegon Lake’s RAP

In 1987, Muskegon Lake was classified as an AOC. Eight BUIs were identified: • • • • • • • •

beach closings, restrictions on fish consumption, eutrophication by algae, restrictions on drinking water, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, degradation of aesthetics, restrictions on dredging, and loss of natural habitat.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources developed the original remedial action plan (RAP) in 1987. In the early 1990s, the Muskegon Lake Watershed Partnership became the public advisory committee (PAC) for this AOC. It was formed to solicit public input. As a result of improved sewerage and wastewater management systems built during the 1990s, phosphorous and other contaminants were reduced in the Lake. By 2000 the eutrophication targets of the PAC were being met. The remaining significant environmental challenges include removing the contaminated sediments, and restoring the substantial loss of natural habitat. Table 1 indicates the timeline as planned in the RAP. All the indicated restorations were financed by the EPA and the MDEQ through Great Lakes Legacy Act grants. The management of the Zephyr Wetlands was of particular relevance for AOC restorations. Prior to the cleanup, a needs assessment was conducted by an outreach team. The assessment indicated that nearby residents were concerned about petroleum odors that might arise from the sediment removal. The removal was, therefore, timed to take place in cooler months when resident windows would be closed. In addition, on-site dredgers used an odor suppressing foam. The outreach team also helped alleviate rumors concerning the dangers and effects of the removal. Drone videos of the remediation work were used in schools so students could observe the progress. These techniques helped with the public awareness problems associated with the remediations and are generally applicable to other similar restoration projects.

224

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 1 A timeline for significant activities related to the restoration of BUIs in the Muskegon Lake AOC Date

Accomplishment

1985

Muskegon Lake designated an AOC and the MDER commits to developing and implementing an RAP. PAC established to obtain stakeholder input Stage 1 of the RAP completed MLWP established RAP update is published Revised RAP is published Sediment survey of Muskegon Lake tributaries is complete; MLWP engages stakeholders in identifying potential restoration projects Ruddiman Creek sediment is completed under the Great Lakes Legacy Act MDEQ issues guidance for delisting Michigan’s AOCs; the Habitat Committee of the MLWP issues plan to accelerate the removal of BUIs and to restore habitat MDEQ issues revised guidance for delisting Michigan’s AOCs MDEQ completes “Stage 2 RAP”; US Army Corps of Engineers dredges navigational channel of Muskegon Lake; “restrictions of dredging” remedied and removed from BUI list Division Street Outfall sediment remediation is completed “Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption” and “restrictions on drinking water consumption” remedied and removed from BUI list “Beach closings” remedied and removed from BUI list Zephyr Refinery sediment remediation completed All identified RAP actions completed

1987 Early 1990s 1994 2002 2004

2006 2008

2010 2011

2012 2013

2015 2019 2020

MDER means the Michigan Department of Environmental Resources. MLWP means the Muskegon Lake Watershed Partnership. MDEQ means the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. BUI means “beneficial use impairment”

The Muskegon Lake Watershed Partnership updated the RAP in 1992 and 2002, and also supervise each stage of BUI remediation. The Muskegon Lake AOC is now close to being reclassified as being fully remediated and therefore being delisted. As with other AOCs, contaminated sediment removal posed the initial significant efforts for Muskegon Lake. Four particular areas suffered substantially from toxic sediments: (1) Ruddiman Creek, (2) Division Street Outfall, (3) Zephyr Oil Refinery, and (4) Ryerson Creek:

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

225

• Ruddiman Creek had 90,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated by lead, cadmium, chromium, and PCBs. The removal was completed in 2006 at a cost of $13.5 million. (See Appendix C to this book for a review of these toxins.) • The Division Street Outfall project removed 43,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment polluted with mercury and poisonous hydrocarbons. This project costs $12 million and was completed in 2012. • The Zephyr Oil Refinery—now called the Zephyr Wetlands site— was constructed in the early 1900s. (See Fig. 2.) It is adjacent to the Muskegon River just north of the river’s entrance into Muskegon Lake. The refinery converted crude oil into gasoline and naphtha, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of this oil were spilled into the wetlands. Zephyr built a ditch from the wetlands to bring water closer to the refinery in order to extinguish repeated fires. This water mixed with the oil, ash, and smoke to produce a “muck” that was then deposited back in the wetlands. A total of 50,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated with petroleum and lead and other heavy metals was removed from the wetlands by the Army Corps of Engineers at a cost of $16 million. This removal was completed in October of 2018. • The Ryerson Creek Outfall is on a 12-acre site in the east corner of Muskegon Lake. (See Fig. 2.) It already has new residential developments nearby, but it was formerly contaminated by sawmills and automotive component productions. The contaminated sediment contained heavy metals and other poisons. A total of 14,000 cubic yards will be removed. The cost is projected to be $5.5 million and is funded by the EPA and MDEQ. The removal will be completed in 2022. Table 2 reviews the habitat restoration projects associated with remediating the Muskegon Lake AOC. 3.2

The Ecosystem Action Plan and Commercial Interests

Approximately, $40 million from the Great Lakes Legacy Act, and also from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), were invested in restoring Muskegon Lake between 2002 and 2014. Between 2015 and 2020, an additional $33 million was invested from the same sources. All

226

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 2

Major habitat restoration projects within the Muskegon Lake AOC

Project

Description

Cost

Completion

Bosma and Willbrandt land acquisitions

Acquisition of 95 acres of farmland for restoring wetland and connect it to Muskegon River and Lake Removal of lumber mill debris and restoring 11.4 acres of open water and wetlands Reestablish connection with Muskegon River and restore open water shoreline and wetlands Remove phosphorous sediment from 36 acres of wetlands, restoration of stream bank, and reconnection to Bear Lake Restore 53 acres of wetlands by removing contaminated sediment, restoration of shoreline, and reconnecting with Muskegon River Restoring a 27-acre shoreline area to a nature preserve wetland. It was a sawmill that is now filled with debris

$501,000

2018 and 2019

$2.8 million

2017

$2.6 million

2017

$7.9 million

2018

$7.9 million

2019

$250,000

2021

Lumber mill land restoration

Veterans Memorial Park habitat restoration

Bear Creek Habitat restoration

Lower Muskegon River habitat restoration

Muskegon Lake Nature Preserve

of this was based on sound scientific criteria and was followed by rigorous monitoring to assess the results. Delisting this AOC is now recommended by the Muskegon Lake Watershed Partnership. Building on the progress made in these efforts, the Partnership is now recommending a 2022–2025 Muskegon Lake Ecosystem Action Plan to facilitate further stewardship and monitoring. This Ecosystem Plan will seamlessly replace the RAP as the watershed community’s guiding document for the ecosystem’s management. Its goal is continuous improvement and long-term sustainability. This demonstrates that there might be environmental life after delisting this AOC.

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

227

Isley et al. (2018) provided a cost–benefit analysis of Muskegon Lake’s habitat restoration. They used both an analysis of the incremental values from recreational amenities and an analysis of incremental housing values. The studies indicate that the return on investment was conservatively estimated as approximately 6 to 1 in direct hedonic value ($ value). These direct values did not include multiplier effects, nor option values,8 nor bequest values, nor improved health values, nor reservation demands, nor non-hedonic cultural impacts such as community pride. Despite this narrow valuation method, the analysis indicates that approximately 119% of the remediation costs was returned in improved housing values alone. These analyses also did not consider the health benefits of sediment removal. The value derived from the restoration is, therefore, considerably greater than the 6 to 1 benefit/cost ratio. Muskegon is a port city that supports 400 jobs. In 2008, the port generated $19 million annually in personal income. The value of the bulk commodities shipped through the port (sand, gravel, limestone, cement, concrete, and coal) was $72 million in 2008. In 2016, the coal-fired BC Cobb Power Plant was closed, and with it, 640,000 tons of coal were no longer shipped into the port. With the emphasis being on environmental restoration of the AOC, a relevant question concerns the future economic development of the Muskegon area. Both the Muskegon County Port Advisory Committee and the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission were formed in 2015 for the purpose of influencing the impact of the extensive environmental restoration of the Lake on the region’s economy. The planning document “Muskegon Lake Vision 2020” resulted. In 2015, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission held four separate “forums” with 40–60 attendees at each. These attendees represented the commercial interests of the City and Lake area. The forums concerned the (i) management of natural resources, (ii) the management of recreation, (iii) the future of commerce in the Lake area, and (iv) the residential issues of the Lake area. The attendees discussed the issues in the typical manner of strategic planning sessions, they formed a consensus about resolutions for these issues.

8 Option value refers to those resource developments that open possibilities for future development, especially for housing or recreational opportunities. They might be as yet unrealized, but the possibility has current value.

228

R. M. ROBINSON

The Shoreline Regional Development Commission issued a compendium report: “Muskegon Lake Vision 2020.” The conclusion to that report states, “The citizens of Muskegon County … remember the environmental degradation that. occurred which led to the lake’s designation as a Great Lakes Area of Concern. They have also witnessed the incredible transformation of the lake and surrounding community over the past thirty years as cleanup efforts and new development projects have taken place. During the four public forums, participants shared their passion and love for Muskegon Lake, as well as their desire for it to reach its full potential as a regional economic catalyst. To realize that potential, the community must work together on future development efforts and market/promote the assets of Muskegon Lake. However, understandably, there is a great concern that future development related to Muskegon Lake occurs in a sustainable manner. Maintaining the environmental integrity of Muskegon Lake well into the future was a main theme shared by attendees of all four forums. Participants realized the economic importance of Muskegon Lake and are interested in the potential for future commercial port development.” (See Muskegon Lake Vision 2020, p 47, West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission. Underline was added.)

The participants in the four forums in June 2015 were largely the same at each—40 to 60 participants in each session. In the Natural Resources Forum, “Seventy-three percent of forum participants strongly agreed or agreed that the sustainability of Muskegon Lake’s natural resource assets is a local responsibility.” (Muskegon Lake Vision 2020, p 15, West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission.) As reviewed above, the AOC program provided approximately $75 million in funding for Muskegon Lake’s restoration as organized from federal (EPA and NOAA) and state sources. The program does direct the local PAC to manage these restorations, but the efforts entailed are science based and aimed for environmental restoration. The interests served should be those of the entire ecosystem (the Great Lakes Basin), and the US and Canada as specified by the GLWQA. This directs any economic development to be environmentally supporting. The quotes presented above, however, include terms such as “sustainable,” “to reach its full potential as a regional economic catalyst,” and

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

229

“potential for future commercial port development.” But these are not well-defined terms, and they may have been interpreted by the forums’ participants differently from the interpretations of other local citizens, or regional citizens, or from national interpretations. For example, the housing forum recommended large developments on both the north and south sides of the Lake, and also recommended a wide variety of new housing and restoration of old housing. This sort of development, however, entails overcoming the problems of sewerage management, suburban and urban runoff management, and transportation adequacy, all problems unaddressed by the “Vision 2020” document. Development without resolution of these problems would mean that the restored environmental “assets” would be threatened. Similarly, the recommended industrial and commercial development along the south side of the Lake requires more than just building facilities; it requires management of pollution wastes and transportation that would not further corrupt the environment. Without proper environmental planning, the restorations associated with the AOC program will likely revert to conditions of degradation. The Great Lakes Areas of Concern Program was not intended to be an effort of “lets clean the slate so we can exploit new pollution opportunities.” It was not meant to clean so we can again degrade. Economic benefits surely follow naturally from the environmental restorations, and sustainable development should certainly follow from restoration. But the Great Lakes must not again be envisioned as just a series of locales in search of their own economic prosperity. To say, “the sustainability of Muskegon Lake’s natural resource assets is a local responsibility” can be understood in two ways: (i) local residents and their local government entities must maintain the environmental sustainability of Lake Muskegon, and/or (ii) the environmental governance of Lake Muskegon should not be the responsibility of others outside of the AOC’s local. This latter view is wrong! This approach describes how we came to degrade this globally important resource. The AOC Program overall, and any particular AOC restoration, must fit with the broader goal of maintaining the entire Great Lakes Basin; that is why the US and Canada undertook and funded the GLRI. That is why we are federally funding restorations of these local AOCs. The responsibility of restoration and its maintenance lies both with locals and with state and federal entities.

230

R. M. ROBINSON

4

Conclusion

The Michigan AOCs of Saginaw River and Bay and Muskegon Lake are very different from the urban—suburban AOCs of the Detroit area, or of the unnatural extremely polluted Grand Calumet. Restorations of Saginaw and Muskegon can result in returning areas to a considerable degree of pristineness, to natural wetlands and fish nurseries and spawning grounds populated with a variety of fish and waterfowl. The Saginaw and Muskegon areas are both close to delisting. The former needs resolution of its septic system problem. The latter is now planning for post-delisting with maintenance and management systems having priority. These two AOCs provide examples and lessons of local restoration advocacy organizations and efforts that are robustly relevant at other locales. These lessons include: 1. There may be a need for subsidizing the installation of updated wastewater and sewer systems. 2. The forces of certain types of development might view the restoration as providing new opportunities for environmental degradation. Land-use planning and monitoring of the restored assets will be required to maintain the restored environmental assets. 3. Local environmental restorations must be viewed as serving national and broader demands. Why? Because local environmental problems are only part of the wider environmental necessities.

References Isley, Paul and Elain Sterrett Isley, Carrie Hause, Alan Steinman (2018), “A socioeconomic analysis of habitat restoration in the Muskegon Lake area of concern,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44 (2), April 2018: 330–339. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (1988), Remedial Action Plan for the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern, Lansing, MI: MDNR. Public Sector Consultants (PSC) (2005), Enhancing Fish Passage over Low-head Barrier dams in the Saginaw River Watershed, Lansing, MI: PSC. http:// www.pscinc.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AA9GDFNw08%ed&tabid=65. Public Sector Consultants (PSC) (2012), Status Assessment of the Eutrophication of Undesirable Algae Beneficial Use Impairment in the Saginaw River/Bay Area of Concern, Lansing, MI: PSC.

7

RESTORATION SITES IN MICHIGAN’S LOWER PENINSULA …

231

Public Sector Consultants (PSC) (2018), An Assessment of Failing Septic Systems in the Saginaw Bay Region, (9/17/2018) Stow, Craig. (2014). The Continuing Effects of Multiple Stressors in Saginaw Bay. Journal of Great Lakes Research Supplement 40 (S1): 1–204.

CHAPTER 8

Ohio’s Areas of Concern and Citizen Involvement

1

Introduction to Ohio’s AOCs

Ohio has four areas of concern (AOCs): (i) the lower two miles of the Ashtabula River, (ii) the lower 15 miles of the Black River, (iii) the lower 46.5 miles of the Cuyahoga River, and (iv) the lower 22 miles of the Maumee River. (Fig. 1 illustrates these locations.) All four of these AOCs are reviewed in this chapter. The essential issues examined include the arrangements and roles of the Ohio state agencies in accomplishing the restorations of these severely contaminated localities. Are the scientific and engineering experts of these agencies leading in these local restorations, or are state appointed Administrators, or perhaps citizen advisory committees in the lead? In three of these AOCs (Black River, Cuyahoga River, and the Maumee River), barriers to progress in removal of BUIs occurred due to the pollutions originating outside the official AOCs’ borders, and also perhaps because of some confusion of responsibilities and associated inefficiencies in administration. In response, in 2020 the Ohio EPA (OEPA) reorganized its policies especially for formation and implementation of the AOCs’ remedial action plans (RAPs). To this end, the OEPA’s Lake Erie Program Staff sought to accelerate progress in its restorations by establishing clearer lines of authority and coordination, and it did this via a

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_8

233

234

R. M. ROBINSON

Lake Erie

Michigan I n d i a n a

3

6

2 1

4

7

Ohio

1: Ashtabula and the Ashtabula River AOC 2: Cleveland and Cuyahoga River AOC 3: Lorain and Black River AOC 4: Toledo and Maumee River AOC

5

N

P e n n s y l v a n i a

5: Akron 6: Napoleon 7: Defiance

Fig. 1 Ohio’s AOCs

fourth reorganization of Ohio’s AOC administrative policies since 1988.1 Ohio’s new AOC Program structure and responsibilities were redesigned accordingly. Now the lead state agency in charge is the Ohio Lake Erie Commission which coordinates with the OEPA and other federal, state, and local institutions. This Commission is now led by a Ohio Lake Erie AOC “Program Administrator” who oversees the planning, implementation, and monitoring for all four of Ohio’s AOCs, and it also supervises the particular AOC Coordinators (one for each AOC) who then organize these functions for their respective areas. Note that the Ashtabula AOC achieved delisting prior to this reorganization so that for practical purpose, this AOC is unaffected by the reorganization. For this reason, it is reviewed first. (See the brief appendix to this chapter for a convenient list of acronyms.)

1 See De Wine et al. (2020).

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

2

235

The Ashtabula River AOC

The Ashtabula River flows through the northeast corner of Ohio north of Cleveland. It is 40 miles in length and drains a 137-square-mile watershed. It was heavily polluted through Fields Brook, its most significant tributary, which during the 1940s through the 1970s received toxic discharges from 19 industrial facilities. Fields Brook was a Superfund site. Its cleanup was completed in 2014, and the Ashtabula River AOC was “delisted” in August of 2021. The population of the City of Ashtabula reached its peak in 1960 at 24,559. It has steadily declined since to a low level of 17,975 according to the 2020 census. The demographics indicate that 84.7 percent selfidentified as Caucasian, and 9.8 percent identified as African-American. The city is now essentially a northern suburb of Cleveland with Route 90 providing a ready transportation artery between the cities. The Ashtabula River suffered from the following Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI): • • • • • •

Restriction on fish consumption (removed in 2014), Degradation of fish and wildlife populations (removed in 2014), Loss of fish and wildlife habitat (removed in 2014), Degradation of benthos (removed in 2018), Restrictions of dredging (removed in 2020), and Fish tumors and deformities (removed in 2019).

The Ashtabula River Advisory Council was formed in 1988, and its “Remedial Action Plan” (RAP) was completed in 1991. Following this plan, in 2006 and 2007, 14,000 pounds of highly polluted sediment was removed from the watershed, and this removal included PCBs, radioactive materials, heavy metals, and other contaminants. This removal was partly funded by fourteen industry partners who formed the “Ashtabula River Cooperation Group II.” The partners managing the AOC cleanup included: • • • • •

Ashtabula River Cooperation Group II, Remedial Action Plan Advisory Council, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, City of Ashtabula Port Authority,

236

R. M. ROBINSON

• Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, • Ohio Lake Erie Commission. For this AOC’s cleanup efforts, the citizen and private business support and involvement has been paramount for achieving the level of success that led to the AOC’s “in recovery” and “delisting” classifications. These involvements are indicated by this chapter. The abovementioned citizen advisory organizations began the initial restorations of the Ashtabula River. The City of Ashtabula is located at the mouth of the Ashtabula River in Northeast Ohio. Starting in the early twentieth century, the City’s harbor became important as a significant iron ore and coal port that served the steel plants of the Great Lakes and the inland City of Pittsburg in Pennsylvania. Iron ore from the Masabi Range in Minnesota was shipped to Ashtabula through the Great Lakes. The Norfolk Southern Railroad used the port for its coal piers, which became idle during 2016 due to the collapse of the demand for coal. A long coal ramp, however, is still visible in the harbor. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, the Lower Ashtabula River was widened and deepened to accommodate commercial shipping and shipbuilding. The shoreline was hardened to accommodate industry so that no natural riverbank habitat remained in the lower portion of the river. During the 1950s, growth in the Ashtabula area included an expanding chemical industry. Due to this industry, there was extensive environmental contamination. Consequently, the Ashtabula River and harbor were designated as a significant Superfund site by the US EPA. A multi-year process of cleanup was completed with river dredging in 2012–2014. The Ashtabula River AOC was fully remediated (all BUIs delisted) in 2021, and therefore it was delisted as an AOC. Fields Brook is a significant tributary of the Ashtabula. It intersects the main river close to the Ashtabula’s connection with Lake Erie. In the mid1900s, chemical companies began operating along Fields Brook. It has a 6-square-mile watershed where 19 separate industrial facilities (chemical production and metal fabrication) have operated since 1940. The area became contaminated with mercury, chromium, lead, zinc, PCBs, PAHs, other chlorinated benzene compounds, radioactive uranium, radium, and thorium. (See Appendix C to this book for a review of these toxins.) In 1983, it was designated as a Superfund site, i.e. it was placed on the US EPA’s “National Priorities List” (NPL) for cleanup. Due to the

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

237

severe pollution from Fields Brook and other sources, and the destruction of natural habitat along the river, the lower 2.32 miles of the Ashtabula River’s main branch—from the Twenty-Fourth Street Bridge to the mouth of the River at Lake Erie—was designated an AOC. This encompasses the Outer Harbor and the near Lake Erie shoreline from Walnut Beach west of the river to Lakeshore Park Beach east of the river. (See Fig. 2.) Lake Erie

N

Shoreline Ashtabula Outer Harbor

Lake Erie

Walnut Beach

5½ Slip and Peninsula Detrex Site Fields Brook

Shoreline

Ashtabula River

Jack’s Marine Slip

Turning Basin

East Twenty-Fourth St. Bridge

Fig. 2 Ashtabula River AOC

238

R. M. ROBINSON

2.1

Fields Brook Superfund Site

The Fields Brook Superfund site is comprised of four miles of this brook, plus its nearby confluence with the Ashtabula River. It also included multiple industrial sites. The cleanup included excavation of contaminated sediment and soils, plus the reestablishment of floodplains. For example, in the area known as the “Detrex Corporation site” (see Fig. 2), recovery wells were drilled to allow collection and removal of heavy liquids which contained high levels of volatile and semi-volatile contaminants such as trichloroethylene, hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene. These collection wells allowed the heavy liquids—which sank when they entered groundwater—to be extracted from the soils around the property. About 40,000 gallons of contaminated liquid was removed by this method. In 2003, the cleanup of these Superfund sites was completed. The US EPA, however, monitors the site every few years to assure that contaminants are fully remediated. The next review is scheduled for 2024. 2.2

Other Ashtabula River Restoration Projects

In 1991, the Ashtabula River AOC’s remedial action plan (RAP) was formed by its Advisory Council. This plan set the “5 ½ Slip and Peninsula” as having the highest priority for remediation. This peninsula is owned by the Norfolk Southern Railway. It is an 11-acre site centrally located within the AOC. Between 2009 and 2014, funding from the Brooks Field settlement, the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA), and the GLRI allowed restoration of almost 4,000 linear feet of shoreline and 3.6 acres of upland habitat on this peninsula. Native vegetation such as pawpaw and dogwood were reestablished with the planting of 30,000 emerging wetland plants and 3,800 trees and shrubs. In addition, since excessive silting had occurred which destroyed the fish spawning grounds, restoration included the creation of 2,500 feet of underwater fish shelves, habitat, and spawning grounds with tiers of sand, gravel, and aquatic vegetation. The establishment of this habitat was necessary to remove two BUIs: degraded fish populations, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat. Postproject monitoring showed significant improvement in fish populations throughout the AOC due to this restoration. In addition to the “5½ Slip and Peninsula” cleanups mentioned immediately above, between 2006 and 2007 the GLLA funded the removal of 497,000 cubic yards of polluted sediment from the river. This included

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

239

25,000 pounds of PCBs, low-level radioactive materials, heavy metals, and other pollutants. Hydraulic dredging was used for this removal, and the sediment was moved offsite through a pipeline to a newly created Confined Disposal Facility for processing. A sand cover was placed over the dredged riverbed. This $57.6 million project was funded by the GLLA, the Ashtabula City Port Authority, the Ohio EPA, and a consortium of 14 industry partners. This dredging removed contaminants from the food chain and also provided sufficient water depth for commercial and recreational boating on the river. This addressed the BUI of restrictions on dredging activities. After this sediment removal, in 2008 an additional 133,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment was also removed from the port’s channel for navigational reasons. Jack’s Marine North Slip is adjacent to the Ashtabula navigation channel. This slip is located along the western side of the river, 1.5 miles from the river’s mouth. Sediment (12,000 cubic yards) with elevated PCB levels was removed from the slip and processed. The riverbed was backfilled with six inches of clean sand cover. Sampling in 2011 found the levels of PCBs remained high so that storm sewers that discharged on to the site also had to be remediated. Subsequent surveys (2013, 2014, and 2018) indicated that these PCB contaminations were fully remediated. Table 1 presents summaries of these restoration efforts with completion dates. 2.3

Removal of Ashtabula’s BUIs

All six of the AOC’s BUIs have been removed through the processes outlined in the “State of Ohio Delisting Guidance and Restoration Targets for Ohio Areas of Concern.” (See De Wine et al. 2020.) In 1983, the Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio EPA recommended that fish caught in the lower two miles of the Ashtabula River should not be eaten. This advisory resulted from fish samplings taken between 1978 and 1981, from which 45 toxic compounds were identified, many of which were classified as carcinogens. Bottom fish were found more contaminated than other species in that fish tumors and deformities were particularly found in these bottom fish. The primary causes were the coal dust from the coal processing facility, and the chemical pollutions from the chemical industrial sites along Fields Brook. Significant sediment removals were required to address the four BUIs of restrictions

240

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 1

Ashtabula River AOC Remediation and Restoration Projects

Project

Description

Completion Date

Strategic Navigation Dredging

Funded by GLRI, the Army Corps of Engineers dredged 114,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the navigational channel in the upper and lower river Funded by GLLA, the OEPA and US EPA cleaned up 12,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment and installed a 6-inch sand cover 3,840 linear feet of habitat shelves were installed, and a 3.6-acre upland habitat was created on the peninsula at the midpoint of the AOC Army Corps of Engineers removed 133,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment downstream of the 5th Street Bridge GLLA funded cleanup removed 497,000 cubic yards of sediment contaminated with PCBs

2013

Jack’s Marine North Sediment Cleanup

5 ½ Slip Habitat Restoration

Ashtabula Navigational Dredging

Ashtabula River Sediment Cleanup

2013

2012

2008

2007

on fish consumption, degradation of fish populations, loss of fish habitat, and degradation of benthos. In 2011, tissue samples indicted that fish from the Ashtabula River had lower contaminants than similar species from Lake Erie. Consequently, the restriction on fish consumption BUI was removed in 2014. Fish population indices taken between 2003 to 2013 supported this 2014 removal of the degradation of fish populations BUI . This restoration resulted from the habitat reconstructions at “Jack’s Marine” and at “5 ½ Slip.” The benthos of this river and tributaries had been severely poisoned from the industrial degradations. The removal of toxic sediment was the necessary remedy, but having accomplished this, recovery still takes decades. But since the remedy is completed, the recovery is expected. Consequently, the degradation of benthos BUI was removed in 2018. In addition, having removed the toxic sources, and observing the improvements in fish samples between 2011 and 2018, the fish tumors and

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

241

deformities BUI was removed in 2019. Given the removal of contaminated sediments between 2007 and 2013, and the establishment of the disposal and treatment facility for this contamination, the restrictions on navigational dredging was also removed in 2020. 2.4

Post Delisting Monitoring

The Ohio EPA’s Water Quality Monitoring Program applies across the state. It monitors the water quality for toxins, the fish consumption for poisons, and the dredged materials for contaminations. This type of an inplace monitoring program is required by the International Great Lakes Commission as a condition for delisting. The Commission approved the listings and delisting of the BUIs for this AOC, and for the AOC’s overall delisting in 2021.

3

Ohio’s Paths to Delisting

The International Joint Committee (IJC) defines the delisting standards for AOCs.2 The Ohio Lake Erie Commission and the OEPA interpret these criteria to allow delisting if any of the following are met3 : 1. Restoration targets have been met and follow-up monitoring or other evaluations confirm that the beneficial use has been restored. 2. It can be demonstrated that the BUI is due to natural rather than human causes. 3. It can be demonstrated that the impairment is not limited to the local AOC, but rather is typical of lake-wide, region-wide, or larger area-wide conditions. 4. The impairment is caused by sources outside the AOC. The impairment is not restored, but the impairment classification can be removed or changed to “impairment not due to local sources.” Responsibility for addressing “out of AOC” sources is assigned to another party or program (e.g., Lake-wide Management Plan, TMDLs, health department, or sewerage districts). 2 See “Restoring US Areas of Concern: Delisting Principles and Guidelines” adopted by the US Policy Committee (USPC), December 2001), at https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes-aocs/restoring-great-lakes-areas-concern/. 3 See De Wine et al. 2020.

242

R. M. ROBINSON

If the goal is environmental restoration of a particular AOC, then given the fourth criteria above, the specification of the AOC’s boundaries can be crucial because whether an impairment is caused by factors within or outside the AOC depends on where the boundary is drawn. If a source of pollution is upstream of the boundary, then downstream AOC remediations cannot resolve the problem. This is the reason why the Army Corps of Engineers, for example, does not dredge sediments downstream of pollution sources; it requires that the dredging begin at the farthest upstream pollution source. Another example concerns the agricultural runoff from watershed tributaries outside the AOC. This runoff occurs in the AOCs reviewed below in this chapter. If the intention is environmental restoration, however, then the AOC’s boundaries should be set to include all of the watershed’s pollutions so that the strategies are designed accordingly. If after the AOC is set, the sources of pollution are discovered as coming from outside the boundaries, then logic dictates that the boundaries should be reset. The boundaries have been widened in other AOCs in other states (as documented in other chapters), in Duluth as an example, so that remediation can be achieved. Perhaps this should also be the case in Ohio. Note that the impetus of “criteria 4” presented above is that authority and responsibility for remediation would be designated to local entities outside the AOC. But this may be far from the second-best solution. Why? Because even though there is some federal funding available for control of non-point runoff, considerable federal resources are specifically designated for the AOC’s entities, and alternative local funding might not be adequate to accomplish the task, so it must come from other non-federal sources. This can be difficult to attain. Also, the AOC program is usually well organized and coordinated, including funding for necessary monitoring, and this organization might be lost when authority and responsibility is placed elsewhere outside the AOC. As of 2020, Ohio’s AOCs are directed by the central authority of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC) with its overall AOC Administrator. (See Fig. 3.) Under this Administrator, each of the four separate AOCs now has a Facilitating Committee responsible for managing administrative and secretarial services, for identification and coordination of management actions for remediations of its BUIs, and for coordinating outreach and information sharing with the local communities. These are the actions directed by, and in support of each of the four local Coordinators. These coordinators are located in their respective Ohio EPA District Offices as though they are OEPA officials. They are also responsible for identifying

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

243

funding sources for remediations, for managing the AOC’s budget, and for implementing grants from federal, state, and private sources. Previously, the GLWQA envisioned that the citizen advisory committee for the AOC would approve all remedial action plans (RAPs), but now the remedial action plans in Ohio are organized under the supervision of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission and its overall AOC Program Administrator. The Advisory Committee can review and recommend, but not approve or disapprove. These advisory committees are now to be between 8 and 36 members with the intention of roughly equal representation from (i) local government, (ii) business and industry, (iii) academia and nonprofits, and (iv) the overall public at large. The local AOC Coordinators can also serve as non-voting ex-officio members of the advisory committee. Members of the AOC Facilitating Committee can also serve on the advisory committees.

Ohio Lake Erie Commission

Ohio AOC Program Black River Facilitating Coordinator and Committee

Ashtabula Facilitating Coordinator and Committee

Ashtabula Citizen Advisory Committee Cuyahoga Facilitating Coordinator and Committee

Ashtabula Citizen Advisory Committee

Black River Citizen Advisory Committee

Maumee Facilitating Coordinator and Committee

Maumee Citizen Advisory Committee

Fig. 3 Administrative Structure for Ohio’s AOCs

244

R. M. ROBINSON

The organization of Ohio’s AOC Program is now simplified and clear. Since all of Ohio’s AOCs are on Lake Erie, the state organized the Ohio Lake Erie Commission with AOC Program Staff that supports an overall Administrator who supervises the four local AOC Coordinators and Facilitating Committees. (Fig. 3 depicts the administrative lines of authority.) These Facilitating Committees consist of state and federal agency personnel with other experts who have the backgrounds to solve the problems of restoration. They now organize the RAPs. The Coordinators are housed in OEPA District Offices and should therefore be considered OEPA personnel. These Coordinators also organize and direct the funding sources from federal, state, and local government and private sources. Note that the US EPA still has overall approval of its project funding, and the International Great Lakes Commission has overall approval of all BUI recognition and delisting. Hence we have a separation of authority and possibly a barrier to communication. A simplified state organization might, therefore, still pose some difficulties for restoration. Most notable is the possible expectation to “perform quickly or be replaced by political authorities.” A possible question is then, “Do we organize our bureaucracies so as to restore the environment or to make it easier to push responsibilities onto others in order to meet political demands?” The incentives for behavior in such a bureaucratic structure should be to encourage environmental restoration.

4

Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River AOC

Cleveland is in northeastern Ohio along the southern shore of Lake Erie. In 2020, its urban population was 372,624. It has been declining in population since 1950 when it peaked at 914,808. In the 2020 census, 40 percent self-identified as non-Hispanic Caucasian, 48.8 percent identified as African-American, and 2.6 percent identified as Asian. Cleveland, however, is at the center of a large Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which consists of five counties: Cuyahoga (which encompasses the City), Geauga, Lake, Lorain, and Medina Counties. The MSA population was 2,088,251 in 2020. In 1950, the MSA population was 1,680,736 so that unlike the City of Cleveland, its population has increased since 1950. In 2020, the population of the MSA self-identified as 71.1 percent Caucasian (non-Hispanic) and 12 percent African-American. These demographic

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

245

statistics indicate a “white flight” from the city to its suburbs. The AfricanAmerican minority was disproportionately left behind in the degraded environment. This is the essential issue of environmental justice, and it is impacted by the areas of concern program not only in Cleveland but in the other urban areas examined in this book (Detroit in Michigan, Gary in Indiana, Milwaukee in Wisconsin, Buffalo in New York, and Toledo in Ohio). Two of the more needed restorations of areas of concern occurred in the Northeast Ohio area: the Cuyahoga River of Cleveland Ohio, and the Ashtabula River of Ashtabula Ohio, a city just northeast of Cleveland. These were among the first AOC restoration efforts. Both were heavily industrialized rivers in port cities along the south shore of Lake Erie. Both rivers served the historic “rust-belt” industries with sites that were abandoned and replaced by the new cleaner industrial technologies developed at new locations during the last fifty years. The twenty-first century now demands cleaner environments for business to thrive in; hence the “rustbelt” tag indicates the abandoned relics of legacy industries. After their restorations, both of these urban areas (Cleveland and Ashtabula) have experienced rapid economic development as indicated by the regional statistics presented in this chapter, but the abandoned contaminated sites remain. The Cuyahoga River flows through the middle of Cleveland. Its watershed extends east of Lake Erie for 30 miles with numerous tributary creeks.4 The total meandering length of the River is 100 miles. It once flowed through the heart of a heavily industrialized Cleveland, which is now substantially renovated. Over its history, the oils floating on this River caught fire at least 13 times, the first time in 1868, and the most damaging in 1952 when a bridge, an office building, and various boats were destroyed. The political culture began to change in the 1960s when a new mayoral administration rallied voters to approve a $100 million bond issue to rehabilitate Cleveland’s rivers. In June of 1969, however, a spark from a passing rail car ignited an oil slick on the River, and the news media responded to raise citizen’s attention even though the immediate damage was slight. The publicity from this 1969 Cuyahoga River 4 The Cuyahoga’s significant tributaries include Big Creek, West Creek, Mill Creek, Tinkers Creek, Sagamore Creek, Chippewa Creek, Brandywine Creek, Furnace Run, Yellow Creek, Sand Run, Mud Brook, Euclid Creek, Doan Brook, and Dugway-NinemileGreen Creeks.

246

R. M. ROBINSON

fire helped stimulate the US’ national politics for restoring the environment. The early 1970s’ legislation—creation of the US EPA, passage of the “Clean Water Act”, creation of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, and passage of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement—were all responses to the perceived environmental crisis. In addition, the initial actions of the EPA were to sue several Cleveland area companies for severely polluting the Cuyahoga River.5 (See Chapter 2 for a review of the EPA’s early actions.) Also, in 1987 the Cuyahoga and its watershed was listed as an area of concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA).6 An important aspect of the Cuyahoga River’s restoration story concerns the strength of Cleveland’s citizen involvement. For example, when it came time to mark the 50th anniversary of the notorious fire (June of 1969), people from Northeast Ohio rallied to commemorate their cleanup efforts. Over 300 organizations, municipalities, agencies, and corporate partners who assisted in the effort came together to create “Cuyahoga 50” and the “Xtinguish Celebration.” Throughout 2019, events celebrated the awareness of how far the Cuyahoga progressed in its recovery, and especially to celebrate the citizen’s efforts as strategically important to the environmental movement. The Cuyahoga actually became an “icon for the environmental movement,” a lesson for what citizens could accomplish in local restorations. The Cuyahoga River watershed was degraded by toxic sediment, streambank erosion, municipal and agriculturally polluted discharges, and legacy industrial toxins. Along with this, its stream banks were hardened to serve industry. All this manifested a destruction of those attributes of Cleveland’s natural habitats which are necessary for the psychic benefits of a healthy human dwelling and interaction. 4.1

The Cuyahoga AOC

The Cuyahoga AOC was established in 1988. Its boundaries (see Fig. 4) include the lower 46 miles of the river from the Ohio Edison Gorge Dam to Lake Erie. It includes 10 miles of Lake Erie shoreline from Edgewater Park on the west side of Cleveland to Wildwood Park on

5 See Chapter 2, section “7.1”. 6 See Chapter 3, section “3”.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

247

the east side. It includes watershed drainages in five counties (Cuyahoga, Lake, Geauga, Portage, and Summit Counties). It also includes Cuyahoga Valley National Park, which is located along 22 miles of the river between Akron and Cleveland. The Cuyahoga River watershed was degraded by industrially contaminated sediments, plus the illegal bypassing of sewerage processing systems, plus the combined storm and sanitary sewer runoffs during heavy rains,

Lake Erie

N

Cleveland

13

Lower Cuyahoga River 1

12

East Branch

Mill Creek

2 9

Big Creek

West Branch

3 11

Tinkers Creek 10

Chippewa Creek

7 5

4

Upper Cuyahoga

River 8

Yellow Creek (Pond Brook) Akron

6

Little Cuyahoga 1: Old Ship Canal 2: Federal Ship Channel 3: Cascade Valley View 4: Station Rd. Bridge 5: Brecksville Dam 6: Gorge Dam 7: Cuyahoga Valley National Park Boundary

Fig. 4 Cuyahoga River AOC

8: Cuyahoga River falls 9: West Creek Flume Spillway 10: Brandywine Creek Restoration 11: East Boston Mills Floodplain 12: Edgewater Park 13: Wildwood Park

248

R. M. ROBINSON

and by agriculturally polluted stormwater runoffs. A key focus of restoration is the remediation of habitat for fish and wildlife. This includes the removal of dams that inhibit fish passage between Lake Erie and spawning grounds along tributaries of the Cuyahoga. It also includes restoration of stream banks through the replacement of hardened industrial walls with natural vegetation. The International Joint Commission for the Great Lakes (under the GLWQA) recognized the following BUIs for the Cuyahoga River AOC: • • • • • •

restrictions on fish consumption (removed in 2019), degradation of fish and wildlife populations, fish tumors and deformities, degradation of benthos, restrictions on navigational dredging, eutrophication and undesirable algae growth (removed in 2021), beach closings (removed in 2018), • degradation of aesthetics (removed in 2017), and • loss of fish habitat. The Cuyahoga River Restoration Committee (formerly the Cuyahoga River Community Planning Committee) is a not-for-profit NGO created by the Ohio EPA in 1988. It acts under the Cuyahoga AOC Coordinator as the Advisory Committee for the AOC. Its purpose is to provide the expertise necessary for the AOC’s restoration projects, and to facilitate funding for these projects. For this purpose, it has four subsidiary organizations: • Habitat for Hard Places also improves the aquatic habitat along the five-mile industrial and commercial ship channel. • Cuyahoga ReLeaf reforests and revegetates riparian areas to support aquatic habitat upstream of the ship channel. • DePave NEO removes impervious hard-paved surfaces and replaces it with native vegetation for the purpose of reducing non-point storm runoffs. • American Heritage River implements various community-based projects within the watershed.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

249

These projects, or “management actions,” were largely funded by the GLRI as consistent with the criteria of at least 35 percent of funding coming from non-federal matching sources. These projects seek to restore the habitats along the Cuyahoga and Little Cuyahoga Rivers, West Creek, and their surrounding wetlands and floodplains. They include restoring oxbow wetlands, restoring eroded river and stream banks, restoring floodplains, and removing dams. Many of these “actions” will help reduce flood damage from heavy storms. But there are also two major contaminated sediment projects now being planned. These two major contaminated sediment projects are funded by the GLRI. They include: (1) the “Cuyahoga Old River Shipping Channel” project at the terminus of the old Cleveland shipping channel near Lake Erie, and (2) the “Cuyahoga River Gorge” project on the upper river between Akron and Cuyahoga Falls. Both areas contain sediments contaminated by PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals, pesticides, and other pollutions. The Cuyahoga River Gorge project will remove the Gorge Dam. After this dam removal, a free-flowing river will be reestablished for 1.5 miles behind the current dam site. This will improve the fish and wildlife habitat and enhance the aesthetic and recreational opportunities within the AOC. Actions for both of these projects will begin in 2023. Once located in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (see Fig. 4), the Brecksville Dam has already been removed. This was originally a wooden dam built in 1827 to divert water from the Cuyahoga into the Ohio and Erie Canal. The dam was covered with concrete in the 1950s to enable the diversion of water to industry. In May of 2020, the dam was removed to allow fish passage, and also to reduce sedimentation and turbidity, and to improve recreational opportunities. The removal was funded by the GLRI ($800,000) and state and local sources ($900,000). This removal was an AOC priority among state and federal agencies and the AOC’s partners. The Cascade Valley View habitat restoration remediated a 50-acre floodplain along the middle Cuyahoga River. This project removed berms, established rock-riffles, and reestablished native trees and other vegetation along a mile of the river’s shoreline. Together with the removal of the Gorge Dam, this will improve fish migrations for steelhead, muskellunge, walleye, and lake sturgeon (the latter being endangered in the Great Lakes). Spawning grounds have been reestablished by sediment removal and then placement of new gravel and sand. The Cascade Valley

250

R. M. ROBINSON

View project’s funding ($3.7 million) is from NOAA and GLRI, and is managed locally by the Summit Metro Parks. Table 2 lists the various habitat remediation projects; it also presents a brief description of the projects and their completion dates (or estimated completion dates). The “partners” in these restoration efforts include: • • • • • • • •

The National Park Service: Cuyahoga Valley National Park, The US Fish and Wildlife Service, The Cuyahoga River Advisory Committee, The Ohio EPA—Lake Erie, and Cuyahoga River Watershed, The Pond Brook Watershed Initiative, NOAA, The US Army Corps of Engineers, and Various Ohio municipality agencies.

As reviewed above, the Cuyahoga River AOC’s Citizen Advisory Committee acts to support the AOC’s Coordinator and Facilitating Committee, and also to be a communication conduit to the public. It consists of 36 members. It is facilitated by the Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District. It reviews and comments on the strategic plans for addressing BUI removals. It does not, however, have approval authority over the actions taken. For 2022, these 36 members represent: • 13 representatives of local government such as Cleveland Metropark, Cuyahoga County Board of Health, County Planning Commissions, Ohio Lake Commission, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio EPA, the Northeast Ohio Sewer District, and other agencies, • 6 representatives of federal government agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Park Service, • 3 representatives of environmental advocacy NGOs such as the West Creek Conservancy and the Cleveland Foundation, • 1 academic representative from the Ohio Sea Grant Program, • 10 representatives of consulting companies and contractor companies such as ecological service contractors, and shipping and transportation companies, • 3 other representatives of the public at large.

8

Table 2

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

251

Habitat Restoration Projects for Cuyahoga River AOC

Project Title

Brief description

Completion

Old Channel Sediment Removal

Contaminated sediment from the Old Channel section of the river is removed and remediated Gorge Dam will be deconstructed and 900,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment behind the dam will be removed The historic Brecksville Dam will be deconstructed and habitat will be restored This consists of reforestation of 50 acres of floodplain and 1 mile of shoreline. It also includes fish habitat reconstruction This requires an evaluation of the possibility of streambank restoration along the Mayfield Sands More than a mile of stream habitat will be cleared for fish passage A conceptual plan for the shoreline and floodplain restoration will be formed The Army Corps of Engineers will remove a large spillway structure at a highway and railroad crossing to improve critical fish passage The Army Corps of Engineers will recreate the floodplains along a mile of stream and restore wetlands along the river The Port of Cleveland will create a new floodplain and wetlands adjacent to the brownfields adjacent to the Federal Ship Channel The Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service will restore the shoreline areas upstream of the Brecksville Dam removal site in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. This is a GLRI funded project

2024 (estimated)

Gorge Dam Removal and Sediment Removal

Canal Diversion Dam Removal

Cascade Metropark Valley View Habitat Restoration

Mayfield Sands Feasibility Study

West Creek Flume Spillway

Brandywine Creek Restoration

East 185’th St. Spillway

East Boston Mills Ski Area

Green Bulkhead and Habitat Restoration

Station Road

2024 (estimated)

2022 (estimated)

2021

2020

2023 (estimated)

2022 (estimated)

2024 (estimated)

2023 (estimated)

2023 (estimated)

2022 (estimated)

(continued)

252

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 2

(continued)

Project Title

Brief description

Completion

Little Cuyahoga River and Memorial Parkway

Stream reconstruction, floodplain restoration, streambank regeneration with native vegetation, and dam removal along stretches of the Little Cuyahoga will be completed

2025 (estimated)

The ten representatives from the contracting and consulting businesses were either directly or indirectly involved in the restorations. This committee approved the submission for removals of the degradation of aesthetics BUI in 2017, restrictions on fish consumption BUI in 2019, and the undesirable algae growth BUI in 2021. The nuisance algae BUI resulted from combined sewer overflows after severe storms. Combined sewers are the combinations of sanitary sewers and storm water sewers. During severe storms, the storm water overcomes the system and caused the sanitary sewers to leak into the stormwater drainage. Consequently, the untreated sewerage runs into the river. This feeds the algae growth which depletes the dissolved oxygen within the waters of the AOC. This creates dead zones for fish, and also causes beach closings. Remediations require that the stormwater drainage system be separated from the sanitary sewers. For this AOC, this was accomplished prior in 2011. Between 2011 and 2018, the Ohio EPA (OEPA), the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD), and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) collected a series of dissolved oxygen data at 13 different sites along the Cuyahoga River. The data indicated that the AOC no longer had either eutrophication or nuisance algae problems, and this particular BUI was delisted in 2021. The OEPA’s standards for the beach closings BUI are also linked to nuisance algae. For delisting this BUI, the beach closings must not exceed 10 percent of the recreational season in 3 of the previous 5 seasons. Beach closings occur when either bacteria or algal toxins exceed Ohio’s limits as set by OEPA. The beaches within the AOC have not met these standards. The river downstream from Akron still receives combined sewer overflows. This problem has yet to be remediated by the NEORSD.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

253

The Cuyahoga River has numerous tributaries. The fish and wildlife habitats currently meet standards for 16 of 18 sub-watersheds. But the planned dam removals will improve habitat throughout the entire watershed so that the degraded fish and wildlife habitat and the degraded fish population BUIs are progressing toward delisting. The Pond Brook and Little Cuyahoga are the sub-watersheds in most need of remediation. Testing performed by the US Army Corps of Engineers indicate that 20 percent of the sediment within the ship channel of the Cuyahoga River does not meet the standards established by the OEPA. This sediment must be removed and placed in a Contamination Disposal Facility. The cost of this remediation must currently be paid by the state and local entities. This funding poses the remaining barrier to delisting of the restrictions on navigational dredging BUI. The Dredging Task Force (Army Corps of Engineers, the Port of Cleveland, the Ohio EPA, and the US EPA) meet regularly to find resolution to this funding problem. In 7 of the 18 sub-watershed areas of the AOC, the benthos is highly degraded. The OEPA’s standards for benthos are not being met so that improved management actions are required before the degradation of benthos BUI is delisted. In addition, studies are still underway on fish tumors and deformities so that this BUI is also under remediation efforts. Given these remaining impairments, the Cuyahoga AOC is still in remediation. The reorganized lines of authority might assist with this restoration in that sewerage problems from Akron (outside the AOC) that flow into the Cuyahoga Watershed might be finally resolved by the state. Also, the removal and treatment of the contaminated sediment from Cleveland’s “ship channel” might finally be funded. These actions would substantially contribute to this AOC’s restoration.

5

Toledo and the Maumee River AOC

Toledo is Ohio’s fourth most populous city. Its port is the fifth busiest on the Great Lakes. It is sixty miles south of the City of Detroit. Its growth started in the mid-nineteenth century with the completion of the Miami and Erie Canal, which opened the interior of Ohio’s agriculture to Great Lakes shipping. After 1850, Toledo became a railroad hub of significance for the US Midwest. In the 1920s, both General Motors and Chrysler Motors constructed automobile assembly plants in this city. Willys Jeeps for the US Army were manufactured in Toledo during World War II. Toledo also became a major glass manufacturing center, especially for

254

R. M. ROBINSON

automobile glass. The City’s population peaked in 1970 at 383,818. Since then, it has experienced a steady and consistent decline to its 2020 level of 270,871.7 In 2020, its census indicates 70.2 percent self-identified as Caucasian, and 23.5 percent identified as African-American. The Maumee River flows through the center of Toledo. The City’s shipping facilities are on the river. The Maumee River originates in the area east of Fort Wayne in Indiana. It flows 137 miles through northeast Indiana and northwest Ohio, and also through the small cities of Defiance and Napoleon before reaching Toledo. Its upriver watershed is approximately two-thirds agricultural, mostly corn and soybeans. It is a breadbasket of the Midwest, and the largest watershed that feeds Lake Erie, i.e. it provides five percent of the total water flow into Lake Erie. Prior to its agricultural development, the Maumee River watershed was part of the Great Black Swamp, which once covered the entire current watershed with forests, wetlands, grasslands, fish, and aviary wildlife habitat. (Fig. 5 illustrates the watershed). 5.1

Maumee River AOC

The Maumee River AOC encompasses 787 square miles which include ten sub-watersheds that drain into the river. This AOC includes only the lower 22.8 miles of the river, and also Maumee Bay on Lake Erie. (See Fig. 5.) Its ten tributaries, and therefore sub-watersheds, include: Ottawa River, Swan Cree, Grassy Creek, Duck Creek, Otter Creek, Cedar Creek, Crane Creek, Turtle Creek, Packer Creek, and Toussaint River. For more than a century and a half, the Maumee AOC has been the site of agricultural, industrial, and municipal development. Unregulated waste disposal, contamination from old legacy industrial dumps, toxic industrial sites, combined sewer overflows, inappropriate disposal of dredged materials, and plus agricultural runoff all led to the lower Maumee River being classified as an AOC in 1987. The contamination includes heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs. (See Appendix C for a review of these toxins.) For example, due to PCBs and other poisons, the Ottawa River had a “no contact advisory” for over 25 years. Also, more than 90 percent of the

7 After 1970, according to Census data, the smallest decade decline rate was 5.7 percent (between 2010 and 2020), and the largest rate of decline was 8.4 percent (between 2000 and 2010).

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

255

N Michigan

Lake Erie

2 1 4

1 8

Toledo

7 9

6

1 3

Maumee River

5

AOC Boundary 1: Maumee Bay 2: Ottawa River 3: Oak Openings 4: Swan Creek 5: Toussaint Creek

6: Otter Creek 7: Town of Oregon 8: Howard Marsh 9: Toussaint Wildlife Area 10: Sandhill Crane Wetlands 11: Maumee State Forest

Fig. 5 Maumee River AOC

natural wetlands of the current Toussaint Wildlife Area had previously been filled. This AOC’s environmental problems stem from both sediment contamination and agricultural runoff. The latter pollution caused poisonous algae blooms that caused dead zones on Lake Erie. In 2006, the AOC’s initial RAP was formed. It identified 10 BUIs:

256

R. M. ROBINSON

• Added costs to agriculture and industry: This was removed in 2015. • Restrictions of fish consumption: This BUI was due to PCBs and heavy metal contaminations in sediments. • Undesirable algae growth: This caused persistent water quality problems such as dead zones in Lake Erie. • Degradation of fish and wildlife populations: This is based on comparisons with areas of low contamination. • Beach closings: These occur largely due to bacteria caused by combined sewer overflows. • Fish tumors or other deformities: These are caused by PCBs and other contaminants in the sediments and waters. • Degradation of aesthetics: These include oil slicks, other surface scum, combined sewer overflows, and poisonous algae blooms. • Degradation of benthos: First documented in the 1950s, this is attributed to contaminated sediments, contaminated industrial sites, and combined sewer overflows. • Restrictions on dredging: Contaminated sediment is spread through navigational channel dredging. • Loss of natural habitat: Restoration requires removing stream barriers, restoring hardened shorelines, and reestablishing native vegetations on shorelines 5.2

Restorations Within the AOC

There are six significant restorations undertaken within this AOC: Howard Marsh, Otter Creek, Ottawa River, Swan Creek, Toussaint Marsh and Wildlife Area, and Wolf Creek and Oregon Complex. Some of these are still ongoing and some have been completed. Howard Marsh Metropark is owned by Toledo Metroparks. It is a 987-acre property near Lake Erie in Lucas County. It is a former coastal marsh that was drained in the 1930s and 1940s for conversion into agricultural land. In 2018, 732 acres were converted back to a wetland habitat that included a reconnection with Lake Erie to enable fish passage. This new marsh filters agricultural runoff before it reaches Lake Erie, and it also provides aviary and fish habitat. The cost of this conversion was $8 million paid by a consortium of Ducks Unlimited, Metroparks Toledo, GLRI, and NOAA. An additional 255 acres will be converted to wetland in the Spring of 2022.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

257

Otter Creek flows southwest to northeast through the cities of Toledo and Oregon before emptying into Maumee Bay. It is entirely within the Maumee AOC. The lower 11.7 miles of this creek has been highly industrialized with a railroad yard, oil refineries, and closed landfills. Municipal and industrial storm water outfalls continue to flow into the creek. Between 2006 and 2019, the US EPA investigated conditions within the creek and found high levels of PAHs and diesel range fuels. Remediation required that contaminated sediment be removed from Otter Creek and its confluence with Maumee Bay. Hydraulic dredging was used which vacuumed the sediment and then pumped it through an underwater pipe to the nearby Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority’s confined disposal facility. A one-foot cover of sand, rock, and benthos was then placed over the creek bed. Habitat improvements included the placement of logs, woody material, brush piles, and underwater vegetation. The cost of the project was $12 million with $4.7 million contributed by three “industrial partners.” The GLRI funded the remaining amount. This Otter Creek project was completed at the end of August in 2021. Over 54,000 cubic yards of sediment was removed and processed. Ottawa River is on the northwest side of Toledo. Because of improper waste disposal, over the twentieth century the Ottawa River became one of the more contaminated waterways draining into the Great Lakes. Together with the US EPA, the Ottawa River Group of seven industry partners together with the City of Toledo organized the funding for removal of 250,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment along 5.6 miles of the river. The dredging occurred between August and December of 2009. Comparative tests in 2010 and 2018 indicated significant improvement in the river’s water quality. The river’s “no contact advisories” were removed in 2018. The total cost of this project was $47.2 million with 50 percent paid by non-federal sources. But in 2019, a new NOAA Partnership with the Great Lakes Commission began, i.e. the Urban Waters Federal Partnerships. (See Chapter 11.) This partnership was aimed at habitat restoration. With this funding, the Ottawa River project created 8.5 acres of emergent wetlands and 6.7 acres of submergent coastal wetland, all located along the river. This includes the restoration of 2.7 acres with native vegetation, plus the stabilization of streambanks and streamside buffers in Jermain Park. This sort of buffer along the streams that flow through parks are being developed to prevent turf-supporting chemicals (particularly fertilizers) from leaching into streams and then flowing into the Great Lakes and stimulating algae

258

R. M. ROBINSON

blooms. In the Fall of 2021, a similar remediation project for the Collins Park Stream Restoration was also begun for Duck Creek, which is located within a Toledo municipal golf course. These efforts are all within the Ottawa River watershed. It should be noted that NOAA also funded a $175,000 project for reestablishing the Confined Disposal Facility for remediation of the dredged contaminated sediment. This required that the dredged material be stored in “geotubes,” which are large lined-bags that allow water to exit while keeping the dredged sediment contained. The wastewater is also confined within the facility and processed. (Note that the dredging of contaminated sediment cannot proceed unless these Confined Disposal Facilities are available and functioning.) The restoration of the Toussaint State Wildlife Area was completed in October of 2021. This 125-acre former private hunt club consisted of five individual wetland areas separated by a series of man-made levees. The area is now managed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. The levees were removed or reshaped, and two new fish passages were installed. A pumping station has been replaced so that water levels can be stabilized. The original funding of $2.7 million was from GLRI, but the final phase of this restoration required $1.3 million from NOAA and Ducks Unlimited. The Sandhill Crane Wetlands is a 280-acre former farmland adjacent to the Kitty Todd Nature Preserve. This acreage was originally wetland (part of the Black Swamp) before being drained for farmland. This conversion back to wetlands also linked 13,000 acres of upland and “wet prairie lands” of the Oak Opening Conservation Area. (See below and also see Fig. 5.) It therefore serves both wildlife conservation and floodplain reestablishment. To accomplish this, 30 miles of agricultural drainage tile will be removed; 7,000 native trees will be planted; and more that 200 native species of grass will be seeded. This project is led and funded by The Nature Conservancy, Bowling Green State University, The University of Toledo, Metroparks Toledo, and GLRI .8 This project is currently underway. As part of the Maumee State Forest, over 100 acres of unique “Oak Openings Habitat” (a globally rare ecosystem) were restored from former 8 For a virtual tour of these areas, see “The Nature Conservancy Newsroom: The Nature Conservancy in Ohio to Retore Vital Wetlands” at www.nature.org/en-us/new sroom/ohio-conservancy-restores-wetlands.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

259

agricultural land in order to create quality habitat for native plants and wildlife. The Maumee State Forest Project includes 113 acres of which 75 acres were previously drained for farmland, but 38 acres remain as woodland. The habitat in the Maumee River area was formerly oakdominated woodlands unique to northwest Ohio. The purpose of the project is to reestablish this unique habitat for migratory and resident wildlife. This project restores a more natural hydrology to the area by altering or removing agricultural drainage tiles. It also removes invasive species and reestablished native trees and vegetations. Through these actions, the “Oak Openings habitat”—especially its aviary habitat—will be restored. This project is led by, and funded by, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources , The Nature Conservancy, the US EPA, and the GLRI . In addition to the Maumee State Forest restorations, the Oak Openings Conservation Area remediates 30 acres in four separate tracts. This acreage was restored to protect habitat for various threatened and endangered species and to connect neighboring protected lands. This restoration is in western Lucas County and was acquired by Metroparks Toledo. The “Oak Openings habitat” is one of Ohio’s most biologically diverse regions, with one-third of the state’s rare plant and animal species found in a relatively small area. The regions natural communities have been altered through drainage, agriculture, and urban expansion. But preservation and restoration of the “Oak Openings” provides protection for threatened and endangered species. It also reconnects habitats by creating corridors between preserves. It also improves hydrology by creating wetlands, floodplains, and uplands that drain into the Maumee River’s tributaries. This project is funded through a collaboration between The Nature Conservancy, the US EPA, Metroparks Toledo, and the GLRI . 5.3

Representative Management for the Maumee AOC

As reviewed in Section 3 above, the Ohio Great Lakes Commission—the state’s management agency in charge of Ohio’s AOCs—established standards for its AOC Advisory Committees. As reviewed in that section, these committees are required to have at least 8 members of roughly equal representation from (i) local governments, (ii) business and industry, (iii) academia and nonprofits, and (iv) the public at large. Note that this committee’s responsibility is strictly advisory as to which projects would be undertaken. The Maumee AOC’s Coordinator and Ohio Lake

260

R. M. ROBINSON

Erie AOC Administrator ultimately make the decisions concerning projects and post-completion monitoring. The Advisory Committee does, however, have the responsibility for understanding and communicating the AOC’s actions and progress to the larger public. The Maumee Advisory Committee divides its membership into voting, non-voting ex-officio, and non-voting resource members. The latter represent the expertise of government agencies, nonprofits, and academia. Voting members must pay annual dues. Currently there are 8 voting members: • one who represents a nonprofit (The Nature Conservancy), • one public at large member, • three from business and industry (all three from environmental engineering companies doing business within the AOC), and • three from local government agencies within the AOC. The other seventeen non-voting members represent OEPA, NOAA, OLEC, US F&W, Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA, USGS, the International Great Lakes Commission, the US Forest Service, academia (1 member), and ODNR (3 members). The categorizations of the eight voting members do not appear to indicate “roughly equal” representation given that three of the eight are from the engineering/consulting companies. (Three of eight can represent a strong voting block.) In addition, these three are doing business within the AOC which appears to present a possible conflict of interest. (See the Rawlsian criteria for fair and reasoned decisions as reviewed in Chapter 3.) For example, they might present the activities of their represented organizations in a positive but biased light, and therefore weaken the Committee’s ability to oversee their activities. Also, being on this Committee gives the three companies opportunities for insights and arrangements of possible contracts prior to competitive bidding. The “resource members,” however, do represent the expertise required for the science and engineering demanded by the restoration tasks. A review of the Committee’s “minutes” of their periodic meetings reflect their extensive technical presentations concerning these restoration projects.9 As a

9 For the Committee’s agendas and minutes of their meetings, see https://maumee aoc.org.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

261

result, the Committee appears to be well informed. These presentations primarily came from the experts among the “resource members” who come from government agencies.

6

The Black River of Lorain, Ohio

Lorain Ohio is a small city on Lake Erie at the mouth of the Black River, about 30 miles southwest of Cleveland. (See Fig. 1.) Lorain’s population was 65,211 as measured by the 2020 census. The city’s peak population was 78,185 in 1970. Its demographics indicate 67.9 percent Caucasian, and 17.6 percent African-American. It appears to be a typical rust-belt city of urban decay as found along the Great Lakes. The mainstream of the Black River is formed in the City of Elyria with the confluence of the River’s East and West branches. It generally flows northward for twelve miles to form Lorain’s harbor which is about three miles in length. The American Shipbuilding Company, the Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant, and a US Steel mill and a Republic Steel mill are all located on the river south of the harbor. The pollution of the Black River has been so severe that it was once known as the “river of fish tumors.” (See Fig. 6.) 6.1

The Black River AOC

The Black River watershed includes intense agriculture, heavy industry, and urban areas which all added severe pollution to the river. It was named an area of concern (AOC) in 1987. Since the early twentieth century, the river was used as a conduit for Lorain’s industry, and was degraded by industrial effluent containing heavy metals and PAHs, plus urban stormwater runoffs with combined sewer overflows, and agricultural runoff from the upper watershed. The Black River AOC encompasses (i) its entire 15 miles below its East and West Branch confluence, (ii) the French Creek watershed, (iii) the Outer Harbor between the east and west breakwater structures on Lake Erie, and (iv) the shoreline area between Century Park Beach, located east of the river’s mouth, and Lakeview Park Beach, located west of the river mouth. (See Fig. 6.) The Black River’s sediment was severely contaminated with heavy metals and PAH discharges from the steel mills that largely ceased operations in the early 1980s. For example, in 1994, the US EPA forced US

262

R. M. ROBINSON

Lake Erie

1

7

Lorain

6

N

11

8

2

10

3 French Creek

Black River Metro Park

Black River

4

9 5 West Branch 1: Confined Disposal Facility 2: US Steel Site 3: Thirty-First St. Bridge 4: Black River State Reservation 5: Republic Steel Site 6: Lakewood Park Beach

Elyria

East Branch 7: Century Park Beach 8: Outer Harbor 9: Ford Road Landfill 10: Norfolk and Western Bridge 11: Twenty-First St. Henderson Rd. Bridge

Fig. 6 Black River AOC

Steel to remove 50,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from a 0.8mile segment of the river near its closed production facility. The area has been monitored by the EPA since the removal. In addition, there are two sites under remediation in Elyria: the Ford Road Industrial Landfill site and the Republic Steel Quarry Superfund site.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

263

The Ford Road Industrial Landfill is a 15-acre inactive facility on the edge of Elyria. The Black River runs along the east side of the landfill. Several industries dumped industrial waste there until the landfill was closed in 1974. The EPA found that contaminated liquids (PCB contaminated motor oils) were seeping from the landfill into the river. The responsible parties were identified, and remediation work capped the landfill and installed a sedimentation pond to catch further runoff. The site is under long-term monitoring by the EPA. The Republic Steel Quarry Superfund Site is near the Black River in Elyria. It is a 5-acre quarry filled with water and surrounded by a fence that encloses a 7-acre area. From 1950 to 1975, Republic Steel discharged 200,000 gallons per day of wastewater into the quarry. The wastewater contained heavy metals. In 1986, the quarry and surrounding land was placed on EPA’s “National Priority List,” i.e. the Superfund list. The cleanup consisted of removing soils and sediments, plus the monitoring of the groundwater and health of fish. The remediation was completed in 2002. EPA monitoring occurs every five years. The Black River AOC has nine beneficial use impairments (BUIs): • • • • • • • • •

restrictions on fish and consumption (removed in 2017), eutrophication and undesirable algae growth (removed in 2017), degradation of fish and wildlife populations, beach closings, fish tumors and deformities, degradation of Aesthetics (removed in 2021), degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging activities (removed in 2022), loss of fish and wildlife habitat. 6.2

Additional Restoration Projects for Black River AOC

After 1970, economic and societal factors forced fundamental changes along the Black River. The industrial base deteriorated and jobs were lost. In December of 2009, an Ecological Restoration Master Plan was composed for the AOC by its “RAP Advisory Committee.” This committee consisted of the US EPA, the OEPA, and other local state and federal agency representatives. This ecological plan recognized the real costs of pollution, and the necessity of natural areas and greenspaces

264

R. M. ROBINSON

for recovery of property values. This plan was divided into three sections: (1) restoration actions, (2) enhancement actions, and (3) protection actions. The specific planned actions are presented and briefly reviewed by Tables 3, 4 and 5. The various “actions” were to be undertaken as funding became available. Of this AOC’s areas under restoration, almost one-third of the total acreage is publicly owned. But approximately 58 percent of the area is owned by companies engaged in steelmaking, or handling steelmaking byproducts, or other heavy industries. The lower portion of the river— from the breakwater up to the Henderson Road Bridge—is industrialurban with more than half of the riverbanks lined with steel or concrete walls. Since this is a federal ship channel, most of the hardened walls must remain. But more than one-fourth of the riverbanks of this AOC can still be described as at least in a semi-natural state. Table 3

2009 Planned Restoration Actions for Lower Black River AOC Description

A1 A2

Install 7,717 feet of subsurface fish shelves at five locations Remediate 6,422 feet of slag piles along the riverbank at three locations Construct and restore 74.7 acres of wetlands over three locations to act as floodplain and aviary habitat Restore native vegetation to 11,980 feet of streambank to prevent erosion and provide aviary habitat Remove and restore large slag deposit downstream from the confluence of French Creek and Black River at a 105-acre site Remediate 7,900 feet of steel bulkhead that surrounds the Former Pellet Terminal in order to restore habitat in this industrial area

A3 A4 A5 A6

Table 4

B2 B3

$1,402,800 $3,211,000 $4,812,000 $1,497,500 $4,755,000 $11,844,000

2009 Planned Enhancement Actions for Lower Black River AOC

Description B1

Estimated costs

Remove non-native invasive species over 20.5 acres at four locations Plant submerged aquatic vegetation on 12.2 acres Experiment by installing fish baskets and floating wetlands over four locations

Estimated costs $205,000 $124,440 $305,000

8

Table 5

C1 C2 C3

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

265

2009 Planned Protection Actions for Lower Black River AOC Description

Estimated cost

Acquisition of 73.5 acres of wetlands over six locations Establish new land use restrictions and requirements for developers so that riparian areas will be protected Establish other regulatory protections to protect the completion of all the actions presented above

$1,100,250 NA NA

A Terminal Ready-Mix concrete cement operation is located downstream of the Norfolk and Western rail bridge. This business claims to require a channel to the river to receive its raw materials. In addition, public and private investments have also been made in this area, including the Port Authority’s Black River Landing site, and the Spitzer’s Great Lakes’ “Harbor Walk,” a marina-based condominium community. The “plan” explicitly recognizes these business developments as at least somewhat sacrosanct without enforced remediation. Environmentally sustainable developments are one thing, and some degree of negative externality must be accepted for human existence, but the negative externalities of any development must be evaluated and perhaps controlled. Otherwise, the concept of environmental restoration, upon which all our Great Lakes restoration investment depends, should not have been pursued. If we accept that a polluting entity should be allowed because of some concept of “freedom of commerce,” or “legacy rights,” and that this “freedom” trumps any resulting externality control, then our environmental restoration is doomed. But it should be obvious that the whole purpose of the AOC program is environmental restoration. Preserving the old regional economic conceptions of those with cavalier attitudes toward the environment, and who conceive of “jobs” as requiring negative environmental externalities to run rampant, is neither in the interest of economic efficiency nor in the public’s interest in any way. Another section of the Lower Black River is characterized by abandoned industrial sites and slag piles. In this section, only one-fifth of the riverbanks are lined with metal structures, but more than half are lined with large rocks. Less than one-third of the river has semi-natural or natural streambanks. The City of Lorain owns most of the north shore, and it also owns the old steel site on the south shore. A new wastewater

266

R. M. ROBINSON

treatment plant is proposed for this area. The north shore of this section has some commercial development plus some wetland restoration. But large slag piles remain on an old steel mill site. Still a third section of this lower portion of the river is owned and managed by Lorain County Metro Parks. The US Steel site is within this section. The disposal site for PAHs is also within this area. The “Plan” states that this is an area which will focus on “preservation, restoration and appropriate development.” During 1989–1990, the US EPA reached a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) consent settlement with US Steel concerning its Lorain site coking and steel mill contaminations. Forty-five thousand cubic yards of severe PAH contaminated sediment was dredged from this site, and 5,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil was also removed from adjacent upland areas. These projects benefitted the restoration of a 300nest rookery of Great Blue Herons. Previously the aviary’s food supply was being contaminated by the poisoned sediment and soil. After the dredging was completed, the restoration effort removed an additional 5,000 cubic yards of slag to prevent contaminated runoff from the upland areas. Invasive vegetation was also removed, and native vegetation planted. In addition, 2,800 feet of fish shelves were created for fish spawning grounds. Also, four acres of floodplain was reestablished with more native vegetation. Restoration of 1,400 feet of riverbank completed the project. This project took five years to complete and cost $2.7 million. Consistent with the above “Ecological Plan,” Table 6 presents brief reviews of the actual actions undertaken and their completion dates. 6.3

Removal of BUIs

In 1994, the Black River AOC was expanded to include its entire watershed. It was thought that the sources that led to the AOC’s BUIs originated in the upper portions of the watershed. But based upon the improvements reviewed above in the Elyria area (the cleanups of the Ford Road Landfill Site and the Republic Steel Superfund Site), together with adjustments made by the OEPA and OLEC in the BUI targets, it was judged that upstream factors no longer impacted the AOC.10

10 See “Black River AOC,” “Beneficial Use Impairment: Restrictions on Dredging Activities,” OEPA and OLEC, 2022, p.3, at www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs-black-river-aoc.

8

Table 6

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

267

Black River AOC Remediation and Restoration Projects

Project Invasive vegetation control in lower Black River

Description

Invasive vegetation such as phragmites are replaced with native vegetation and 30 acres of restored streambank are established Remediation of US Steel site and Heavily toxic slag areas in the contamination City of Lorain were remediated Fortune Ditch restoration at the Floodplain and wetland Margaret Peak Nature Preserve restoration at the Nature Preserve, and streambank restoration is completed Willow Creek at Eaton Township The stream channel, floodplain, Park restoration wetland, and natural riparian corridor at Eaton Park is restored A section of Black River This project dredged sediment, remediation capped the remaining bed, and restored adjacent steel mill contaminated seepage site River mile 0.3 Fish Shelf site This project created fish shelves and remediated benthos at River Mile 0.3 Lower Black River Heron The third heron rookery project Rookery restoration restored 1,400 feet of riverbank along the rookery Lower Black River Heron This project removed slag and Rookery restoration restored floodplain with native vegetation to establish the second heron rookery Lower Black River Heron This project removed slag and Rookery restoration invasive vegetation and reestablished native vegetation in the upland areas to restore the first heron rookery. It also established 2,800 feet of fish shelves for spawning grounds

Completion date 2022 (estimated

2020 2019

2019

2018

2018

2016

2015

2014

In 1989 and 1990, the US EPA’ evaluation of the sediment levels from the Lorain Harbor navigational dredging was that the sediment was heavily polluted, particularly with PAHs. Therefore, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) was prevented from dumping the dredged sediment into Lake Erie, but rather it is now required to place the sediments into the Lorain Harbor Confined Disposal Facility. (See Fig. 6.) For

268

R. M. ROBINSON

navigational purpose, ACE dredges 200,000 cubic yards of sediment per year from the Lorain Harbor Channel. Given the establishment and functioning of the Disposal Facility, the BUI of Navigational Dredging Restrictions was removed in 2022. In 2021, the Degradation of Aesthetics BUI was also removed from the Black River AOC. These degradations were found to be caused by (i) combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within the watershed, (ii) agricultural runoffs particularly from the upper watershed, (iii) routine oil leaks with other industrial spills, and (iv) general litter problems throughout the watershed. The CSOs are subject to the Ohio Department of Health and the OEPA supervisions. These are thought to be now remedied. The routine oil leaks and industrial leakages are now thought to be within acceptable limits although 30 industrial facilities are still allowed to discharge into the Black River. Since permit enforcement is left to OEPA, this enforcement is not considered an “AOC issue.”11 Having expanded the boundary of the AOC in 1994 so that agricultural sources of contaminated runoff would be included, the boundary was later contracted. The agricultural runoff is now considered as being an impairment caused outside of the AOC, and not an impairment in need of being addressed by the AOC’s authorities. This contraction of the AOC’s area was designed so that the AOCs’ Administrators (see Fig. 3 for the administrative structure) need not confront the agricultural non-point runoff in the watershed. The litter problem within this AOC is being addressed by the Lorain County Kayak and Paddle-Sports Group (LoCo ‘Yaks). They organize volunteers for an annual cleanup campaign on the river. They also conduct a “Marine Debris Prevention Educational Program” to raise awareness in the community. They note that tourists do rent equipment from “LoCo ‘Yaks,” but data on return customers and activities would perhaps be more indicative of relevant usage. Also, these cleanup activities are not funded, but organized educational campaigns should be funded and measures of recognition of the litter problem should be kept for indication of effectiveness. The BUI of Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae was removed in 2017. Measures of dissolved oxygen are being met, and undesirable algae 11 See “Black River AOC,” “Beneficial Use Impairment,” “Eutrophication of Undesirable Algae,” OEPA and OLEC, 2022, p. 9 at https://www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocsblack-river-aoc.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

269

growth has not been persistent. The BUI of Restrictions on Fish Consumption was also removed in 2017. The persistent and current problem is the mercury contamination, but mercury pollution occurs throughout Ohio, and restrictions of “one fish consumed per month” has also been a standard throughout the state. This was not a contamination problem under this AOC’s administrative jurisdiction, so it was removed. We are therefore left to conclude that the Black River AOC could be delisted even though the problem of significant agricultural runoff and pervasive litter are unaddressed by the Administrators in charge of Ohio’s AOC Program. We also note that industrial concerns are still permitted to dump contaminations within the Black River and/or its tributaries. This being the case, we must question whether it will be properly restored under its current administrative structure. 6.4

The Public’s Input to the Restoration Effort

The Black River AOC’s Advisory Committee was formally organized in 2014. Prior to this, a similar committee was called the “AOC RAP Committee.” This new title and reorganized structure were essentially the result of a reorganization of the Ohio EPA (OEPA) and the Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC). (See Section 3 above.) After this reconstruction, the purpose of the Advisory Committee became strictly “to advise” in that it was charged solely with providing public input to decisions plus communicating the AOC’s restoration progress back to the community. The State of Ohio’s role in the decision-making was entirely embodied in the OLEC and in its statewide AOC Administrator, plus its Black River AOC Facilitating Committee with its local AOC Coordinator. (All of these committees and positions are reviewed in Section 3 above.) The AOC’s Remedial Action Plan, the approval of its “management action projects,” the recommended BUI removals, and post-delisting monitoring procedures, all became the province of the OLEC. But the funding, and therefore ultimate approval still belonged with the federal EPA, and responsibility for final delisting of BUIs was with the International Joint Commission (IJC). An analysis of the Advisory Committee’s “Minutes from March 3, 2022” indicates that 17 members were present, of whom 9 represented local government (city and county governments), 4 represented Ohio state agencies (OLEC and OEPA), and two were from federal agencies (US EPA and US F&WS), but it is the federal funding that gives the restoration impetus.

270

R. M. ROBINSON

7

The Politics of Delisting in Ohio

The International Joint Commission established standards for delisting BUIs. The Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC) and the Ohio EPA (OEPA) have interpreted these standards for application to Ohio’s four AOCs. These interpretations are applied through its AOC Coordinators with some degree of broadness so as to allow interim “roadmaps and goals” that might lead to ultimate delisting.12 The rationale for this approach is to “energize” local efforts by celebrating interim accomplishments. In addition, these standards allow delisting BUIs when the specific impairment is either “not due to local sources,” or the impairment is “lake wide or area wide.” For example, a degraded fish population—say Great Lakes Sturgeon—could require reestablishment of habitat within the AOC, but this is a lake-wide problem, so the impetus is that requirements for delisting of the BUI for fish population degradation might not apply. Hence, habitat and spawning grounds might not need to be reestablished in an AOC for this BUI to be removed. As another example, upriver agricultural runoffs or combined sewer overflows might impact an AOC, but delisting of the BUI for nuisance algae blooms is still attainable without remediation if the sources are outside the AOC. Note that the problems originate locally, but just outside the AOC’s boundary. This is, of course, a bureaucratic dodge around the whole spirit of the GLWQA and GLRI. We also have the example of the Black River AOC where local authorities grant thirty permits for industrial discharges, and also have their litter control program in the hands pf private organizations without public funding. One must consider if these examples illustrate a lower priority for environmental restoration than the preservation of ongoing legacy businesses and local practices. What would be the relevance of delisting when the impairment is not remediated? Perhaps a type of bureaucratic progress would be indicated by this sort of delisting, and perhaps local “energy” could be maintained. But the goal of the AOC Program is restoration and not mere delisting. Full publicity as to what the problem is, and where it originates, is of considerable political value for pursuit of this restoration. Delisting by way of exceptions is mere obfuscation by way of exceptions. Perhaps the International Joint Commission (IJC) should consider asserting its authority and 12 See De Wine et al., 2020.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

271

not allow delisting when the circumstances indicate that the intention of restoration, which should clearly be consistent with the intention of the overall AOC program, is subverted. The IJC could publicize that the local AOC’s authorities are not at fault in not achieving some particular BUI delisting, that continued listing is caused by problems outside of local control, and that the problem persists because the local region’s efforts are hampered. This sort of political pressure is germane to the fundamental motivation of the GLWQA and GLRI. This fundamental political motivation should not be obfuscated because of local administrative difficulties. Instead, those “local administrative difficulties” should be made public. For the overall AOC Program to be a success, perhaps the IJC must consider recognizing and implementing the following principle: the intention of restoration must be demonstrably present or the IJC’s political influence must find a way to be exerted. The Ohio’s AOC efforts highlight some issues that are perhaps worthy of IJC consideration. These issues concern composing a Great Lakes Basin-wide inventory or data base. Consider the following: (i) We do not currently have a Great Lakes Basin-wide time series inventory of wetlands, uplands, estuaries, and other geographic characteristics. An inventory of this sort could include indexes of waterways and waterbody health. Categorizing locales accordingly would facilitate comparisons. For example, an Ohio estuary could be compared to all the other estuaries in the Basin. A spectrum of controls applicable to AOC type locales, and that are aimed at problems such as fish tumors and deformities, or aviary reproductive rates, would then be facilitated. This data base could also facilitate multi-factor analyses of the sort conducted for the Niagara River AOC. (See Chapter 9.) These are the sort of statistical approaches that enable analysis of the critical factors that generate watershed health.13 (ii) A time series inventory of toxins, such as bacteria, algae, PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals, and the like, could facilitate analysis of their

13 For an example of this sort of analyses, see Rutter (2010) which was applied by the NYDEC for the Niagara River AOC. See Chapter 10.

272

R. M. ROBINSON

extents, locations, migrations, and health effects throughout the Basin.14 (iii) A time series data base of all fish species, aviary, and other wildlife should be composed for the entire Basin. This could include fish deformities and tumors, and aviary reproductive rates. This would facilitate comparisons across regions and locales as indicators of health.15 (iv) The time series databases of the sort indicated above might also facilitate analysis of the effects of global warming on the Great Lakes Basin. (v) Note that satellite technology is currently recording (i) various crop growths around the world, (ii) algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere, (iii) the extent of glacier reductions from global warming, and (iv) other critical geographic observations. Satellite technology can now also be used for estimating the extents of wetlands, forested uplands, estuary clarity and extents, and perhaps other critical environmental health measures. This technology might facilitate the formation of the time series databases suggested above. It should also be noted that the College of Science and Engineering at Central Michigan University’ Institute of Great Lakes Research, and other academic programs such as the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee’s Sea Grant Program could possibly be utilized for the formation, maintenance, and analyses of these data bases. The point of these suggestions is that the analyses of AOCs need not be, and should not be, isolated either to the individual AOC level, or some particular state groupings of AOCs. Overall, the goal is the restoration of the Great Lakes, not just the restorations of a series of locales. It appears that the IJC is in a unique position to lobby state and provincial governments to further joint efforts such as the formation of the time series databases reviewed above. The IJC also has the unique position to promote the analyses that would naturally extend from these databases.

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.

8

OHIO’S AREAS OF CONCERN AND CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT

273

Appendix The acronyms used include: GLNPO: Great Lakes National Program (EPA) LCCD: Lorain City Community Development LCMP: Lorain County Metro Parks LCPH: Lorain County Public Health LY: LoCo ‘Yaks Main Street Lorain: a 501 Nonprofit NOACA: Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency OSU: Ohio State University OEPA: Ohio EPA OLEC: Ohio Lake Erie Commission SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation District

References De Wine, Mike, Laurie Stevenson, and Joy Mulinex (2020), “Supporting Ohio’s Areas of Concern: A Framework for Implementing Ohio’s Area of Concern Program,” Version 4.0, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and Ohio Lake Erie Commission, August 2020. Rutter, Michael (2010), “A Statistical Approach for Establishing Tumor Incidence Delisting Criteria in Areas of Concern: A Case Study,” Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36 (4): 646–655.

CHAPTER 9

Some Other Important Areas of Concern and Their Analyses

1

Introduction: Four Northeastern AOCs and Their Contributions

The four AOCs reviewed in this chapter confront problems of environmental justice plus various applications of statistical analyses.1 As with most of the AOCs reviewed in previous chapters, these four AOCs are all in rust-belt cities that are attempting environmental restorations so that they will be sufficiently attractive to maintain their populations. The four AOCs examined here include Erie Pennsylvania’s Presque Isle Bay, Buffalo New York’s Niagara River and Buffalo River, and the Toronto Region of Ontario. Table 1 presents some economic statistics for each of these areas. They indicate some issues concerning two US rust-belt cities as compared to a nearby and similar Canadian city. Why does the latter consistently grow, but the former two stagnate? This is a question worthy of investigation, but the answer is likely complex. The old answer would concern the industrial-based resources (the interactions of mineral deposits, transportation arteries, and physical

1 Environmental justice concerns the sort of environmental degradation that disproportionately and persistently affects some particular group. In particular, environmental policies that persistently and negatively impact urban or indigenous populations are often deemed “unjust.”

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_9

275

276

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 1 ON

Some 2020 economic statistics for Buffalo NY, Erie PA, and Toronto

Median personal income 2020 (in US $s) Percent change in population 1950–2020

US

Buffalo NY

Erie PA

Toronto ON

$63,416

$55,000

$50,530

$50,770 US**

−52.0%

−27.5%

+ 128.1%

+ 137.5%

**The exchange rate used was $1.30 Can/$1 US, a rate existing on July 23, 2022

attractiveness of the location). But this answer has now changed considerably because industry has changed considerably. But we can still be sure that the attractiveness of the area’s environment remains a factor. For example, it currently appears that climate change will severely impact the Southern and Southwest US making them less attractive. Industries such as agriculture will likely relocate toward the Pacific Northwest and Northern Midwest. Human resources will likely still be an essential input to production, and therefore the environmental attractiveness of locations will remain an important factor. Persistent high heat and humidity will have its impacts on the US South, and drought-related water problems will impact the American Southwest. Table 1 presents the population changes for Buffalo, Erie, and Toronto between 1950 and 2020. It indicates that the rust-belt cities of Erie and Buffalo had population outflows to the suburbs as reviewed in the sections below. Toronto, however, has always been an immigrant city, and immigration gave it an extraordinary growth in population, a growth rate similar to that of the US overall population growth rate. Table 1 also shows that the median personal incomes of the three urban areas (measured in 2020 US dollars) are roughly comparable. Perhaps the current ongoing environmental restorations are necessary for, and perhaps motivated by, the regeneration of business and therefore retention of population.

2

Erie Pennsylvania and its Presque Isle AOC

The City of Erie is in far Western Pennsylvania on the southeastern shore of Lake Erie. As with the other cities examined in previous chapters,

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

277

Erie is another rust-belt city on the Great Lakes. It is approximately 100 miles north of Cleveland and 100 miles south of Buffalo, both rust-belt cities. Erie emerged as a maritime port after the American Revolution, and then as a railroad hub during the great nineteenth-century American expansion into the mid-west. It became an important city for iron and steel manufacturing during the industrial revolution. Its development continued through the end of the twentieth century. For example, General Electric produced train engines in Erie through the 1990s. With the restructuring of American industry, however, Erie became an important plastics manufacturing center where more than ten percent of the nation’s plastics were either manufactured or finished. As with other rust-belt cities along the Great Lakes, Erie’s population peaked in 1960 at 138,440. Its population steadily declined since. The 2020 census indicated a population of 94,831. Approximately threefourths of this population is Caucasian, and twenty percent is AfricanAmerican. Note that Pennsylvania’s population is 82% Caucasian and 11% African-American; the US statistics indicate that 72.4% are Caucasian, and 12.6% are African-American nationwide. Comparing these statistics indicates that as with other rust-belt cities of the Great Lakes Basin, there is a significantly greater proportion of African-Americans than in non-rust-belt US areas. 2.1

The Presque Isle Bay AOC and Its Restoration Projects

The City of Erie has a hooked peninsula sandbar of seven miles in length that extends into Lake Erie. This peninsula—Presque Isle—forms a popular park for hikers and shore fishermen, but this hooked peninsula also forms the Presque Isle Bay which is popular among boaters. (See Fig. 1.) This is a 3,718-acre shallow embayment with an average depth of only 13 feet. It is 4.5 miles long and 1.5 miles across at its widest point. The southeastern end of the bay connects with Lake Erie through a narrow navigation channel that is maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Presque Isle Bay drainage basin is approximately 25 square miles. It includes much of the City of Erie as well as several surrounding townships (Millcreek, Summit, Greene, and Harborcreek). The Bay’s principal tributaries include Mill Creek, Garrison Run, and Cascade Creek which

278

R. M. ROBINSON

N

Presque Isle

Lake Erie

Lake

Presque Mill Creek Perry’s Landing Cascade Creek

Four Mile Creek

City of Erie

Fig. 1 Presque Isle Bay AOC

together provide two-thirds of the Bay’s intake of water flow. Approximately eighty percent of the Bay’s watershed is urban. The small harbor opening restricts the water flow through the Bay. In 1984, anglers began reporting external lesions and tumors on brown bullhead catfish caught in Presque Isle Bay. This problem led to the Erie County Environmental Coalition—a citizens’ environmental advocacy group formed in 1983—to petition to have the Bay included as an AOC. It was so classified in January of 1991. This ultimately led to the BUI-related studies of the causes of fish deformities and tumors as reviewed here. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) became the lead regulatory agency for managing this AOC. It proceeded with a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process for identifying the BUIs and planning the methods for remediation. Through this, PADEP identified the chemical pollutants of concern—ten heavy metals, plus cyanide, PAHs, and oil and grease—and also identified the BUIs of restrictions on dredging and fish tumors and/or deformities as special concerns. Since the 1980s, PADEP has collected data on fish tumors, deformities, and sediment quality within Presque Isle Bay. As a result, sediment toxicity tests found low levels of heavy metals and PAHs throughout

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

279

the bay. PADEP and the AOC’s Public Advisory Committee (PAC) focused on remediation of the contaminants through projects within the bay’s watershed. Because of these projects, a decade long downward trend in sediment contamination occurred. This led to this AOC being redesignated as “In Recovery” in 2002. The most significant remediation project was the $100 million upgrade to Erie’s wastewater treatment system. This reduced the number of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) from 70 per year to 5. Since four of these were from CSOs discharging into Mill Creek, the stormwater system leading into this creek was remedied so that now there are no contaminating CSOs. In addition, a coal-fired power plant was removed from the bay, and other industrial pollutants were eliminated. 2.2

Delisting BUIs: Fish Tumors, Control Sites, and Statistical Analysis

With respect to the BUI of fish deformities and tumors, the criteria used must be consistent with the EPA’s 2001 “Delisting Guidance:”2 “Re-designation of a BUI from impaired to unimpaired can occur if it can be demonstrated that: – The approved delisting criteria for that BUI have been met. – The impairment is not solely of local geographic extent, but is typical of upstream conditions OR conditions outside of the AOC boundaries on a regional scale. Such re-designation would be contingent upon evidence that sources within the AOC are controlled. – The Impairment is due to natural rather than human causes.” The International Joint Commission’s (IJC) delisting guidelines state that fish tumors or other deformities may be deemed to not be impaired “when the incidence rates of fish tumors or other deformities do not exceed rates at unimpacted control sites or when survey data confirm the absence of neoplastic or pre-neoplastic liver lesions in bullheads or suckers” (IJC, 1991). Note that in these early guidelines the IJC did not define what an unimpacted control site would be, nor did it indicate how 2 See US EPA, USPC (December, 2001), Restoring United States Great Lakes Areas of Concern: Delisting Principles and Guidelines, United States Policy Committee, at www. epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/restoring-great-lakes-areas-concern.

280

R. M. ROBINSON

background tumor rates—the relevant rate for comparison—should be calculated.3 When examining the potential for delisting this BUI, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Preservation (DEP) specified that the comparative control site should satisfy two criteria: (1) the control site should be outside the AOC, and (2) there must be no discharges of toxic pollutants within the control site, nor any sediment contamination within that control site. The same criteria for this BUI were also selected and applied in the Niagara River AOC (reviewed below). Delisting this BUI therefore required gathering a sample of fish, examining them for deformities or tumors, and then comparing the results to a similar sample from “a least impacted control site.” (Note that “least impacted” has now become a substitute for the IJC’s “unimpacted” wording of its 1991 “Guidelines.” See above.) After examining possible control sites, Ontario Province’s Long Point Inner Bay on Lake Erie was selected for the Presque Isle AOC’s comparative control area.4 Three other alternative possible control sites were considered (Dunkirk Bay in New York, Old Woman’s Creek in Ohio, and Sandusky Bay in Ohio), but adequate data was lacking for these alternative sites. Fish tumors, in particular liver tumors, present the most reliable data for comparison of deformities. Therefore, measures of these tumors in brown bullhead catfish were selected as the key comparison statistic. This was also selected as a result of the “Presque Isle studies” reviewed here.5 These studies examined a variety of fish species for their incidence of tumors and deformities. Specifically, the brown bullhead catfish was selected because it was a bottom fish that did not migrate, i.e. it had “limited home range.” As a result, as an indicator of the presence of toxic 3 See New York Department of Environmental Conservation (October 2015), Niagara River Area of Concern Beneficial Use Impairment Removal: Fish Tumors or Other Deformities. See www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/niagara-river-aoc. 4 Long Point is one of UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves. On a clear day, if one stands on the Lake Erie Coastline anywhere between Buffalo and Erie, one can see Long Point stand out across the Lake. 5 These studies not only applied to the Presque Isle AOC, but also to many of the other 47 listed AOCs.

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

281

contaminations in the Bay, samples of brown bullhead were expected to have a high degree of reliability. The methodology used for the sampling of brown bullhead needed to follow particular procedures. Simple comparison of tumor occurrence at the two locations (the Bay and at Long Point) could pose a defective methodology for two reasons: (1) Simple comparisons would assume that every fish collected would have equal prior probability of tumor occurrence; that factors such as age, length, weight, and gender of the fish would have no impact on that probability. (2) Simple comparisons would also need to assume that the samples would be homogeneous in both time and locations across the AOC and control sites. This is a simple random sample assumption. But in actuality the sampling takes place in multiple locations within the AOC, and at different times, and these differences might bias the results. For example, the contaminants across Presque Isle Bay need not be uniformly distributed. Fish samples taken at various locales might therefore vary in results. Assuming that the two samples (from the AOC and from the control site) are unbiased (truly representative of the fish populations of the control area and the AOC), then statistical comparisons can be reliable. To do a correct comparison, however, a multifactor statistical analysis is required, i.e. the controls for the various possible confounding factors must be calculated. (A factor analysis of the inputs such as age, gender, and size is required. Note that these factors might themselves be correlated, but this can be controlled through proper statistical techniques.) The Presque Isle AOC study by the PADEP established that the incidence of liver tumors in brown bullhead catfish warranted the listing of the BUI for fish tumors . This is because the AOC’s incidence was greater than the “background rate” that occurs in unpolluted comparison areas such as Long Point. Of course, remediating this BUI would provide a positive environmental action in its own right, but the assumption underlying all this analysis is that it is the environmental contaminants that cause the tumors. Hence, perhaps the relevant question should be, “If the environmental remediations do not decrease the incidence of liver tumors,

282

R. M. ROBINSON

then can we conclude that the contaminants remain in the Bay and are the cause?”. We should assume that it will take two, or perhaps three or more years after the contaminants are eliminated in order for the measures of deformities or tumors to indicate remediation. But if the fish tumors are a proxy index for the existence of contaminants (PAHs or heavy metals or similar poisons), then perhaps we should ask the more direct question, “Which legacy or current poisonous toxins should we tolerate?” The answer is “none!” Once we identify a pollutant (or some critical level of it) as “poisonous” because it causes fish tumors, or perhaps causes health impacts in humans, or aesthetic defects that we judge as undesirable, then we do not want it in our environment. As a result, once the poison is identified, it should be removed. Perhaps it is overly expensive to identify any and all the legacy pollutants in our waters, or in our sediments or soils. Perhaps measuring the incidence of tumors in catfish provides an inexpensive way to discover the presence of these contaminants. But we must question whether selecting a “control site” poses a confounding problem in itself. For example, we could simply use fish-tumor data from all the Great Lakes’ areas that are without industrial legacy pollutants, or without urban-suburban runoffs, or agricultural runoffs, and use these relatively pristine areas (the “unimpacted areas” rather than the “least impacted control area”) for statistical analysis of comparisons with the Presque Isle AOC or other AOCs. For example, our decision rule could be, “If we have an AOC with incidents of tumors or deformities in the upper X percent—whatever that politically acceptable percentage might be—as compared to the pristine group, then the BUI must be addressed.” Whether the BUI is to be addressed or not, the incidence level of Presque Isle or other AOCs should be publicized for political reasons. Reducing fish deformities or tumors (or not reducing them), would have political implications essential for the restoration movement. Furthermore, the important BUIs in need of remediation must concern both the current point and non-point sources of pollutions, the legacy contaminations in our sediments or wetlands and soils, and the restoration of our habitats. Fish tumors and deformities are primarily an index of the presence of the contamination problems as indicated above. The prescription for remediation is both scientific and political.

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

2.3

283

Other BUIs

Given the cleanup of Mill Creek and the industries along Presque Isle Bay, several BUIs other than the fish deformities and tumors were also remediated, and also some of the 14 possible BUIs under the Great Lakes AOC Program were found to not apply. Table 2 briefly reviews these “other BUIs.” Given Table 2, it is apparent that the BUI of fish tumors or deformities motivated the categorization of Presque Isle Bay as an AOC, but other BUIs were not found. Consequently, this AOC was delisted in 2014. 2.4

The Role of the Public Advisory Committee in the Presque Isle AOC’s Management

Presque Isle Park and Presque Isle Bay are important cultural resources for both the City and the surrounding townships. They are a primary resource for recreation via interaction with a natural environment. They also provide a significant impressive vista for a large part of the City. Unlike 40 years ago, the Bay currently has no industry along the shores with the exception of the small ship-servicing facility. The east shoreline is now the location of marinas, modern hotels, a convention center, upscale restaurants, a public library, a small modern condominium complex, and a health care center in addition to the ship-servicing facility. But all of this is below the sight-line for most of the surrounding land mass which resides on a hill that overlooks the bay. The entire shoreline appears clean with the exception of the nonpermeable surfaces of the parking lots and marinas, and these are a small portion of the coastal area. Starting in the 1980s, the Erie County Environmental Coalition and the Erie Harbor Improvement Council formed the AOC’s Public Advisory Committee (PAC). Since 1980, the PAC met every quarter to provide advice to PADEP concerning priorities and other matters impacting the AOC. But with the decision to delist the AOC, the role of the PAC became critical to ensure the BUIs remain restored. After twenty years of concerns for contaminants in the sediment and tumors in the brown bullhead, the purpose of the PAC changed to monitoring and applying the political impetus for maintenance. Monitoring will continue in the bay’s watershed to document sediment, fish, and invertebrate health. Activities related to this monitoring is

284

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 2

Resolving other BUIs for Presque Isle Bay AOC

BUI

Remediation or applicability

Fish consumption

PADEP routinely test fish for the presence of Mercury, PCBs, heavy metals, and pesticides, and does so in Presque Isle Bay and in the open waters of Lake Erie. The evidence indicates there are no differences The PA Fish and Boat Division routinely survey fishermen for evidence of this BUI. No evidence has been found Surveys of populations indicate very diverse fish and wildlife species in the Bay and in Presque Isle Park. (Fifty-four species of fish were found.) Presque Isle Bay is popular for bird watching. Numerous amateur bird watchers indicate there is no evidence of deformities Presque Isle Bay’s benthic macroinvertebrates are dominated by pollution-tolerant organisms typical for this environment Studies showed that dissolved oxygen is always present at the bottom of Presque Isle Bay. In addition, the occurrences of algae blooms are not more frequent or extensive than those in Lake Erie Neither the City of Erie nor the locales in the area obtain their municipal water from Presque Isle Bay Given the cleanup of Mill Creek (reviewed above), beach closings have not occurred Presque Isle Bay has no persistent aesthetics impairments such as algae blooms Presque Isle Bay water is now not used for either agriculture of industry Dredging the bay is not an objective as it is for dredging the riverbeds of other AOCs. Dredging restrictions therefore do not apply for this AOC

Tainting of fish flavor or odor

Degradation of fish and wildlife populations

Bird or animal deformities

Degradation of Benthos

Eutrophication or nuisance Algae Blooms

Drinking water taste and odor

Beach closings

Degradation of aesthetics

added costs to agriculture or industry restrictions on dredging

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

285

reported through the Lakewide Management Plan. This requires monitoring the emerging contaminants and especially the non-point sources of toxic runoffs such as the chlorides found in road salts. The monitoring plan spans ten years and is contingently managed, i.e. modified as the monitoring warrants.

3

The Buffalo River and Its AOC

Like the Cities of Erie, Cleveland, Toledo, Gary, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Duluth—all examined in previous chapters—Buffalo is a classic Great Lakes rust-belt city. It is at the eastern end of Lake Erie where the Buffalo River empties into the Lake, close to the confluence of the Niagara River in far Western New York State. (See Figs. 2 and 3.) It is across the Canadian border from Southern Ontario. Its Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) population is approximately 1.1 million which makes it the forty-ninth largest MSA in the US. Buffalo became established as a city in 1825 because it is the western terminus of the Erie Canal. As such, it became the largest inland port for shipments of grains from the mid-western agricultural areas to New York City’s port. At the start of the twentieth century, Buffalo was the world’s leading grain port and flour milling center. In the early twentieth century, it transformed to heavy manufacturing with steel mills for auto and truck manufacturing. This sector declined with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959 which largely bypassed Buffalo as a port. Buffalo’s population peaked in 1950 at 580,132. It then steadily declined to 261,310 in 2010, but since then it slightly rebounded to 278,349 in 2020. This recent increase is due to Buffalo’s expansion as a significant medical and university center for Western New York. The 1940 census indicated that 96.8% of Buffalo’s population was Caucasian, and 3.1% African-American. By 1970, the Caucasian portion had decreased to 78.7%, and the African-American proportion had increased to 20.4%. But in 2020, 41.9% identified as Caucasian and 36.9% as African-American. These post WW II demographic changes were largely due to suburbanization and white flight. Poverty is an issue in Buffalo with 30.1% living below the poverty line. Buffalo’s industrialization occurred largely along the 17-mile Lackawanna waterfront, and along the Buffalo River and its tributaries, and also along the nearby Niagara River and its tributaries. For example, in 1904, Lackawanna Iron and Steel Company located its new facilities

286

R. M. ROBINSON

N Erie Basin

City of Buffalo Turning Basin

Buffalo River Red Jacket Riverfront Park and 61 Smith St. Habitat

Outer Harbor

Lake Erie

City Ship Canal Lackawanna Steel Facilities

Higgins Natural Habitat Park

Bailey Avenue Bridge

Cazenovia Creek

Fig. 2 Buffalo River AOC

to just south of Buffalo on the Lake Erie waterfront. This Lackawanna facility was purchased by Bethlehem Steel in the 1940s, which then formed the largest steel production facility of the area. But in the 1970s, steel demand for autos and trucks began declining, and Bethlehem Steel closed in 1983. Since then, Buffalo has focused on transforming from its old legacy industries. This requires environmentally restoring each of Buffalo’s four industrial channels: the Buffalo River, the Niagara River, Black Rock Canal, and Scajaquada Creek.

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

Lake Ontario

287

N Niagara River

Ontario Canada

Lewiston City of Niagara Falls

Niagara Falls Cayuga Creek

Buckhorn State Park and Burnt Ship Canal

Niagara River

East River Marsh

Grand Island Spicer Creek

Tonawanda Creek Elliot Creek

Ontario Canada Tonawanda Black Rock

Scajaquada Creek

Unity Island and Park Lake Erie

Outer Harbor

City of Buffalo

Buffalo River

Fig. 3 Niagara River AOC

3.1

Buffalo River AOC

The Buffalo River discharges into Lake Erie near the head of the Niagara River. (See Fig. 2.) It was considered biologically dead as recently as the 1960s. It had extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen, and because of

288

R. M. ROBINSON

sediment, it had stagnant water flows as compared to rivers with similar gradients. As a consequence, it had higher water temperatures than rivers in its locale. It also had a lack of any life other than limited pollutiontolerant vegetation and a few of the more pollution-tolerant fish species, and not many of those. Under the GLWQA, the Buffalo River and its surrounding industrial area was designated an AOC in 1989. This AOC extends from the mouth of the river and up to the Bailey Avenue Bridge, approximately 6-miles upstream. (See Fig. 2.) The AOC includes the 1.4mile long City Ship Canal located adjacent to the mouth of the river. The Ship Canal and much of the river are federal navigation channels which are maintained and dredged by the Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the convenience of transporting goods through the Erie Canal, grain elevators, iron and steel mills, meat processing plants, chemical manufacturing, and oil refineries developed along the Buffalo River. Therefore, the area surrounding the river developed a history of heavy industry which left significant toxic legacy pollutants both in the river and on its banks. These industries dominated the area for decades, but starting in the 1950s manufacturing declined along the river, and many factories and mills were abandoned. The legacy pollutions remained in the river’s sediments and in the old hazardous waste dumps close to the riverbanks. Both sources leach poisons into the river. But currently generated pollutions also occur. These stem from both point and nonpoint sources, the latter mostly occurring from the runoffs from urban nonpermeable road surfaces. The contaminants in the river include PCBs, PAHs, and heavy metals such as lead and mercury, pesticides, and other industrial poisons. These legacy and current contaminants now cause fish and wildlife tumors and reproduction problems, and also low dissolved oxygen levels in the water. In addition, industrial development hardened the shorelines and destroyed habitats. Combined sewer overflows also occur and cause bacteria contaminations. 3.2

Restorations in the AOC

There are nine BUIs listed for this AOC: • • • •

restrictions of fish and wildlife consumption, the tainting of fish flavors (removed in 2020), degradations of fish and wildlife populations, fish tumors and deformities,

9

• • • • •

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

289

fish and aviary reproductive problems, degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging, degradation of aesthetics (removed in 2018), and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

By the end of 2019, twenty habitat restoration projects were completed within this AOC. According to the formula of 65% from federal funding, and 35% from other sources, these projects were funded by the GLRI. (Table 3 briefly reviews these 20 projects.) The twenty projects restored almost 20,000 feet of streambank to a more natural state with gently sloping sides and native aquatic vegetation. Fish habitat restoration projects involved the placement of a variety of aquatic structures including porcupine cribs (wooden lattices), gravel spawning beds, and anchored poles. The addition of riprap material (the loose stone used to form a foundation for a breakwater), and rock vanes along the riverbank were also used to reduce erosion and to enable planted vegetation to thrive. Other projects involved riverbank stabilization, wetland restoration, the removal of invasive vegetation, and the planting of native vegetation. These projects provide habitat for fish and wildlife populations in an otherwise urban area. Since 2011, dredging has removed more than 1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the lower six miles of the river, and also from the City Ship Canal. These remediation projects cost approximately $45 million. They decreased harmful toxins and contaminants in the food chain and decreased the prevalence of fish and wildlife tumors, deformities, and reproductive problems. In 2013, the Army Corps of Engineers dredged more than 450,000 cubic yards of PCB, PAH, and heavy metal contaminated sediment from the federal navigation canals of the Buffalo River and City Ship Canal. In order to reduce exposure to contaminants during future dredging, the side slopes of the river, and the sediment located below the authorized navigational depths, were also dredged. This was an innovative strategy for dredging in that it combined the navigational dredging effort with contaminant removal. In addition, 65,000 cubic yards of clean capping material was placed over the remaining contaminated sediment at the City Ship Canal. This 5-acre capped area provides the largest aquatic habitat restoration site of this dredging project. Native vegetation and habitat structures were established to revitalize the fish and wildlife.

290

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 3

Restoration projects for the Buffalo River AOC

Project title

Project description

Completion date

GLLA Sediment Remediation

500,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment outside the navigation channel were remediated by the EPA and Honeywell between 2013 and 2021 The Corps of Engineers removed contaminated sediment from five areas The EPA restored 1,760 feet of shoreline and river habitat, and 3.7 acres of upland habitat 1,445 feet of shoreline and 4.9 acres of riparian upland habitat were restored 270 feet of shoreline and 0.5 acre of upland riparian habitat was restored with substrate and aquatic vegetation 1,700 feet of aquatic habitat was restored with underwater structures and aquatic plants Three acres of wetland and upland forest habitat were restored over 805 feet of shoreline 30 feet of shoreline and 1.5 acres of riparian upland habitat were restored 2.4 acres of invasive vegetation were removed and native vegetation planted to stabilize shoreline 450 feet of shoreline and 3.7 acres of riparian and upland habitat were restored 2,575 feet of shoreline and 1.5 acres of upland habitat were restored with native vegetation

2021

Strategic Navigation Dredging

Katherine Street Habitat

Riverbend Phase 2 Habitat

Buffalo Motor and Generator Corp. Habitat

Blue Tower Turning Basin

Old Bailey Woods Habitat

Ohio Street Boat Launch

Toe of Katherine Street Habitat

Katherine Street Peninsula Extension Buffalo Color Peninsula Habitat

2020

2019

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

(continued)

9

Table 3

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

291

(continued)

Project title

Project description

Completion date

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

2,300 feet of over 3 sites of shoreline restored by the Army Corps of Engineers A restored wetland was established Shoreline and near-shore habitat were enhanced Shoreline and near-shore habitat was restored 3,000 feet of shoreline and 20 acres of riparian upland habitat were restored by the Army Corps 2,650 feet of shoreline and 6.3 acres of riparian upland habitat were restored 3,450 feet of aquatic habitat was restored with native aquatic vegetation and structures 240 feet of aquatic habitat was restored with native aquatic vegetation 1,190 feet of aquatic habitat was restored with native aquatic vegetation

2018

Thomas Higgins Natural Park Red Jacket Natural Habitat Park 61 Smith Street Habitat Seneca Bluffs Habitat

Riverbend Phase 1 Habitat

City Ship Canal Habitat

Ohio Street Habitat

Katherine Street Peninsula Habitat

2017 2017 2017 2017

2015

2015

2015

2015

All these restoration activities occurred between 2013 and 2015, but the final cleanup activity of removing 1,600 cubic yards of contaminated sediment was completed in 2021. These sediment remediation and habitat restorations were funded by the EPA and Honeywell—one of the responsible polluters—and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper Organization, and the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). There were also three Erie County habitat restorations of small-area “Packet Parks:” the Thomas Higgins Natural Habitat Park, the Red Jacket Natural Habitat Park, and the Smith Street Habitat. These small areas were restored to service nearby urban neighborhoods. Each of these restorations is briefly reviewed here. The GLRI provided $2.2 million for these restoration projects.

292

R. M. ROBINSON

The Thomas Higgins Natural Habitat Park is at the confluence of the Buffalo River with Cazenovia Creek. It is now habitat for fish and wildlife populations. Restoration projects included the reestablishment of a wetland, and also a pond that holds the snowmelt from nearby plowed roads and spring rains, both of which are filled with road chemicals used for melting winter snow and ice. Additionally, the planting of trees, shrubs, and wildflowers adds to the aviary habitat. The Red Jacket Natural Habitat Park now provides habitat for fish and wildlife within the city. This park is popular for fishing and hiking. It was restored in 2017. The restoration included streambank and nearby remediations that improved aviary habitat, and that established a green buffer near the parking area to mitigate erosion and to capture contaminants from municipal runoff. A living fence of densely growing hedges now protects the habitat’s border and prevents the intrusion of invasive vegetation. The 61 Smith Street Habitat is owned by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority. It is immediately adjacent to the Red Jacket Natural Habitat Park. The primary goal of this restoration was to remediate the shoreline and near-shore area to provide habitat for fish and aviary wildlife. The Buffalo River AOC therefore provides important examples of urban restoration. These include the small “Pocket Parks,” the urban City Ship Canal, and the Lackawanna steel facilities. Table 3 lists the twenty restoration projects along the Buffalo River, and briefly describes each project and indicates its completion date.

4

The Niagara River AOC

The Niagara River flows north for 36 miles to connect Lake Erie with Lake Ontario. It includes Niagara Falls. The river forms the US-Canadian border, the west bank being in Canada, and the east bank being in the US. (See Fig. 3.) Shipping along the river uses the Welland Canal to bypass Niagara Falls and to connect with the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Falls has been a significant source of hydroelectric power since the early twentieth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, steel mills, chemical manufacturing, and grain mills developed along the Niagara River in the Cities of Buffalo, Lewiston, Tonawanda, and Niagara Falls. The inexpensive hydro power, the cooling waters of the river, and the ability to

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

293

cheaply dispose of industrial wastes into the voluminous and fast flowing river, attracted these industries. This industrial expansion continued until the late 1970s. Their legacy contaminations led to the entire Niagara River (both Canadian and American sides) being designated an area of concern (AOC) in 1987 when the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was established between the US and Canada. The US side of the Niagara River is divided into an “Impact AOC” and a “Source AOC.” The Impact AOC extends from the southern end of the Buffalo Outer Harbor to the mouth of the Niagara River on Lake Ontario. (See Figs. 2 and 3.) The “Source AOC” consists of four tributaries to the river: Scajaquada Creek, Elliot Creek, Tonawanda Creek, and Cayuga Creek. These tributaries are contaminated by toxins such as PCBs, dioxin, dibenzofuran, PAHs, and pesticides. Restoration projects for each of these are reviewed below. This AOC has six restored sites from the EPA’s “National Priority List,” one of which is the Love Canal reviewed in Chapter 3. 4.1

Reducing Toxic Contaminations in the Niagara River

In 1988, the EPA identified 70 hazardous waste sites on the US side of the Niagara River. All of these sites were considered possible contributors of toxic contaminations. In response, four environmental regulatory agencies—the US EPA, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change—signed a “Niagara River Declaration of Intent” (DOI) to cooperate in achieving reductions in the toxic pollution of the river. The DOI outlined the activities specified in the Niagara River Toxins Management Plan (NRTMP). This plan aimed at a fifty percent reduction in ten of the priority toxins polluting the river, and to achieve this reduction by 1996. These actions were aimed at both point and non-point sources such as leaks from the hazardous waste dumps, industrial discharges, or agricultural and other runoffs. All these reduction targets were met or exceeded. In 1996, the “four parties” (listed above) extended the NRTMP. Data from 2004/2005 indicated that 6 of the 18 significant toxins— mercury, arsenic, lead, chlordane, oclachlorostyrene, and benzoanthracene—were below target levels, and therefore the NRTMP appears to be effective. But of the 70 original waste dump sites identified in 1988, 26 sites still remain unremediated, and 11 additional sites were added as

294

R. M. ROBINSON

of 2022. The sources of some of the priority toxins were, however, eliminated. Between 2012 and 2015, approximately 450,000 cubic yards of legacy toxic sediments—in part the source of some of the 6 toxins listed above—were dredged and remediated. 4.2

Niagara River’s BUIs

There are only seven BUIs listed for the Niagara River AOC: • • • • • • •

restrictions of fish consumption, fish tumors or other deformities (removed in 2016), degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, and aviary deformities or reproduction problems.

All seven of these BUIs are linked to the AOC’s legacy of contaminated sediments; therefore remediations are predicated upon removal or capping of these toxic sources. The Niagara River’s Habitat Restoration Plan was finalized in 2019, and it focuses on sediment remediations. The three habitat restorations reviewed here include (i) the East River Marsh, (ii) the Burnt Ship Creek, and (iii) the Black Rock Canal. The East River Marsh is on Grand Island’s East side. (See Fig. 3.) The protection and enhancement of the island’s shallow water wetlands was identified by the Restoration Advisory Committee to address the BUI for loss of fish and wildlife habitat and therefore the degradation of fish and wildlife population. The Committee prioritized this and five other related projects along Grand Island’s shorelines in order to restore the degraded habitat. To that end, the East River Marsh Extension Restoration Project restored more than nine acres of habitat along more than 1,000 feet of shoreline. The East River Marsh project included two sections of shoreline dredging to create potholes, channels, and open water. The project also addressed shoreline erosion, loss of habitat, lack of wetlands along the river’s edge, and loss of fish spawning and aviary breeding grounds. It was completed in the Summer of 2019. It included the installation of five rock reefs to protect the shoreline, and to stabilize the riverbanks by reducing

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

295

erosion. It also reestablished native aquatic vegetation and upland trees and shrubs, and expanded fish spawning grounds and wetland habitat for birds and other wildlife. The Burnt Ship Creek Restoration Project was also designed to address the BUI of loss of fish and wildlife habitat and therefore the degradation of fish and wildlife populations. The Burnt Ship Creek had been severely overgrown with non-native hybrid cattail. This encroachment restricted aquatic fish and wildlife passage and reduced biodiversity. The restoration project involved dredging out the extensive cattail growth, and the planting of submerged and emergent native vegetation. This restored the stream channel, increased open water area, and improved currents through the marsh. It provided habitat for waterfowl, and fish access to the marsh. Construction of this project was completed in 2020. It included approximately 900 feet of dredging for fish passage and habitat enhancement. The project also reconnected the Niagara River to an extensive wetland at Buckhorn Island State Park. The Black Rock Canal Cleanup Project was a collaborative effort between the New York DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. It addressed the BUIs of the degradation of benthos, the restrictions on dredging activities, and bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems. The Black Rock Canal is a federal navigational harbor in the Niagara River Watershed in Buffalo. It falls within the Niagara River AOC. This project required the removal of 180,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment from the navigation channel. Although this dredging was for navigation, it was also designed to remove legacy contamination. This sediment was dredged in 2014 and 2015. The project was finance by GLRI grants. Table 4 briefly reviews the AOC’s other restoration projects. 4.3

Delisting BUIs: Fish Tumors, Control Sites, and Statistical Analysis

The Niagara River AOC’s “Remediation Advisory Committee” consists of thirteen members: 4 academics, 3 from local government agencies, 3 from environmental advocacy organizations, 2 from federal government agencies, and 1 from business. All have technical backgrounds appropriate

296

R. M. ROBINSON

Table 4

Remediation and restoration projects for the Niagara River AOC

Project

Project description

Completion date

Black Rock Channel & Tonawanda Harbor Strategic Navigation Dredging

This project removed 181,532 cubic yards of contaminated sediments from the navigation channel This project placed dredged material from the Buffalo River into the Unity Island North Pond to reduce its average depth and restore the wetland. It also hydrologically reconnected the wetland to the Niagara River This project restores and enhances the habitat through rock berms and plantings of native vegetation and the removal of invasive vegetation This project restores, improves, and expands fish and wildlife habitat at three Grand Island sites: Buckhorn Island State Park, Burnt Ship Creek, and East River Marsh This project restores, improves, and expands fish and wildlife habitat at Spicer Creek Wildlife Management Area This project focuses on fish passages in the uppermost two miles of the Niagara River to restore the Emerald Shiner This project supports the ongoing capping of contaminated sediment to prevent further contamination

2016

Unity Island Wetland

West River Parkway Coastal Wetland and Shoreline Habitat Restoration

Niagara River Various Habitat Restoration Projects

Restoration of Spicer Creek Wildlife Management Area

Emerald Shiner Remediation

Great Lakes Legacy Act Contaminated Sediment Protection

2020

2022 (estimated)

2021

2021

2022 (estimated)

2022 (estimated)

for analyzing the science and/or engineering involved with the environmental restorations. This committee approved the restoration action plans and the criteria for delisting each BUI. With respect to the BUI of fish deformities and tumors, the criteria used must be consistent with the EPA’s 2001 “Delisting Guidance” as reviewed in Section 1.2 presented above. For the BUI of fish tumors or deformities, the Niagara River’s Remediation Advisory Committee followed the IJC’s “Guidelines” by using the Presque Isle AOC’s precedent procedures. This required using the tumor

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

297

incidence in brown bullhead catfish, and then comparing this incidence with that of Ontario Province’s Long Point Inner Bay. Fish tumors, in particular liver tumors, appear to present the more reliable data as compared to deformities. Therefore, measures of these tumors in brown bullhead catfish were selected as the key comparison statistics. These were also selected as a result of the “Presque Isle studies,” which examined various fish species and their tumors and deformities. Specifically, the brown bullhead catfish was selected because it was a bottom fish that did not migrate, i.e. it had “limited home range.” As a result, as an indicator of the presence of toxic contaminations, samples of brown bullhead were expected to have a high degree of reliability. The methodology used for the sampling of brown bullhead also needed to follow the Presque Isle Bay analysis. Assuming that the two samples (from the AOC and from the control site) are unbiased (truly representative of the fish populations of the control area and the AOC), then statistical comparisons can be reliable. To do a correct comparison, however, a multifactor statistical analysis is required, i.e. controls for the various possible confounding factors must be calculated. A review of this methodology is presented in Section 2.2. Comparisons of the control group with the AOC justified this BUI being delisted in 2016.

5

Toronto and Its Area of Concern

Toronto is the largest Canadian city by population. It is located close to the northwest corner of Lake Ontario, and it is the capital of Ontario Province. It has a diverse population due to its historic role as the primary destination of immigrants to Canada. More than 50% of Toronto’s residents belong to a visible ethnic or racial minority, and over 200 ethnicities are represented. Over 160 languages are spoken in this city with English generally being Toronto’s primary language. Prior to COVID-19, more than 43 million visits occurred each year at either Toronto’s many museums and galleries, or its festivals, or its various sports events. Toronto’s 2021 census indicates a population of 2,794,356 which showed a 2.3% increase since 2016. Its population growth has always been positive and high. For example, it grew by 55% between 1951 and 1961. Almost half (47%) of its residents are foreign-born. European origins account for 47.9% of the City’s population; Asian descent accounts for

298

R. M. ROBINSON

40.1%; African descent accounts for 5.5%; Latin origins account for 4.2%; and indigenous origins account for 1.2%. The geography of the city is mostly flat plain with a gentile overall slope toward Lake Ontario. Its gentile hills and ravines are formed by numerous creeks and rivers. This AOC includes six significant watersheds: Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, the Humber River, the Don River, Highland Creek, and the Rouge River (see Fig. 4). Small-stream tributaries of its creeks are numerous and dense throughout this city and its suburbs. The Humber River on the west end of downtown, and the Don River and Rouge River east of downtown, flank and form the city’s harbor. Many of these ravines have parklands with walking trails. The Toronto Islands and Port Lands extend out into Lake Ontario allowing for a sheltered InnerHarbor immediately south of the downtown center.6 An Outer Harbor was constructed southeast of this in the 1950s and 1960s, but it is now used for recreation. The city’s borders are formed by Etobicoke Creek on the west, and the Rouge River on the East (see Fig. 4). Much of the land on the north shore of the harbor is landfill deposited during the late nineteenth century. Prior to this, the lakefront docks were set farther back than their current location. Much of the adjacent Port Lands on the east side of the harbor was wetland filled in during the early twentieth century. Also, the shoreline west of the harbor up to the Humber River has been extended into the Lake. Landfill has also been used to create additional extensions into the Lake such as Humber Park. The Don River carved a wide valley through the middle of Toronto and deposited its sediments in the shallow harbor. The harbor needed frequent dredging, and this dredged material provided the landfill for the wetlands east of the harbor. In the nineteenth century, the lower Don River was channeled and straightened. Today, the Don River drains into the harbor through the concrete Keating Channel. To mitigate flooding in the area, a second mouth to the Don is now being constructed to the southwest. Toronto’s industrial development began around the harbor and the Don River’s mouth. This development was linked by water and railroad to the rest of Canada and to the US. This late nineteenth century development included distilleries, metal rolling mills, stockyards, and 6 The Toronto Islands were a natural peninsula prior to a storm in 1858. This storm divided the peninsula and separated the islands from the mainland. This created a natural channel to the harbor, and also separated what is now the Islands from the mainland.

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

299

N Etobicoke Creek Rouge River

Humber River Don River Mimico Creek

City of Toronto

Keating Channel

Toronto Islands

Port Lands

Toronto Harbor Lake Ontario Fig. 4 Toronto Region AOC

meat processing. The industry expanded eastward along the harbor as the wetlands were filled. But as the city grew northward and outwards, pockets of industry developed in its neighborhoods and suburbs which developed along the rail lines and the twentieth century’s highway corridors. Today, the largest factories and warehouses are in the suburbs. Many of Toronto’s former industrial sites have been redeveloped and gentrified. These areas include parts of the Old Distillery District, and the waterfront, and railyards west of downtown. The old industrial brownfield area of the Port Lands east of the harbor, is now planned for redevelopment. As described above, it was formerly a marshy wetland that was filled to create an industrial area. Because of flooding and unstable soil, it previously had little potential for redevelopment. But the government agency Waterfront Toronto is creating a flood barrier around the mouth of the Don in order to convert some of

300

R. M. ROBINSON

the current harbor area to being suitable for higher-end residential and commercial development. Toronto is Canada’s financial and industrial center. The completion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway in 1959 established connections for shipping to the Atlantic so that Toronto continues to be a primary distribution point for Canada. But Toronto still has industry; it produces motor vehicles, iron and steel, machinery, chemicals, and paper. 5.1

Toronto’s AOC

The Toronto and Region AOC was identified in 1987. Its Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is managed by representatives from the Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNR), the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (OMECC), and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). There were eight BUIs originally listed in 1989: • • • • • • • •

restrictions on fish consumption, degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging, eutrophication or nuisance algae growth, beach closings, degradation of aesthetics, degradation of fish and/or wildlife populations, and loss of fish and/or wildlife habitat.

Toronto’s industrialization and suburban-urbanization caused loss of natural habitat, and also created water pollution from stormwater runoff, from combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and from industrial and municipal sewerage discharges. After remediation of several BUIs, in 2016 the remaining impairments included: • • • •

eutrophication or undesirable algae, beach closings, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

301

Toronto resides on an extensive watershed of rivers, creeks, and tributaries. The BUIs of beach closings and eutrophication plus nuisance algae blooms are directly related to the quality of this drainage water. Toronto has a Regional Watershed Monitoring Program of over 60 water monitoring stations dispersed throughout the watershed and waterfront. Among other contaminants, phosphorous levels in this watershed frequently exceed Ontario’s standards which leads to nuisance algae growth on Toronto’s western waterfront. Inadequate sewerage controls due to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and agricultural plus suburban runoffs have been the problem. The CSOs that follow heavy rainfall or snowmelt continue to degrade water quality in the lower portions of the Don and Humber Rivers, and also along the central waterfront. Excess algae growth continues to be observed along the western waterfront. But phosphorous concentrations tend to peak during summer months when fertilizer use is greatest. Separating sanitary sewers from storm water systems are ongoing attempts at remediation. But despite these improvements, invasive colonized zebra and quagga mussels also lead to phosphorous concentrations near the lake front. This remediation of invasive species therefore requires a lake wide strategy. (See Appendix A to this book for reviews of invasive zebra and quagga mussels.) Concerning the BUI of beach closings , the bacteria that close Toronto’s beaches come from human and animal wastes—livestock, pets, and wildlife, especially waterfowl. Bacteria is concentrated on lake beaches following CSO events. Three of Toronto’s eleven beaches do not meet standards for E. Coli bacteria, and are frequently closed. Heavy metals, PAHs, and PCBs have been a concern for Toronto. They potentially relate to a number of BUIs including degradation of benthos, restrictions on dredging activities, fish tumors and deformities, wildlife deformities, and restrictions on fish consumption. Note that levels of copper and lead in the AOC’s waters have been decreasing since 1999. In the Toronto’s urban watersheds, PCBs and PAHs persist, but chloride is perhaps the more significant problem. Chloride in Toronto’s watersheds come from the road salts applied for snowy and icy conditions. High concentrations of chloride have adverse effects on freshwater ecosystems including the soils, vegetation, and wildlife. Once present in aquatic systems, chloride does not breakdown and cannot be removed by water treatment without considerable expense. High concentrations of chloride result from suburbanization or urbanization. Monitoring indicates steady increases in chloride in the

302

R. M. ROBINSON

Toronto watershed since the late 1960s as coincident with the area’s suburbanization. (See Appendix C concerning toxic substances including road salts.) The Canadian federal government classifies road salt as a toxic substance. In 2011, the Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment set Water Quality Guidelines for chloride with the purpose being the protection of aquatic life. In Toronto’s watershed, toxins such as chlorides become concentrated downstream, particularly at the waterfront. Recent monitoring indicates their effects on benthos in the downstream rivers and waterfronts where salt-tolerant organisms dominate and salt-sensitive organisms have disappeared. The current trend is for these harmful levels of chloride to continue to increase. The RAP’s aesthetics target is for waters to be free of any substance that produces a persistent objectionable and unnatural (i) deposit, (ii) color, (iii) objectionable odor, (iv) or turbidity ( for example an oil slick or surface scum). Degradation of aesthetics is one of 8 BUIs identified in 1989 for the Toronto and Region AOC. The IJC’s delisting objective for this BUI was focused on oil scum and unnatural foamy water, not nuisance aquatic plants or litter. In Toronto, this impairment was mainly for debris and litter along its watercourses, but also for weed growth along the western shoreline, and turbidity near river mouths. In 2011, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) developed a semi-objective protocol, Method to Assess Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) Degradation of Aesthetics. The aim was to assess this BUI in a more objective manner. In 2017, this aesthetics monitoring was incorporated into the Regional Watershed Management Program. The technical monitoring staff were trained to survey areas in a standardized manner using four aesthetic categories—debris, odor, color, and water clarity. Monitoring occurred throughout the watershed and waterfront. Sites were rated as either excellent, good, or poor. A total of 305 sites were surveyed. Out of the 1,663 samples surveyed over 2012 to 2015, only 22 were assessed as poor. Four of these “poor” sites were in the vicinity of the Lower Don River and the Keating Channel. Efforts at remediation occurred, and the conclusion of the monitoring was that the aesthetic condition of Toronto’s watershed and waterfront is now acceptable. The Aesthetic BUI is no longer an issue in the Toronto Area AOC. Studies in the 1970s showed that sediments in Toronto’s Inner Harbor and Humber Bay were contaminated with heavy metals, PAHs, and

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

303

PCBs, but sediments in the Outer Harbor and eastern waterfront had only low levels of these contaminants. Concentrations of many of these contaminants in the Inner Harbor and Humber Bay exceeded Ontario’s “Sediment Quality Guidelines.” These sediments also showed high levels of nutrients which indicated organic enrichments due to CSOs from the urbanized areas of the Humber River and the Don River. More recent samples, however, showed that the heavy metals, PAHs, and PCBs have decreased significantly in both the Inner Harbor and Humber Bay. There are now only a few small areas with contaminants that exceed the standards. Elevated concentrations of some metals are only in the slips of the north shore of the Inner Harbor. These are the areas that receive direct stormwater runoffs and combined sewer discharges which are the likely main sources of these elevated concentrations. Overall, concentrations of metals and poisonous compounds in sediments in the Inner Harbor and Humber Bay have decreased. The completion of the key wet weather projects are aimed at remediation of CSOs, and should further improve conditions. A benthic community assessment involves studying the abundance and diversity of sediment-dwelling organisms in areas where contamination is a concern. Benthic communities in watersheds within the Toronto AOC have shown the effects of urbanization. Local initiatives to improve habitat quality, such as increased forest cover, are expected to have only local effects given that upstream conditions may considerably affect benthos downstream. The Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) conducted benthic assessments along the Toronto waterfront, and these show that this benthos has experienced healthy increased diversity. Hence, the upstream conditions have improved sufficiently to enable this benthos to improve. 5.2

Land Use in the AOC

As a group, the natural habitats—forests, meadows, wetlands, rivers, and lakes—hold stormwater, help to provide clean air, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and provide opportunities for human interaction. The Toronto AOC’s landmass can be categorized into four types of area: greenbelt which now covers 31% of the AOC’s dry area, agricultural and rural which covers 8% of the AOC’s dry area, designated greenfield development areas which now covers 7% of the AOC’s lands, and developed which now covers 54% of the AOC’s area. These estimates of natural

304

R. M. ROBINSON

cover were first composed through aerial photographs in 1999. They were periodically monitored in the years since. These 23 years of estimates show relative stability, although before this period, there was rapid decline in land with natural cover (the decline in the greenbelt). Much of the natural cover is currently comprised of small rectangular shaped patches surrounded by urban setting. In the greenbelt planning zone, the natural cover is surrounded by agriculture which therefore exerts a smaller negative influence than the urban areas. Wetlands provide habitat for fish, amphibians, birds, and other wildlife. Wetlands also provide flood control areas as an alternative to dikes and other constructions such as the Keating Canal. Prior to development, Southern Ontario’s wetlands comprised approximately 25% of its landmass. But now most of this wetland has been filled or drained for agriculture or industrial development. To restore the health to the watersheds, the Toronto AOC’s RAP plans to restore the remaining wetlands, and where possible, to create new ones. The target is to have 10% of the AOC’s area in wetland. Currently, only two of the AOC’s watersheds has more than 5% as wetland; the Rouge watershed has 5.4% in wetland; and the Humber watershed has 5.1% in wetland. The Etobicoke watershed has 2.3% as wetland; the Mimico and Highland watersheds have only 0.6% in wetland each. The Don watershed has 0.7% in wetland. Note that flood control projects are still being constructed on the Don River, but floods in the Don River watershed might be mitigated by reestablishing some of its wetlands. Riparian cover includes the forests, shrubs, meadows, and wetlands found along the banks of rivers and stream. Riparian vegetation protects the health of the watercourses by preventing streambank erosion, by retaining stormwater, by providing shade that helps water temperatures to remain low, and by providing shelter and food for fish and wildlife. A riparian zone should include a buffer on both sides of a watercourse. For a target, the Toronto AOC’s RAP specifies that all of its watercourses should have native vegetation buffers, and that three-fourths of these buffers should be forests. In highly urbanized watersheds such as the Mimico and Highland Creeks, total riparian buffer coverage might not be possible. For example, based on photography in 2013, none of the Toronto area’s watersheds meet the targets. But perhaps increases can be achieved via restoration efforts plus appropriate land-use regulations that protect floodplain.

9

5.3

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

305

The Aquatic Health of the AOC

The Toronto AOC monitors 150 sites for aquatic health. The monitoring indicates a long-term increase in stream temperature, an increase in flash flooding, an increase in concentrations of in-stream contaminants, and decreases in riparian forests. Healthier sites are located away from the more urbanized areas and in the cold-water streams of the upper Rouge and Humber watersheds where there are relatively high levels of forests. The unhealthiest sites are the most urbanized areas with concrete-lined channeling of rivers and creeks. An historical chronology of Toronto’s waterfront indicates that rocks were removed from the shores for use in construction, and the Ashbridges Bay Marsh was filled in. The Don River was also channeled to form what is now the concrete-lined Keating Channel. Less than one-quarter of the coastal marshes that once lined the Toronto AOC’s lakefront remains. These remaining wetlands include the Humber River Marshes, the Toronto Island Wetlands, the Highland Creek Wetland Complex, and the Rouge River marshes. These wetlands, however, continue to be threatened by sedimentation. But along the waterfront, wetland losses have stopped due to land use regulation. Also, new wetlands were created at Colonel Sam Smith Park, the Mimico Creek Estuary, the Humber Bay Park, and also Bluffer’s Park. In 2005, the Tommy Thompson Park was constructed, and in 2007, a significant amount of additional habitat was created along the waterfront. Hence, along the waterfront, the extent and quality of aquatic habitat has been significantly restored. As part of its Regional Watershed Management Program, the TRCA monitors the area’s fish communities. Of the more than 100 fish species found in Lake Ontario, 74 are common to the Toronto waterfront area. The primary contamination threats, however, include PCBs, mirex, and mercury. (See Appendix C to this volume for a review of these contaminants.). For the last 30 years, monitoring has indicated a steady decline in these contaminants so that fish consumption advisories have also declined particularly for “resident fish” species (bass and panfish and the like). Advisories for consumption of “migratory fish” (salmon and trout and others) remain. PCBs have been found to be a significant source of contamination across the Great Lakes. In 1999, Project Trackdown was a Great Lakes pilot project that sought to identify the sources of some particularly

306

R. M. ROBINSON

dangerous contaminants. Etobicoke Creek was identified as a particular source of PCBs. A section of heavily contaminated stream bank was further identified as the exact source. Erosion washed PCBs into the creek, and young fish were contaminated. The poisoned soils were removed, and remediation of the area was completed in 2014. This identification method is currently being used by the TRCA for tracking other PCB sources. In addition to the fish monitoring, the TRCA and ECCC have also found that aviary species are not suffering from current contamination exposure. In general, contamination levels for fish and wildlife have declined over the last 30 years.

6

Analyzing the Four AOCs

The Toronto AOC follows a Canadian process for remediation. It is managed by four government agencies with their science and engineering experts forming the critical restoration management committee. These include a federal government agency, two provincial government agencies, and a Toronto regional agency. It therefore does not need to seek the approval of an independent citizens’ advisory committee as is the situation in some of the American AOC processes. This Toronto AOC does concern the restoration of the largest urban area in Canada. Much of the restoration concerns the land-use planning and rebuilding along the Toronto waterfront where flood control is a legacy issue and ongoing problem. But as in its previous history, Toronto’s urban rebuilding again involves establishing concrete viaducts for its major urban river, i.e. the Don River. Its legacy industrial-waterfront land-filled area is flood prone and built on unstable ground that is now intended for high-end residential development. This urban renewal is in part the result of the Toronto AOC process. It should also be noted that Toronto’s method for evaluating the BUI for aesthetics was innovative in the observational training of technical monitoring staff. The Presque Isle AOC established the “Presque Isle Studies” of the methodology for examining the BUI for fish tumors and/or deformities. This posed a methodology that was then applied to the Niagara River AOC as explored above, and also in Ohio’s AOCs. The Buffalo River AOC provides examples of urban environmental restorations that address the impacts on neighborhoods especially in the context of a classic rust-belt city. These impacts address environmental

9

SOME OTHER IMPORTANT AREAS OF CONCERN …

307

justice issues, and therefore pose extensions that should be considered for other urban environmental restorations. One of the differences between the American AOC process and the Canadian process is illustrated by Toronto’s Project Trackdown method for identifying the sources of contaminants. One of Toronto’s rivers was identified as being a source of the PCB poisons found in its water flows and fish. Pursuit led the AOC’s personnel upstream until the source was found in the soils of a streambank. Remediation was then pursued. But there is another possible approach as pursued by numerous American AOCs, one that we might term a “pro-active inventory survey.” The history of legacy pollutions indicates that an inventory of the locations of industrial sites could be utilized to logically suggest where to look for PAHs, PCBs, heavy metals, pesticides, and other pollutants. They will likely be found in the vicinity of the industrial facilities that produce these poisons, and they are also likely to be in the downstream and nearby sediments. Searching for the downstream poisons first, and then looking for the source might be inefficient. “Pro-active surveys” of industrial sites would enable government officials to already have the data concerning where the contaminants have been produced. The legacy dumps will likely be found there. But municipalities might already have this industrial information of what was produced, and what toxins are associated with that production. It then becomes a task of discovering if and where toxins remain. Another difference between the Canadian AOC process and the American is that the Canada’s federal environmental agency (ECCC) has identified chloride-based road chemicals as environmentally poisonous. It is a ubiquitous source of non-point pollution. In particular, localities— especially urban localities that seek environmental restoration of areas such as Presque Isle Bay—need to either eliminate their use or establish methods for their control. Note that in the northern regions where road chemicals are common, and perhaps overused, all-wheel drive and fourwheel drive SUV vehicles have now become the norm so that the necessity of road chemicals should be substantially lower than previous transportation eras when large two-wheeled drive autos were common. The need for heavy use of these road chemicals should have substantially waned in recent decades, particularly along roads without tractor-trailer traffic. The use of these toxins should have decreased, and substitutes found.

CHAPTER 10

Some New England Rivers and Their Advocacy Organizations

1 Introduction to Three New England Restorations The previous chapters focused on restorations of locales along the Great Lakes, restorations under the federal areas of concern (AOC) Program that provided management structure and federal funding for sixty-five percent of restoration costs. There are, however, restorations underway that are outside this AOC Program. These are significant local remediations without significant federal funding. They are also led by local environmental advocacy groups. The efforts of three of these New England groups are reviewed here. The three New England rivers reviewed in this chapter include: (1) the Mystic River, most of which flows only a few miles north of Boston; (2) the Penobscot River, the most significant river and watershed in Maine; and (3) the heavily used Housatonic River in Western Massachusetts and Connecticut. The restorations of these rivers are each being led by effective local environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs). They are being restored to becoming three substantially different entities: (1) The Mystic River is now a relatively clean waterbody that flows through a newly constructed (and under construction) urbansuburban streamside park that is appropriate for walking, bicycling, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_10

309

310

R. M. ROBINSON

and small boat recreation. The restoration is being led by The Mystic River Watershed Association. (2) The Penobscot River is being restored to a relatively pristine natural river with significant reestablished fish runs. The restoration is being led by the Penobscot Indigenous Nation and The Penobscot River Restoration Trust . (3) The Housatonic River is a scenic and highly used recreational asset for stocked-trout fishing, light boating (kayaks and canoes), and hiking trails along a portion of the Appalachian Trail. Its restoration is being led by The Housatonic Valley Association with considerable contributions from organizations such as The Nature Conservancy. Both state and federal involvements and funding are present for these restorations, but in all three of these cases, the impetus for the restoration stems from its effective local citizen advocacy organization.

2 The Mystic River and Its Old and Active Advocacy Organization The Mystic River is a classic urban river being restored through the leadership and efforts of local advocacy groups with the assistance of federal and state agencies. This river is ten miles in length and drains a 76 square-mile urban watershed. Its location is north of Boston in Massachusetts, and it flows into the northwestern edge of the Inner Boston Harbor at a point close to Charlestown and Chelsea. (See Fig. 1.) It flows from its headwaters in Boston’s northern suburb of Reading and fills the Mystic Lakes in Arlington. From there it flows through the urban and suburban cities of Medford, Somerville, and Everett before reaching Boston Harbor. For the last century, it has been an industrialized river with high population density in its surrounding watershed. It also currently suffers from nonpoint runoff that washes over numerous nearby paved parking lots and highways. Its current pollution stems from legacy industrial sources, poor sewer systems, and significant amounts of stormwater runoff. In April 2007, EPA New England issued a rating of “D” for the Mystic River’s water quality. At that time, it was meeting bacterial standards for swimming in only fifty-two percent of its sampled observation, and it was meeting standards for small-craft boating (mostly kayaks and canoes) in only sixty-seven percent of its sampled observations. At this time, because

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

311

2

1 12

West

Arlington

3

Cambridge

4

Mystic Lakes

5

1: Mill Brook 2: Meadow Brook Park 3: Wellington Park 4: Mystic River Reservation 5: Dugger Park 6: Wellington Marsh 7: Malden River Greenway (proposed) 8: Mary O’Malley Park 9: Baxter Riverfront Park 10: Clippership Connector (proposed) 11: Mystic River Crossing 12: Arlington Reservoir 13: Little Mystic Channel

10

Alewife Brook

Medford

Riverbend Park Macdonald Park

Mystic River 6

11

Somerville

Malden River 9

Malden

Everett Charlestown 13 Boston Harbor

Fig. 1 Mystic River

8 Chelsea

7

312

R. M. ROBINSON

of the results of this water monitoring, the EPA initiated The Mystic River Watershed Initiative, an effort to improve the water quality throughout the Mystic’s watershed. The EPA’s aim was to use the strategies it found effective elsewhere—such as in the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative—to work with the river’s well-established and motivated citizens’ organizations that support restoration. To this end, the EPA organized a Steering Committee of 22 local organizations and government agencies (both state and local) that it co-chairs with the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA). This initiative is explored in some detail below. In general, the goals of this initiative aligns with and follows the long-term goal of the MyRWA, namely to improve the water quality of the river and to improve access to the river for the sake of the area’s residents. 2.1

The Mystic River Watershed Association

Tufts University is located in Medford, one of Boston’s northern suburbs that the Mystic flows through. In the early 1970s, some Tufts University undergraduate students obtained water samples from the river and its tributaries. They continued (even to today) to monitor the river’s health. To facilitate this monitoring, in 1972 the students formed a nonprofit organization dedicated to politically supporting the environmental restoration of the river, i.e. the Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA). From its initiation, its mission has been “to protect and restore” the Mystic and its watershed, and to do so by “protecting water quality, restoring habitat, building climate resilience and transforming parks and paths along its length.”1 The Association’s “Board and Officers” are staffed with highly educated and dedicated volunteers.2 There are twelve staff members, eight of whom hold their university degrees in ecologically related subjects such as: • “Masters in Environmental Science and Policy” from Clark University, • “BS in Marine Biology” from West Florida University, • “Masters in Marine Biology” from Tufts University, 1 See www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/steering-committee-pur pose-structure.pdf. 2 For example, one of its founders and continuing leaders holds a “Masters Degree in Environmental Science” from Harvard.

10

• • • •

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

313

“PhD in Plant Ecology” from the University of Connecticut, “Masters in Ecological Management” from Harvard University, “BA in Environmental Studies” from Wellesley College, “BA in Biology” from Swarthmore College. 2.2

The Water Quality of the Mystic River

MyRWA’s dedicated corps of volunteers have regularly and systematically collected water quality data for the past 18 years. (This was facilitated by a loan of monitoring equipment from the EPA.) Using data gathered from 15 different monitoring sites, along with data gathered by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), a “report card” for the Mystic’s waters is publicized every year by the EPA. These annual water quality grades are given to sections of the river and its tributaries. For 2020, the grades for the Mystic Lakes and the river’s upper reaches are “A” and “B”, respectively. For the middle river, the grades range from “C” to “C + .” For the four sections of the lower river, the grades vary from “D” to “D + .” These observations of downstream water quality deterioration are as expected since pollutions concentrate downstream, and also because the downstream portion of the Mystic is in a more industrialized area than the somewhat suburbanized upper river. These water quality deficiencies include the bacterial pollutions that are generated from: • illicit sewerage discharges into storm drain systems, • combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and • uncontrolled stormwater runoffs that contain pet and other animal wastes. The illicit sewerage discharges include bacteria, viruses, phosphorous, and various toxic pollutants. In recent years, however, the EPA claims to have stopped over 31,000 gallons per day of illegal sewerage discharges.3 CSOs occur when wastewater containing untreated human waste, industrial waste, or other debris is carried through the stormwater pipes and discharged into the river. The Boston metropolitan area’s sewer

3 See “Environmental Challenges for the Mystic River Watershed,” at www.epa.gov/ mysticriver/environmental-challenges-mystic-river-watershed.

314

R. M. ROBINSON

system was originally designed to carry both sanitary sewerage and stormwater through the same pipes that connect to a treatment plant. But after a heavy rainfall or snowmelt event, the wastewater volume can become more than the system can handle. The combined sanitary and stormwater sewer system design allows the overflow to discharge the mixed stormwater and untreated sewerage directly into the river. Establishment of a stormwater system that is separate from the sanitary sewer has been a long-term objective of the MyRWA. Stormwater runoff occurs when rain or snowmelt flows over the ground. Impervious surfaces such as driveways, sidewalks, and streets prevent stormwater runoff from naturally soaking the ground. When flowing over impervious surfaces, stormwater picks up sediments, oils, pet wastes, and other pollutants which then flow into the river—frequently into waterbodies used for swimming, fishing, and sometimes drinking water. Cleaning the river, therefore, requires either changing the nature of the impermeable surfaces, or preventing the pollutants from accumulating on these surfaces. For example, the pet wastes are often a major source of bacteria and provide the nutrients that feed algae blooms. “Blue green algae blooms” are a major result of the excessive nutrients that flow into the Mystic. These algae release toxins when they die, and exposure to this toxin can cause skin rashes, and serious liver and nervous system damage. They can also cause fish kills because the algae absorb oxygen from the water. Controlling this stormwater runoff has been a major long-term objective of the MyRWA. Andy Hyracyna, the MyRWA’s “chief water scientist,” recently (8/05/2022) reflected on the accomplishments of the multi-decade monitoring program of the Mystic.4 Hyracyna has been working with MyRWA for 8 years. He holds a Masters in Ecological Management degree from nearby Harvard University. He observed that the water quality grades for most sites along the Mystic have not changed much over his years of observation. It is logical to therefore ask, what is the value of continuing these observations? The answers, of course, concern the political impacts that might be achieved by the monitoring. Hyracyna points out (i) that the public has the right to know the condition of the environment they live in, (ii) that the data indicates the infrastructure investments needed and also the successes that these investments achieve, 4 See https://mysticriver.org/news/2022/8/5/water-quality-grades-for-the-mystic-ref lections-from-a-watershed-scientist.

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

315

(iii) that the monitoring captures the media’s attention to help unite the community in its demands for restorations, (iv) that the monitoring implicitly calls the various state and local government agencies to account so as to demand the needed improvements (this is MyRWA’s original purpose), and (v) that the monitoring feeds the much needed “environmental justice movement” that attempts to assure that some marginalized communities are not ignored by restoration policies. MyRWA’s fifteen watershed monitoring sites establish a rigorous and complete observational system that is now emulated by other watersheds such as along the nearby Neponset River south of Boston. This extensive monitoring has indicated: • The Mystic River is now a relatively clean urban river despite the old persistent and widespread perception that it is heavily polluted. This accomplishment of partial restoration should be celebrated as such. • The Mystic Lakes, where many boat and swim, have excellent water quality that consistently meets recreational standards. • Along the Mystic, however, there are still continued sources of wastewater contamination detected by the watershed’s monitoring system, particularly in some of the river’s tributaries. With respect to this last above point, some tributaries have shown remarkable improvement. For example, in recent years the Island End River in Chelsea and Everett has improved from an “F” to an “A.” What caused this dramatic improvement? Pushed by the EPA and guided by the monitoring evidence, the municipal engineers of Chelsea and Everett explored the bacterial contamination problem to discover that a large development had an illicit connection of a sanitary sewer pipe to the stormwater system. The problem was corrected which led to the dramatically improved water quality. The restoration of the Mystic River was therefore initiated by The Mystic River’s Watershed Association which still spearheads these efforts. Recently, however, the Association has joined with the EPA and other government entities in forming the Steering Committee of the Mystic River Watershed Initiative. The aim of this is to expand its monitoring and rehabilitation initiatives. But this restoration effort exemplifies the possibilities for other restorations in areas where the citizen organizations

316

R. M. ROBINSON

have yet to fully mature. Promoting an understanding of these possibilities is a purpose of this chapter. 2.3

The Greenways of the Mystic Watershed

Note that much of the Mystic’s riverbanks are on public property. (Some of these public areas are indicated by Fig. 1). The Association is currently working to establish and restore 25 miles of connected parks and paths between Mystic Lakes and Boston Harbor. Since pet wastes are a significant contaminant of the river, it is also working to assure that walkers along these paths will have wastes from their accompanying pets properly controlled. The Mystic Greenways Initiative is organized by the MyRWA. It is a restoration program to connect 25 miles of paths and improve hundreds of acres of parklands for the purpose of improving the physical and mental well-being of the more than 600,000 residents of the watershed. In particular, the MyRWA has created the political momentum for the establishment of four new waterfront parks and connecting paths. But the MyRWA is also strongly supporting several other restoration efforts as indicated below. Its partners in these efforts include the local governments of the municipalities of the watershed, plus the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and several charitable foundations who work with the MyRWA to contribute funding for this restoration effort. Some examples of these greenway connections are presented in this section. MyRWA is working to develop the Clippership Connector Park to link greenways along 10 miles of the riverbank between Medford Square and Riverbend Park. (See Fig. 1. This will be an extension of Riverbend and Macdonald Parks). The Clippership will be a half-mile waterfront path. It will allow people to walk, run, and bike along a section of riverbank that currently has no public access. This park will be constructed in 2023. In addition, once it is completed, the Mystic River Crossing will connect two of the largest developments on the river—Assembly Row in Somerville and Encore Boston Harbor in Everett. It will be a pedestrian and bicycle bridge that will connect the north shore of the river to the south shore in Boston. Its construction will begin in 2023 and be completed by 2026.

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

317

The MyRWA has also formed and is promoting a plan for the Malden River Greenway, a seamless waterfront park system along both sides of the Malden River . (See Fig. 1.) This park will connect the communities of Medford, Malden, and Everett. This construction began in 2017 when because of the area’s history of industrial uses, only a little more than 1 mile of the planned 3.5-mile shoreline was accessible green space. Now, because of several old brownfield restorations, the Malden River will become a central open-space amenity for all three of its bordering cities (Medford, Malden and Everett). It will consist of a new park with connecting paths to other greenways along the Mystic. The Mystic to Minuteman project envisions a safe offroad walking and biking route adjacent to the Mystic Valley Parkway (a road) from the Greenway at the lower Mystic Lake to the Minuteman Bikeway in Arlington. The Greenway runs adjacent to the river—as shown as the “Mystic River Reservation” on Fig. 1—and the Parkway is a road adjacent to the south side of the Greenway. The Minuteman Bikeway is on the west side of Alewife Brook. (See Fig. 1.) MyRWA composed and is promoting the plan for this project. It will be funded by the Town of Arlington, and the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The length of the project is approximately 1.7 miles. It will also redesign two critical rotaries for safety and access for walkers and bikers. The Wellington—Route 28 Underpass is a proposed boardwalk in Medford that will connect the Torbert MacDonald Park with the Wellington Marsh. (The connection will be an underpass of Rt. 28.) The MyRWA and the City of Medford are co-leading this underpass development. Construction will begin in 2023 and be completed in 2026. The Torbert MacDonald Park is one of the largest riverfront parks in Greater Boston. It provides residents in Medford, Somerville, Malden, and Everett with recreational opportunities along the Mystic. This important asset had, however, not received its needed maintenance and investment. The MyRWA and DCR are partnering to promote this park to become an environmental asset. The DCR has repaved most of the 3 miles of trails and removed 15 acres of phragmites in order to open access to the river. (See Appendix B concerning invasive vegetation.) The Little Mystic Channel Park in Charlestown is a similar forgotten and unused asset that MyRWA is also promoting for restoration. Wellington Park is located along Mill Brook in Arlington. It has benefitted from a multi-year revitalization effort as planned and promoted by

318

R. M. ROBINSON

the MyRWA. A boardwalk, other walkways, and native plantings have opened the previously hidden waterfront. Invasive plants and chain-link fences were removed and replaced with wetland that absorbs flooding from Mill Brook and provides aviary and fish habitat. For decades, the Town of Arlington and the MyWRA have explored the development of Mill Brook Park (not yet created). Previously, there were nine mills and seven millponds along the brook which flows from the Arlington Reservoir to the Lower Mystic Lake. (See Fig. 1). When completed, four town-owned recreational and conservation areas will be accessible along Mill Brook. This project is progressing toward MyRWA’s Mill Brook Corridor vision and was begun by the Association and the Town of Arlington in 2017. The final phase of construction was begun in 2022. It will include a raingarden to treat stormwater and prevent flooding. The Mystic River Watershed Initiative is an effort to combine the resources of the MyRWA, and of various municipalities and local government agencies with possible EPA funding. The EPA is providing the expertise to develop the Initiative’s “Steering Committee,” which plans the coordination for the remediations’ efforts. In 2013, the Mystic River Watershed was selected to be one of eleven new Urban Waters Federal Partnerships with the aim of better communication and coordination among federal agencies concerning restorations in regions that contain economically distressed areas. (The Urban Waters Federal Partnerships is reviewed in Chapter 11).

3

The Penobscot River and Its Restoration

The Penobscot River drains central Maine. It was named by the native people who have occupied central Maine for over 5,000 years. In their language, the name “Penobscot” means “waters of descending ledge.” This river’s main stem is 109 miles long, but when its West and South Branches are added, its length is over 260 miles. Its watershed drains approximately 8,600 square miles. The area is the native home of the Penobscot Nation of Native People, who provide a major restoration constituency for advocating dam removal and habitat restoration, and who make restoration of this river an issue of environmental justice. The river’s banks are heavily wooded; it was once a substantial source of wood and pulp. It has been, and is again becoming, a significant fishing area for Atlantic salmon, smallmouth bass, short-nose sturgeon, Atlantic Sturgeon, shad, herring, smelts and bottom fish that provide food for eagles,

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

319

bears, and otters, and that also provide a significant source of sustenance for the Penobscot People. In the late nineteenth century, the Penobscot was a transportation vehicle for logs from Maine’s Great North Woods. The lumber sawmills were in Old Town and Orono. (See Fig. 2). The port city of Bangor—at the head of Penobscot Bay—facilitated the lumber’s transportation along the Atlantic seaboard. In the twentieth century, lumbering was replaced by pulp and paper mills located along the River from Millinocket to Bucksport. Wood pulp and paper mills created dioxins as a byproduct of the chlorine bleaching process for paper. Dioxins—a cancer causing pathogen—were discharged from seven paper mills along the river. The native Penobscot people were particularly affected. Numerous hydropower dams were built along the river in the early twentieth century. Between the 1920s and World War II, the inexpensive hydropower enabled textile and shoe manufacturing to become dominant in Maine. After the war, however, Maine became an important recreation destination, and restoration of the river became essential. The movement for dam removals became strong after 2000. 3.1

The Dams of the Penobscot

During the last century, the US led the world in dam construction. In the US, the Army Corps of Engineers has cataloged over 90,000 dams greater than six feet in height. These dams depleted fisheries, degraded ecosystem, and negatively altered our natural interactions. Many of these dams are now outdated, unsafe, and no longer serve their original purpose.5 The particular disruptions caused by dams include: • They prevent anadromous fish migrations to spawning grounds. • They cause the river’s silt to build up behind the blockage, and consequently not be deposited in the downstream delta where it might regenerate rich agricultural soils.6 • This upstream silting destroys the sandy and rocky spawning grounds of non-anadromous fish.

5 See www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring-damaged-rivers/dam-rem oval-map/. 6 See Robinson (2021, Chapter 11).

320

R. M. ROBINSON

N

1: Veazie Dam – removed in 2013 2: The Great Works Dam – removed in 2012 3: Milford Dam – fish lift installed in 2015 4: The Howland Dam – fish bypass constructed

in 2015 East Branch

Town of Millinocket Dolby Pond

Mattawamkeag River West Branch

Sabec Lake

Town of Medway

Town of Lincoln Penobscot River

Piscataquis River

4 Town of Milford

3 Old Town

2

Town of Orono

1

City of Bangor

Town of Bucksport Penobscot Bay Atlantic Ocean Fig. 2 Penobscot River

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

321

• The stagnant reservoir pools raise the water’s temperature which alters the ecosystem and facilitates algae blooms with their consequent eutrophication and toxins. • The peak demands on hydropower dams cause wide variation in water flows that further degrade the ecosystem.7 The Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT) has seven member organizations: American Rivers, Atlantic Salmon Federation, Maine Audubon, Natural Resource Council of Maine, Penobscot Nation, The Nature Conservancy, and Trout Unlimited. These organizations provide dedicated leadership to the Penobscot River Restoration Project (PRRP) which largely consists of dam removals and fish bypass constructions aimed at restoring fish runs and the overall natural habitat of the river. The fish runs include twelve native species such as the anadromous short-nosed sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, Atlantic salmon, striped bass, steelhead trout, river herring, and shad. The Natural Resources Council has particularly been a significant leader in this dam elimination and habitat restoration. Also, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has also been a significant partner in this effort. NOAA has designated the Penobscot as one of its ten nationwide Habitat Focus Areas . Since 2008, it has contributed $21 million toward the PRRP. This Project has already removed the obstructions of the two lowermost dams (Veazie and Great Works) in order to restore fish runs. It has also led to the decommissioning of Howland Dam and the construction of a fish bypass around it. The project also improved fish passage at four other dam sites, and it improved hydropower production at six other dams so that total electric generation has not and will not suffer. Furthermore, the ongoing work in the watershed includes other dam removals, expanding spawning grounds by constructing fishways at the outlets of lakes, expanding culverts that otherwise inhibit fish runs, and surveying the watershed to identify new habitat restoration initiatives. The Penobscot and its tributaries flow from Mount Katahdin through the middle of Maine to the Penobscot Bay. It is the largest river system in Maine. Its watershed drains one-quarter of the state. This river provides the benefits of environmental interactions, cultural enrichment, and economic development. The PRRP will provide:

7 Ibid.

322

R. M. ROBINSON

• improved access for 2,000 miles of river and stream habitat for anadromous fish, • restored ecological systems that benefit native plants and animals in the river, its estuary, and the Gulf of Maine, • support for the Penobscot Indian Nation’s culture and traditions, • new opportunities for community development, • new opportunities for natural interactions, and • enhanced hydropower generation. The Penobscot Project has already restored links between the Gulf of Maine and the upper reaches of the watershed. The native anadromous fish have already returned to their native spawning grounds. This has provided enhanced food sources for birds such as eagles and osprey, and also mammals such as porpoise and river otters. Previous to the dam removals, almost no shad used the fish lift at Milford Dam. Now thousands of shad use this lift to reach the upper river. Previous to the dam removals, almost no river herring used the fish lift, but now over a million do each year. Before the dam removals, sturgeon were not present at their ancient upriver spawning grounds, but they are now. Also, the Penobscot Nation has now hosted three national whitewater canoe races on the newly free-flowing river above Old Town. All of this has occurred while hydropower generation at six dams in the Penobscot watershed have increased their output of electric power sufficiently to more than offset the removal of the older facilities.8 The Penobscot Project began in 1999 when the energy corporation PPL-Maine purchased a series of Maine dams. PPL approached the Penobscot Indian Nation who engaged several conservation advocacy organizations in hopes of influencing the dams’ licensing renewal processes. Their discussions led to the plan to remove the river’s downstream dams while expanding power generation at other upstream dams. In 2004, an agreement concerning the dam removal process was reached by the Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT), the nonprofit organization that worked with state and federal agencies to implement the restoration of the river. The PRRT purchased the Veazie, the Great Works and the Howland Dams in December of 2010 (see Fig. 2). With support from NOAA and funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment

8 See www.nrcm.org/programs/waters/penobscot-river-restoration-project/.

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

323

Act of 2009, and also with half the necessary funding coming from private contributions, The Great Works Dam was removed in 2012, and the Veazie was removed in 2013. A channel that bypasses the Howland Dam was completed in 2015. Also, a new fish lift was installed at the Milford Dam in 2015 (see Fig. 2). All of this enabled the reconnection of thousands of miles of spawning habitat to the river’s main channel for the first time in nearly 200 years. For example, prior to the dam removals river herring could previously be counted by the hundreds, but in 2018 there were 2.8 million in the upper watershed after the removals. In 2016, Atlantic Salmon returned to spawn in the upper river. John Banks, the Director of Natural Resources for the Penobscot Nation said, “For the tribe, the project represents much more than a fisheries and hydropower improvement effort. By ecologically reconnecting the watershed with the sea, this project repairs an age-old cycle that allowed the tribe to sustain itself for thousands of years.”9 Kate Dempsey, Maine’s Director of The Nature Conservancy said, “Monitored populations of migratory freshwater fish have declined 76 percent in the past fifty years (worldwide), weakening connected ecosystems and fisheries that feed millions of people. That’s another reason the Penobscot River project is so important; it has become an international beacon of hope and learning for how challenges from dams can be addressed, informing restorations all around the world.”10 As a particular example of restoration, the short-nose sturgeon, a species with a natural lifespan of 50 years, has now returned to the Penobscot. Along with the Atlantic Sturgeon, the short-nose sturgeon had previously been listed as “endangered” by the EPA. But after the dam deconstructions, in 2015 the University of Maine researchers confirmed evidence that three female short-nose sturgeon were in waters between the remnants of the Veazie Dam and the town of Orono. For tracing purposes, researchers previously implanted them with small sound emitting acoustic tags. Previous to the dam constructions, the short-nose and Atlantic Sturgeon spawned in the river as far upstream as the Milford Dam, but the dams led to their decline and ultimately the EPA’s listing as “endangered” in 1967. Sounding devices enable the tracking of the

9 Ibid. 10 Ibid, parentheses added.

324

R. M. ROBINSON

tagged fish. They now indicate that sturgeon have returned to their ancient winter habitat, and that they are now spawning in the Spring. Habitat access is essential for the recovery of these species. The removal of the Veazie is a part of the Penobscot River Restoration Project . Along with the removal of the Great Works Dam in 2012, and the Howland Dam fish bypass constructed in 2015, all of the habitat of the sturgeon is now restored along the Penobscot. This also restores the habitat for the nine other sea-run species native to the Penobscot, including Atlantic salmon and river herring. In addition, Molly Payne Wynne, the Monitoring Coordinator for the Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT), states “The collaborative body of research on this project is among the most comprehensive when compared to the other river restoration projects across the country.”11 The project has become a model to be followed by the other restoration projects in North America. It involves long-term monitoring that is funded by NOAA Fisheries, The Penobscot River Restoration Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and others. Besides NOAA and The Natural Resources Council , the other partners in the Penobscot River Restoration Project include: • • • • • • • •

the Penobscot Indian Nation, various agencies of the State of Maine, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Maine Audubon Society, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Maine Sea Grant, and Maine Heritage Trust.

Before the industrialization and dam constructions, the Atlantic Salmon runs in the Penobscot numbered 50,000 or more. Shad and alewives migrated 100 miles upriver, and twenty-pound striped bass and sturgeon also spawned in the river. All of these have now returned after the dam removals.

11 Ibid.

10

3.2

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

325

Penobscot Nation’s Involvement in the Restoration

One of the more cogent reviews of the importance of the Penobscot River’s restoration to the Penobscot Tribal Nation was authored by Tribal Elder Butch Phillips. His polemic, “A River Runs Through Us” captures the best of what should be said about this restoration.12 Phillips wrote concerning the degradation of the Penobscot by “sewerage, pollutants and poisons” that “the river became an open sewer.” The result was that “the Sacred Circle of Life was broken.” But after appropriate legislation was established and the restoration was accomplished, then “The people are once again coming back to the river and uniting to strengthen the restoration efforts.” Phillips wrote that, “Because of the combined efforts and successes of these groups, the Penobscot has become a model for river restoration.”13 3.3

The Penobscot is Now Restored?

After the efforts to restore the Penobscot, this river is now closer to being a pristine natural area as compared to the urban-suburban watersheds explored in the above chapters. The contemporary salmon runs are now considerably smaller than their historic counterpart, but after a century of building dams and other degradations to the river, that should be expected. Nonetheless, approximately a thousand salmon are now returning to spawn each year, and this is now the largest Atlantic salmon run in the US. Their numbers will grow, and as the fisheries rebound, the wildlife that feeds on the migrating fish (eagles, osprey, and otters, etc.) will also thrive. In a sense, the Penobscot is somewhat similar to the Saginaw Bay restoration. For its political support, it has strong constituencies, particularly the Penobscot Tribal Nation who recall how the river and its watershed once were, and who can therefore envision how they could be after restoration. The Penobscot therefore has strong advocacy constituents, strong funding from government and private sources, and the clear objectives of (i) dam removal, (ii) construction of fish byways, plus (iii) various specific habitat restorations. 12 See www.nrcm-org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RiverRunsThroughUs_ButchP hillips.pdf. 13 Ibid.

326

R. M. ROBINSON

4 The Housatonic River Watershed and Its Advocacy The Housatonic River originates close to Pittsfield in the Berkshire Mountains in Western Massachusetts. It flows 149 miles south through Connecticut. Its watershed drains approximately 2,000 square miles before it flows into Long Island Sound between the municipalities of Stratford and Milford in Connecticut. It has numerous tributaries, the largest being the Naugatuck, which contributes 312 square miles of drainage to the Housatonic’s watershed. The River and its tributaries are impeded by numerous dams in Massachusetts and five hydroelectric dams in Connecticut. The latter form a chain of lakes: Lake Lillinonah, Lake Zoar, and Lake Housatonic (see Fig. 3). The Housatonic River’s most significant pollutions stem from three sources: (i) non-point storm runoffs, (ii) legacy PCB contaminations, and (iii) legacy mercury contaminations that originated from textile manufacturing. Considering the first source, twenty-four roads cross the Housatonic over its course. Route 7 parallels closely to the river’s banks through much of its length. These roads, plus numerous hardened parking lots and adjacent buildings, all channel storm runoff into the river. This runoff causes streambank erosion, and also washes salts and chemicals from snow and ice removal, and vehicular chemicals (motor oils and fuels), plus plastics and other debris into the river. Between 1932 and 1977, the Housatonic was polluted by PCB discharges from General Electric’s (GE) plants in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. In 1997, the EPA designated the GE facilities and several miles of the river as a Superfund site, and it continues to supervise GE’s cleanup efforts. As of 2020, remediation of 10 manufacturing facilities within the City of Pittsfield has been completed, but downstream areas have yet to be cleaned. The most polluted of these areas is Woods Pond in Lenox, just south of Pittsfield, which contains most of the toxic sediment. The birds and fish of the Housatonic area continue to contain high levels of PCBs. The Connecticut section of the Housatonic contains high levels of mercury. This resulted from the hat manufacturing industry of Danbury, Connecticut, which operated from the mid-nineteenth through the midtwentieth centuries. This industry used mercury nitrate in the felting

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

327

process. The mercury continues to pollute the river’s sediment, and leaks into the water flowing downstream during storms. The river’s discharge into Long Island Sound continues to contain mercury as well as PCBs.

Housatonic River New York Pittsfield West Stockbridge

Lenox

1 Canaan 2 Falls Village 3 Salisbury 4 Sharon 5 West Cornwall 6 Kent – Bulls Bridge 7 Broadman Bridge 8 New Milford 9 Meadows State Park 10 Macedonia Brook Park Massachusetts Connecticut

1

3

Blackberry River

2

4

9

Appalachian Trail

5

10

Housatonic State Forest

Kent Falls Park

6 Appalachian Trail

7 8 Housatonic Park

Lake Lillinona

Danbury

Bridgeport

Lake Housatonic Milford

Long Island Sound Fig. 3 Housatonic River

Naugatuk River

Lake Zoar

N

328

R. M. ROBINSON

The primary citizen’s organization for generating the political impetus for restoring the Housatonic Watershed is the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA). Formed in the 1960s, this organization’s accomplishments include: • the dismantling of dams in the watershed, • the remediation of sewerage flows into the River, • the restoration and preservation of stream banks throughout the watershed, • the identification and prevention of illegal toxic waste dumping into the watershed, • the identification and prevention of illegal construction in the watershed, • the restoration of fish habitat in the watershed, and • the prevention of unsustainable land-use planning within the watershed. The HVA played a pivotal role in GE’s PCB cleanup of the Housatonic by facilitating the negotiations between GE and the EPA. The HVA also played the crucial role in monitoring the River for sources of pollution and lobbying the relevant state agencies for remediation. The HVA’s efforts also protected more than 19,000 acres of natural wetlands and stream banks within the watershed through its “Housatonic River Greenway” preservation program. It also has effectively promoted a “least-build” land-use planning policy throughout the watershed as the appropriate and sustainable development technique. GE’s settlement with the EPA committed $15 million of restoration funding to be split between Massachusetts and Connecticut. These funds were combined with state, local, and private contributions to finance restoration projects in each state. The plans for these projects include: • dam deconstructions, • habitat restorations for fish and wildlife, • land acquisitions along the Housatonic and its tributaries for trails, wildlife refuges, and river access as in the “Housatonic River Greenway” mentioned above, • floodplain restorations, and • environmental literacy initiatives.

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

329

The “Flat Brook Wildlife Management Area” in West Stockbridge is an example of these efforts. This 273-acre area is an addition to the adjacent 220-acre “Maple Hill Wildlife Management Area.” The trustees and councils who manage the restoration funding for all of these projects include representatives of the relevant federal, state, and local agencies and also the HVA. The Housatonic River Watershed is a rust-belt urban-suburban area. Its restoration and environmental activities provide examples that illustrate the potentials of well-organized environmental advocacy organizations (NGOs) for initiating substantial and effective remediation efforts as documented in this chapter. 4.1

The Housatonic’s PCB Problem

PCBs are a man-made group of organic chemicals consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine atoms. PCBs were made in the US from 1929 to 1979 when their manufacture was banned. (See Appendix C for a review of PCBs and their poisonous effects.) The Housatonic River and its flood plains are heavily contaminated with PCBs that originated from the GE facility in Pittsfield. Most of this contamination is now found between the confluence of the East and West branches in Pittsfield and Woods Pond Dam in Lenox and also from the Rising Pond in Great Barrington (see Fig. 3). The EPA estimates that between 100,000 and 600,000 pounds of PCBs are present in the Housatonic’s sediment and floodplain soil.14 Currently, more than half of the PCBs that enters Woods Pond goes over its dam and continues downstream into Connecticut and ultimately into Long Island Sound, a distance of 140 miles. The PCBs found along the Housatonic are persistent in the environment and resistant to biodegradation. Their rate of natural degradation is very slow—hundreds of years. Without cleanup, it would take at least decades if not hundreds of years before the PCB concentrations in fish would decrease to the point that reasonable levels of consumption would be safe. PCBs enter the air, water, and soils during their manufacture and transportation. A small amount of PCB may be dissolved in water, but most stick to particles and soil or sediments which also include organic 14 See https://epa.gov/ge-housatonic/forms/contact-us-about-ge-pittsfieldhousatonicriver-site.

330

R. M. ROBINSON

carbons. Each PCB has a different degradation time with lighter mixtures degrading quicker. The heavier PCBs, however, are the ones found in the Housatonic watershed. These are more persistent in the soils and sediments of the river. Their rate of deterioration is very slow. PCBs in the environment are absorbed by animals and a few plants. Bioaccumulations occur both in wild populations and in animals raised for food. The rate of bioaccumulation and therefore concentration of PCBs are impacted by the amount of fat in the animal body. In general, organisms accumulate higher concentrations if they have higher amounts of body fat since the PCBs are found in that body fat. Once PCBs have entered the body, they are slow to leave it. They typically stay for the life of the animal. Hence, this “bioaccumulation” reaches concentrations in the body thousands of times greater than in the water or soils from which they are absorbed. These high concentrations lead to consumption advisories for fish and waterfowl in the watershed. In contrast, most plants do not accumulate PCBs because of their waxy layers which bind the PCBs and prevents them from being absorbed into the plant. Some plants in the squash family do accumulate PCBs from the soil through their roots. Tomatoes also can absorb airborne PCBs through their leaves. Generally, however, most PCBs remain on the surface of fruits and vegetables, often as part of the soil deposited on the plant from rainwater splash. PCBs have been found to cause a wide variety of adverse health effects including cancers. There are a significant number of non-cancer effects including impacts to the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, endocrine system, and other organs. Some PCB mixtures exhibit dioxin effects. The data indicates that PCBs are probable human carcinogens, and the EPA has classified them as such. Concerning the reproductive effects of exposures, PCBs were found to reduce the birth weight, conception rate, and the live birth rates of monkeys. PCB exposure was also found to reduce sperm counts. Also, children born to women who worked with PCBs in factories show decreased birth weight and there is also a significant decrease in gestational age with increasing exposures to PCBs. The effects of PCBs on nervous system development have also been studied. Newborn monkeys exposed to PCBs show persistent and significant deficits in neurological development including visual recognition, short-term memory, and learning. Studies in humans suggest effects similar to those observed in monkeys exposed to PCBs including learning

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

331

deficits. Elevations in blood pressure, serum triglycerides, and serum cholesterol have also been reported with increased levels of PCBs in humans. 4.2

The Housatonic as a “Wild and Scenic River”

A river is a natural common property resource, i.e. a “commons.” As such, rivers are liable to suffer from the “tragedy of the commons”—the phenomena of common property resources being degraded. Avoiding this “tragedy” always involves collective management. (For a review of this phenomena, see Robinson, 2021, Chapter 10). The communities along the Connecticut section of the Housatonic are currently seeking to organizing the collective action necessary to avoid this “tragedy.” They seek to have most of the Connecticut portion of the river to be federally designated as “Wild and Scenic” according to the US National Park Service’s standards. The requirements for, and advantages of this designation are reviewed here. To achieve the status of “Wild and Scenic,” a river must first: 1. be designated as a “wild, or scenic, or recreational river” by its resident state, 2. be managed by an agency of that state, 3. be “free flowing” and possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable values” (ORVs), 4. have its free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be permanently protected. To achieve this designation, the US National Park Service (NPS) must evaluate the river according to the four criteria listed above. As of April, 2021, the NPS has evaluated and judged that there is strong support for the Housatonic’s protection and the “Wild and Scenic” designation. The local governments, state agencies, elected officials, and environmental organizations all strongly support the granting of this designation. For example, the Housatonic River Commission was formed in 1979 for the purpose of providing collective guidance on river management issues to the towns along the upper Housatonic: Canaan, Cornwall, Kent, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, and Sharon. The Commission produced a management plan in 1981, updated it in 2006, and routinely

332

R. M. ROBINSON

influences land-use policies along the river. The plan for the “Wild and Scenic” section of the Housatonic includes its northern 40.3 miles from the Massachusetts-Connecticut border to the Boardman Bridge in New Milford. This area is known for its charming rural character, historical heritage, and remarkable natural beauty in the midst of the northeastern densely populated corridor. The management plan consists of controlling three zones: an inner boundary, an outer boundary, and village centers. (These boundaries are reviewed below.) There are two spectacular waterfalls within this proposed section: the Great Falls in Falls Village, Canaan, and the Kent Falls in the Town of Kent. For the latter, a series of cascades drop 250 feet in less than a quarter mile of the river. The highest of the falls within this area is 70 feet. Also in Kent, the Bull’s Bridge area has a scenic gorge. As indicated above, a “Wild and Scenic River” must be “free flowing,” which means “flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway.”15 A single dam, or some other diversion need not eliminate a river from consideration, but the character of free flowing must predominate over the section considered, and new modification must not occur once the designation is granted.16 Also as indicated above, a “Wild and Scenic River” must have one or more “river related outstandingly remarkable natural, cultural or recreational resource values.” To be so classified, the resource value must: 1. be located in the river or within one-quarter mile of either side of the river, 2. contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem, and 3. owe its location or existence to the presence of the river. In addition to the above criteria, all the river’s segments must be classified as either “Wild, Scenic, or Recreational.” A “Wild River” classification must be “free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except

15 “Rip-rapping” entails covering stream banks with rock. 16 See “Housatonic River: Wild and Scenic River Evaluation,” National Park Service,

Boston, Massachusetts, April 2021, p. 10, at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document. cfm?park=261&documentID=113788.

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

333

by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and the waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.” The “Scenic River” classification requires the river must be “free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.” The “Recreational River” classification allows the segment to be “readily accessible by road,” and also allows “some development along the shorelines” and “some previous impoundment or diversion in the past.” The river can, therefore, be segmented where each segment qualifies as one or the other of the three classifications. The overall classification, however, depends of the NPS judging the “degree of naturalness” of the overall connected segments given that the river should not be “excessively segmented” in order to qualify. For consideration of being listed as a Wild and Scenic River, the Housatonic was segmented into four sections, two of which were classified as “scenic,” and two as “recreational.” The “scenic” segments were from the state border to the West Cornwall Bridge, and also from the Cornwall bridge to the Kent Bridge (see Fig. 3). The “recreational segments” were from the West Cornwall Bridge to the Cornwall Bridge, and from the Kent Bridge to the Boardman Bridge. The problem of meeting the required “free-flow” criteria concerned the dams at Falls Village and at Bulls Bridge. With these impoundments, the licensing by FERC must require what is termed a run-of-the-river management rather than a pond-and-release management. The former requires that the flow into the dammed waterbody be continuously equal to the outflow. The latter allows for a managed buildup and periodic release so that ponding occurs. With the run-of-the-river method, the dams were grandfathered-in but no new impoundments would be allowed. To evaluate the “outstandingly remarkable values” along these segments, the NPS recognized that the Housatonic was a well-visited recreational river in a picturesque setting. Under the old pond and release management, an “amusement park atmosphere” developed with as many as 450 water-craft per day below the dam when the water “release” occurred. The run-of-the-river, however, transformed the river to being amenable to more tranquil recreation. Now, the river is generally not overcrowded.

334

R. M. ROBINSON

4.3

The Four Segments of the Housatonic

The four segments of Connecticut’s Housatonic have separate identities in the Management Plan. The “scenic” segment between Connecticut’s northern border and Falls Village flows primarily through farmland and has a few small-craft access points for kayaks and canoes. The Appalachian Trail crosses the river at Amesville Bridge in Falls Village. The wetlands of Robbins Swamp, located east of the river in Canaan and North Canaan, is a popular duck hunting area. The Blackberry and Hollenbeck Rivers enter the Housatonic in this segment where the Hollenbeck Preserve, owned by The Nature Conservancy, encompasses 182 acres along the river. It provides a habitat for significant rare plant and animal species. The “recreational” section between Falls Village and Kent is heavily used for boating and fishing. The Meadows State Park is on the west side to provide access and parking. A “Trout Management Area” extends for nine miles through Sharon and Cornwall. It includes a 3.5-mile flyfishing only area. Macedonia Brook State Park and Kent Falls State Park are also along this segment. Also, the Appalachian Trail extends for five miles along the west side of the river between Kent and Cornwall Bridge. A “scenic” segment is between Kent and Boardman Bridge. There the river is wide and flat. The Appalachian Trail runs parallel and west of the river and offers vistas looking down on the river. (Fig. 3 indicates this Trail.) Route 7 is along the east side, but it is sufficiently separated from the river as to make access difficult. It also offers scenic views. The most southern segment of the Housatonic is “recreational,” particularly for kayaks. But protecting this sensitive area from overuse is a major concern. The Bulls Bridge Gorge area, however, is environmentally and historically significant and contains rare species as well as historic resources such as the site of the 1826 Bulls Bridge Iron Furnace. Scenic overlooks are located along this section. The Appalachian Trail follows the river in the area of Bulls Bridge (see Fig. 3). 4.4

The “Wild and Scenic” Management Plan

To be classified as a Wild and Scenic River, the Housatonic must be managed by a state or political subdivision agency. This is accomplished by the Housatonic River Commission Coordinating Committee (HRCCC), the purpose of which is the long-term protection and management of the river. The HRCCC includes representatives from the Housatonic River

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

335

Commission, the Northwest Hills Council of Governments, the National Park Service, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), and the Housatonic Valley Association. The Housatonic River Commission (HRC) was formed in July of 1979 with the goal of managing the river. The objectives of the HRC were to retain the free-flowing and scenic character of the Housatonic. For the purpose of protecting and improving the water quality, it sought to: 1. eliminate toxic waste discharges and sewerage discharges that lacked tertiary treatments, 2. adopt standards for proper performance of septic systems, 3. adopt measures for aquifer protection, ridgeline protection, erosion and sediment controls, and regulation of gravel and topsoil mining, 4. adopt non-point runoff standards for farms within the watershed, and 5. adopt measures for control of other non-point source pollution. To accomplish the above, the Commission sought to facilitate intertown coordination, particularly for regulating recreational use of the river, and for monitoring development. The HRC also became the agency of contact for the various federal and state agencies that affect the river. It also facilitated land conservation easements and land trusts, and began a public education program that concerned the issues indicated above. The Commission’s first management plan, and its 2006 revision, emphasized management of recreational use of the river. Since 2006, all towns along the river have adopted zoning updates which establish regulations using the “inner-corridor, outer-corridor, and village center” scheme (see below for details). In addition, the Northwest Hills Council of Governments has created a model guide for low impact development for use in the river corridors. In addition, towns have now instituted the standards for “no build flood zones” for zoning regulations, and also an eradication of invasive vegetation program. In order for a river to be federally designated as Wild and Scenic, it must have a workable long-term protection plan that does not rely on active federal management other than FERC regulation of hydropower projects. The Connecticut portion of the Housatonic’s protection mechanisms include:

336

• • • •

R. M. ROBINSON

local and state regulations, non-governmental initiatives, programs and partners, land protection for conservation, and physical protections of development.

All seven of the river corridor’s towns approved the formation of the HRCC and its management plan. The Commission is cooperatively establishing an “overlay zone” system of land-use restrictions. This “Housatonic River Overlay Zone” includes protections for flood plains and environmentally sensitive areas, and also for historic sites. It does so by first defining the “inner corridor” as including the 100-year flood zone and also that includes certain types of soils as defined by the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service. This is the most environmentally sensitive section of the river’s corridor within which zonal regulations are designed to: • prevent alterations to the natural flow of the river, • establish standards for environmental conservation of the land such as those designed to prevent erosion or non-point pollution runoff, • establish regulations that prevent pollution discharges into the river or its tributaries, • establish shoreline buffer zones, • preserve floodplain, • generally protect fish and wildlife, and • generally conserve the natural conditions and environmental quality of the overlay zone. The “outer corridor” is the portion lying between the inner corridor and the top of the river valley’s ridge as delineated by the lines drawn from peak to peak along the ridge line minus village centers. Regulations for this corridor are primarily aimed at guarding against pollution, erosion, and sedimentation, and at establishing safeguards on development. For both the inner and outer corridoes, projects within the overlay zone are reviewed by the HRC as well as local government agencies according to their ordinances.

10

4.5

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

337

Some Non-Governmental Programs and Partners

The purpose of the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) is to conserve the natural character, environmental health, and the economies of the region by protecting and restoring its land and waters. It provides expertise in order to assist landowners along the river who might wish to donate land for conservation restrictions. Some of the significant accomplishments of the HVA include protecting 1,500 acres of wilderness, 200 acres of Conservation Fund land, and 100 acres of prime farmland in the heart of the scenic Housatonic corridor from Kent to Cornwall and Sharon. The HVA is also active in leading river cleanups and water quality monitoring efforts. In 1979, the only permanently protected lands adjacent to the Housatonic were part of the Meadows State Park and the Housatonic State Forest, a small section of the Appalachian Trail and a few conservation easements held by local or regional land trusts. Since then, acquisition of land and easements by the National Park Service, the State of Connecticut, and the HVA, and a robust land trust network has established an impressive 34 miles of protected riverfront within the proposed Wild and Scenic area. The HVA also led negotiations that protected more than five miles of Appalachian Trail along the river’s west bank in Kent and Sharon, the longest stretch of riverfront trail on the entire Appalachian National Scenic Trail. In addition, the HVA led negotiations to conserve another five miles along the east bank of Kent and Cornwall (see Fig. 3). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a worldwide organization with a mission to “Protect the Lands and Waters on Which All Life Depends.” Since 1957, the TNC has led Connecticut to address its development threats, its problems with invasive species, and to protect the waterways of the Housatonic River Basin such as the Hollenbeck River near Canaan Mountain. 4.6

Conclusion Concerning Restoration of the Housatonic River

The headwaters of the Housatonic are in Pittsfield, and there the river was heavily contaminated by General Electric’s PCB toxins. These have been largely remediated since 2006, but further cleanup efforts are ongoing. Detailed land-use planning is also ongoing in most of Connecticut’s section of the Housatonic. Besides reestablishing the river’s floodplains,

338

R. M. ROBINSON

and controlling the area’s non-point runoffs and pollution discharges, the controls over recreational use has been a particularly necessary challenge since the Housatonic is located in a high population-dense corridor of northern suburbs of New York City. But dense and almost continuous recreation would leave the river unworthy of that use. The seven towns along the river, therefore, joined in the Housatonic River Commission to restore and manage this importantly located resource. The significant leader in coordinating this effort was the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA). This river valley’s restoration was not led by federal agencies, or even state agencies, but rather by a non-governmental local environmental advocacy organization (the HVA), but also in conjunction with another national-level advocacy organization, The Nature Conservancy.

5 Conclusion Concerning Three New England Restorations The three restorations reviewed in this chapter present examples of longstanding successful local environmental advocacy organizations (EAO) who initiated and led difficult restorations: (i) The Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA) guiding an urban river remediation just north of Boston, (ii) the Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) guiding the transformation of an industrialized river into being classified as “Wild and Scenic” even though it flows through the relatively wealthy suburban area of western Connecticut, less than 50 miles from the densely populated New York City area, and (iii) the Penobscot Nation leading the dam removal efforts and remediations along the Penobscot River, Maine’s most significant river. The Mystic River’s waters have been extensively monitored for decades due to the efforts of the MyRWA. But because of this leadership, the upper stretches of this river and its lakes have been largely restored to the quality necessary for swimming, boating, and reestablished fish runs. In addition, the MyRWA has led the effort to establish continuous walking trails through extensive chains of streamside parks that will transform the old urban areas of the previously industrialized Cities of Chelsea, Malden,

10

SOME NEW ENGLAND RIVERS AND THEIR ADVOCACY …

339

Everett, Somerville, Arlington, and Medford, all industrialized suburbs of Boston. This is a substantial effort that has already achieved a high degree of success in gentrifying these areas. Under the long-term leadership of the HVA, the Housatonic River is now a highly valued recreational asset for trail hiking, trout fishing, and light boating (kayaks and canoes). Its waters have been largely cleansed (but are still in need of further remediation), and appropriate land-use regulations have been established within its valley. It is now a “Wild and Scenic River” as classified by the National Park Service. The Penobscot Nation of indigenous people led the movement for the removal of the Penobscot River’s dams, and the reestablishment of its fish runs so that Atlantic salmon, and many other anadromous fish, have now returned to the river and are thriving. This is a substantial and previously unanticipated improvement of a valued and abused river that is now one of North America’s more significant environmental assets. All three of these restorations were, and are being led by local NGO environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs) that initiated these remediations, and that have strong financial and other support from national and global EAOs—such as The Nature Conservancy and many other nationally recognized organizations—and also from the relevant state and federal agencies. They represent textbook type examples of the process for local citizen organizations achieving substantial rehabilitations of heavily degraded rivers, whether the restorations aimed at achieving a high degree of pristine condition, or just clean waters for recreation in a densely populated area. In particular, the Penobscot River now provides significant runs for Atlantic Salmon, an important and threatened anadromous fish.

Reference Robinson, Richard (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland.

CHAPTER 11

Conclusion: Some Lessons from Local Restorations

1

Introduction

We now observe that in both North America’s Great Lakes Basin and in New England, the era of active degradation of rivers and other water resources is over. The above chapters document this. The era of restoration is now energized. It manifests the leadership of federal and state agencies, and of local environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs). It is in these agencies and in our universities and EAOs that our science of ecology resides. These institutions develop the capable experts required for successful restorations. They also provide the impetus behind our local restorations. They were essential for the successes documented in the chapters above, and the reason to be optimistic about further progress. Our restoration efforts in the Great Lakes and New England regions both demonstrate and encapsulate the energy of the overall environmental movement. All of this is occurring at the same time as severe global degradation from climate change, which is coincident with a strong element of reactionary political leadership that still mistakenly argues that economic prosperity requires environmental destruction. But as documented in the above ten chapters, local EAOs also have considerable strength. They form their own body politic; they form an active political base for our collective environmental efforts. These local EAOs often manifest the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7_11

341

342

R. M. ROBINSON

organized political skills necessary for success. This is also documented in the above chapters. Besides environmental degradation, our previous century of North American economic growth also drove true socio-economic development as manifested by increases in overall health and life longevity, education, more and perhaps better quality leisure, mechanical substitutes for manual labor, etc.1 But while most of this past era of industrialization witnessed environmental degradation on a massive scale, the forces of development now attempt to correct these degradations. The organization of these efforts in the areas of the Great Lakes and New England are the subjects of the pervious chapters. In particular, the above chapters show that the areas of concern program provides valuable lessons for restorations that are applicable elsewhere. The energized local environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs), plus the organization and funding of these AOC efforts, are the subjects of Chapters 3–9. Their lessons are generalized and reviewed in this chapter. But three very different New England area restorations are reviewed in Chapter 10, and they are shown to offer definite lessons as well. Comparing these remediations indicates that the AOCs were largely funded by federal sources, but the New England efforts were primarily funded by state, local, and EAO leadership. In all cases, however, the experts of EAOs, academic institutions, and state and federal agencies were integral to the success of the restorations. The New England restorations have received far less federal funding so far; yet they still indicate a considerable degree of success. For example, the water quality in the Mystic Lakes—just a few miles north of Boston—now enable locals to swim and recreate free of worries about toxins or bacteria. I would not have believed this would still be the case when I was a boy attempting to use these same waters in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and I must also note that the shad runs of my boyhood—fish runs that all but disappeared in the late 1960s—have now returned to the Mystic. In addition, parks and trails are being established all along this river with improved environmental quality in mind. Global climate change may be hitting all of us hard, but local EAOs and state and provincial agencies are at work affecting what they can to give us an improved ability to interact with a natural environment in ways that might enable us to maintain our sanity. 1 Economic growth is defined as increases in real GDP, and development is defined as better ways of producing this GDP and of providing socio-economic welfare.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

343

The sections below attempt to briefly review how the Great Lakes’ AOC restoration efforts came about. This includes their accomplishments and failures. Similar investigations are presented for the three New England rivers reviewed in Chapter 10. The aim of this is to draw some lessons for other restoration possibilities. To that end, there is also a brief review presented of the ongoing effort to restore the area of the Hudson River Estuary, an incredibly bold and massive project. The connections between the AOC Program and the NYC area’s effort are indicated.

2

Lessons from the Areas of Concern Program: Wisconsin’s Leadership

Wisconsin’s AOC program is led by its Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). This state agency’s efforts have been particularly effective as reviewed extensively in Chapter 5, and briefly here. They include restorations of the Menominee River, the Milwaukee Estuary and its tributaries, the Fox River of Green Bay, and the Sheboygan River. In each of these, the WDNR organized the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) of scientists who are experienced experts dedicated to these restorations. These TACs include the expertise of EAOs, academic scientists, and also those with the WDNR. The WDNR mobilized the funding and expertise necessary to see the restorations completed. As a group, Wisconsin’s restorations are relatively complete in meeting their detailed plans for remediation. Some of these details are reviewed here. 2.1

The Menominee AOC

Consider the Menominee River. It flows through the City of Marinette in Wisconsin and the City of Menominee in Michigan, cities located on the northern and southern shores of the river where it flows into Lake Michigan. This river also forms the border between northeast Wisconsin and Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The Lower Menominee River was declared an AOC in 1987, and having remediated all six of its BUIs, it was delisted in 2020. Four substantive causes drove the degradation of the Menominee River:

344

R. M. ROBINSON

i. Late nineteenth century logging and latter industrialization destroyed and filled in the wetlands at the mouth of the river. The shoreline was filled and hardened for docking purposes. ii. In the first half of the twentieth century, five hydroelectric dams were installed that disrupted fish passage. Spawning habitats were consequently disrupted. iii. Inadequate storm and sanitary sewer systems caused elevated bacteria and toxic sediment buildups. iv. Invasive vegetation overran the remaining wetlands. This destroyed aviary rookeries. In the 1980s, samples from a routine navigational dredging by the US Army Corps of Engineers showed sediment contaminated by arsenic in the “turning basin” of the Menominee River. (See Fig. 2 in Chapter 5.) This led to a portion of the Lower Menominee River being designated as an AOC in 1987. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) together with Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) were the leaders of the restoration effort. These agencies composed a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in 1990. The toxins found in the Lower Menominee included arsenic, paint sludge, coal tar, mercury, and PCBs. The actions specified by the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and its revisions, were completed after thirty years of coordinated work by state agencies that included the cooperative efforts from numerous stakeholders (local advocate organizations, academic researchers, and others) who defined and studied the impairments and specified the actions required. The 1990 RAP recognized three specific sites that especially contained legacy contaminated sediments in need of remediation: (1) the Ansul Fire Protection site in the river’s turning basin, (2) the Lloyd Flanders Paint Sludge Site, which is north of the river’s mouth and along the coast of Green Bay, and (3) the Coal Tar Site along the river in Marinette. But in 2011, a fourth site was added, one that contained PCB and heavy metal contaminations from upstream industrial pollutions—Menekaunae Harbor in Marinette. These sites are illustrated by Fig. 2 in Chapter 5. All four of the sites involved large amounts of contaminated sediment removal. The toxins removed generally included arsenic, PAHs, and heavy metals.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

345

The Menominee River Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed by the WDNR and EGLE in 1988. It assisted the state and federal agencies with identifying local issues, with developing specific targets for remediation, and with coordinating local assistance. The CAC also managed support grants for the various required projects. But a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was similarly formed in 1988 to assist in both the RAP formation and to manage and monitor the remediation projects. This committee consisted of academics and other experts needed for their technical expertise and advice. Besides the contaminated sites reviewed above, the Menominee and Park Mill Dams also required remediation. These dams were constructed in the 1920s to produce hydropower for industries in the cities of Marinette and Menominee. But they created barriers for fish, particularly Lake Sturgeon—an endangered species in the Great Lakes. The dams prevented access to the sturgeon’s natural upriver spawning grounds. Fish passages were reestablished in 2016 which restored an eighteen mile stretch of spawning grounds for the sturgeon. Fish are now lifted over the dams through transports that take them to release points in the upriver spawning grounds. The Lower Menominee River had all impairments remediated between 2011 and 2020. It was delisted in 2020, thirty-five years after it was identified as an AOC. Who might be identified as the organizers and leaders of this local restoration? The whole restoration effort was precipitated by the EPA and led by Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The AOC’s “Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC) consisted of: • representatives of federal agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, US EPA, and US Bureau of Land Management, • local government representatives, • EGLE representatives (all biologists), • WDNR representatives (all biologists) • representatives from the Citizen’s Action Committee (CAC), • representatives from engineering/consulting companies, • representatives of environmental advocacy organizations (NGOs), • representatives of industry (pulp and hydroelectric), and • an academic representative.

346

R. M. ROBINSON

This TAC was formed in 1988 to offer the technical expertise necessary to form and implement the AOC’s RAP, and to identify the BUIs and monitor their removal. It also formed post-delisting plans for monitoring. The WDNR’s formation of this Committee was the key action that led to the Menominee’s restoration. 2.2

The Milwaukee Estuary AOC

The Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers flow through the City of Milwaukee. These three rivers were used to dissipate toxic industrial discharges. They also suffered from insufficiently treated sewerage, combined sewer overflows, and agricultural and urban runoffs. Under the GLWQA, this area was identified as an AOC in 1987, but its boundary was expanded in 2008. The remediation programs for this AOC concentrated on sediment removal, toxic discharge preventions from both point and non-point sources, and habitat restorations. Remediation of the Milwaukee Estuary substantially progressed due to the efforts of the WDNR as highlighted in Chapter 5. The Milwaukee Estuary AOC is, however, partly unique due to its many and strongly supportive environmental advocacy organizations and their interactions with government agencies. For example, the AOC benefits from the Waterway Restoration Partnership, a group of local and federal government agencies, plus private not-for-profit advocacy organizations and environmental foundations. These EAOs and foundations include: • • • • • • • • • • •

The The The The The The The The The The The

Fund for Lake Michigan, Greater Milwaukee Foundation, Milwaukee Riverkeepers, Milwaukee Water Commons, Partners for a Cleaner Environment, Port of Milwaukee, River Revitalization Foundation, Urban Ecology Center, University of Wisconsin–School of Freshwater Sciences, Menomonee Valley Partners, Great Lakes Restoration Fund.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

347

For example, the “Fund for Lake Michigan” (FLM) is a flow-through fund of $4 million paid per year from public utilities to be expended on projects that improve the health of Lake Michigan. The Greater Milwaukee Foundation serves as FLM’s grant Administrator. Examples of the funded projects include phosphorous reductions from agricultural and suburban runoffs and fish habitat restorations. Another example includes the Milwaukee Riverkeepers who volunteer to take water samples at 18 sites within the Milwaukee River Basin. Another important example is the “River Revitalization Foundation,” a “land trust.” It is establishing a parkway for public access walkways that border the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. The purpose is to revitalize the surrounding neighborhoods.2 Yet another example is the “Menomonee Valley Partners” which seeks to organize public and private collaborations to redevelop and revitalize the Menomonee Valley, which is now largely abandoned land and buildings. This requires environmental restorations of brownfields, the establishment of greenways and green buildings, and restoration of the Menomonee River and its shorelines. The UW-Extension, together with the WDNR, is helping to organize the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Estuary. They are offering to pay $75/hour for those who commit to a two-year term on the Council, and are willing to participate in the Council’s meetings and educate themselves concerning the issues. Currently, “Milwaukee Estuary Waterways Restoration Partnership,” and the “Milwaukee Riverkeepers,” and the “Friends of Lincoln Park” (an important community park) are participating in the Estuary’s CAC. The current projects for Estuary restoration include removal of contaminated sediment, restoration of natural channels, and reestablishing fish passages. For the Milwaukee AOC, the WDNR is the lead agency. It (i) identified the BUIs, (ii) formed and updated the AOC’s Remedial Action Plan (RAP), and (iii) is managing the actions necessary to delist these BUIs and ultimately delist the AOC. To accomplish this, the WDNR organized seven committees—or “teams”—that function as task Administrators. These seven included:

2 A similar parkway development effort is being established along the Mystic River, north of Boston. See Chapter 10.

348

R. M. ROBINSON

The Management Action Implementation Team (MAIT): This is the critical overall organizational team. Project Management Team: This Team operates under MAIT so that dayto-day coordination of the technical teams’ operations can be efficient. Fish and Wildlife Technical Advisory Committee: This Committee addresses the tasks of habitat restoration and other BUIs that directly concern fish and wildlife. Beaches Work Group: This Group addresses the monitoring and locations of beach contamination and closings. Sediment Work Group: This is a critical Group that addresses the most fundamental restoration issue, that is the toxic sediment removal and disposal. Communications Outreach Team: This Team addresses the issues concerning community communications. Community Advisory Leadership Team: This Team organizes outreach to various community interests for the purpose of their representation in restoration decisions.

These committees are largely composed of WDNR, EAO, and federal government experts who are capable of addressing the environmental issues involved with restoration. 2.3

The Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC

The City of Green Bay is at the head of the large inlet of Green Bay on Lake Michigan (see Fig. 3 in Chapter 5). The Fox River flows through the City of Green Bay before emptying into the waterbody of Green Bay. Approximately 270,000 people live in the communities along the Fox River. This River has 12 dams, and forms the highest concentration of pulp and paper mills in the world. During the 1950s and 1960s, these mills discharged PCBs which heavily contaminated the river. Green Bay is known as the “toilet paper capital of the world” because of the numerous paper companies along the Fox River: Northern Paper Company, Georgia Pacific, and Proctor and Gamble are among many in the area. The lower seven miles of the Fox River plus 22 square miles of the Bay constitute the AOC (see Fig. 3 in Chapter 5). The discharges of pulp and paper mills, and also of a gas manufacturing plant, plus nonpoint stormwater runoffs from agricultural lands, all degraded the area’s environment. PCBs from the pulp and paper mills, and PAHs from the manufactured-gas plant contaminated the river’s sediments. In addition to

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

349

these pollutions, stormwater runoffs sent excess nutrients into the lower Green Bay which caused algae blooms that resulted in toxicity problems for drinking water, for fish and wildlife habitat, and for recreational use. In addition, wetland habitats were filled in for industrial and other urban use. These industrial pollutions, plus agricultural and urban-suburban stormwater runoffs, plus the landfills, form the familiar combination in need of remediation. In 1998, the EPA placed the Fox River on its National Priorities List, i.e. its Superfund list. In 1999, the EPA initiated and oversaw the Fox River dredging efforts. The problem primarily concerned the PCBs generated by the pulp and paper mills along the 40 miles of the river from which 6.5 million cubic yards of contaminated sediments were removed, and also for which 275 contaminated acres were properly capped, and more than 780 acres were covered with sand. All of this endeavor was to contain the PCB contaminants. Under an RCRA consent decree, the pulp and paper companies along the river agreed to pay $670 million to cover the EPA’s costs. The entire dredging project was expected to exceed $1 billion. The key restoration activity for this AOC has been the removal of contaminated sediment along the entire Fox River (both within the AOC and upstream from it), for which 2019 marked its near completion. Within the AOC, 425,000 cubic yards were dredged and 59 acres were sand covered. This included the 35,000 cubic yards dredged at the manufactured-gas plant site at the confluence with the East River. This removed massive amounts of PAHs and heavy metals. Despite the 1999 to 2000 dredging, between 2004 and 2020 samples of sediment showed that PCB and PAH contamination continued along the entire 40 miles of the Lower Fox River. Five-year reviews concluded that the dredging and capping along the many sites have not yet adequately protected human and environmental health, i.e. PCB levels are not yet at safe levels. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists estimate that it will take 10–30 years more for the fish advisories to be removed from the BUI list. Therefore, the sediment sampling will continue for the next several years. In 2016, the WDNR and EPA explored how the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) grants could be applied to improve practices that address toxic algae problems. The grants are to establish those agricultural practices necessary to control the non-point sources of nutrients from the stormwater and/or irrigation runoffs that feed toxic algae blooms. These

350

R. M. ROBINSON

practices establish streambank buffer protections so that the runoffs feed the vegetation within the established areas rather than flowing into the streams, which would then flow into the Fox River and then the Bay. Working with community stakeholders, the WDNR organized the TACs with the expertise necessary to direct the remediation required. These TACs developed an initial Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in 1988. This plan had extensive public involvement and input from federal, state, and local government agencies, plus academic scientists, and representatives of industry and environmental groups. Incorporating the studies and actions that occurred since 1988, the WDNR then updated the RAP in 1993. In 2009, the TACs developed delisting targets for an updated RAP. In 2011, with a newly re-formed Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), the WDNR again developed a revised RAP which summarized the current status of the area’s impairments, and specified the actions necessary to achieve restorations. There were four TACs organized by the WDNR: (1) the Benthos and Plankton TAC, (2) the Toxic Algae TAC, (3) the Fish and Wildlife Habitat TAC, and (4) the Toxic Sediment TAC. All of these involved WDNR scientists and representatives of federal agencies and academic experts. A fundamental problem associated with the formation of this AOC concerns the extent of the sources of contamination. Since the entire 40 miles of the Fox River is inhabited by pulp and paper mills, PCB contaminations occurred along the entire 40 miles of river. The AOC, however, includes only the lower 7 miles of the river. But the entire river has a local environmental advocacy organization (EAO) supporting its restoration—the Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance.3 Also, the whole 40 miles has been under EPA managed Superfund remediation. Perhaps the entire river should have been organized into a single AOC restoration district and effort. 2.4

The Sheboygan River AOC

The Sheboygan River discharges into Lake Michigan in the City of Sheboygan. The Sheboygan River AOC encompasses the lower 14 miles of the River downstream from the Sheboygan Falls Dam, and includes

3 See https://fwwa.org.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

351

the entire harbor and nearshore water of Lake Michigan. This AOC was designated in 1987. Figure 4 in Chapter 5 depicts this AOC. This AOC’s sources of pollutants include effluents from industry, inadequate sewer treatments, and rural and urban non-point sources. The contaminants include PCBs, PAHs, heavy metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and excessive amounts of phosphorous. The contaminations degraded fish and wildlife populations, natural habitats, human environmental interactions, and the overall perceptions of the area. The Sheboygan AOC is one of eleven AOCs that has completed all remediation actions necessary for delisting. Approximately 400,000 cubic yards of sediment has been removed and 72 acres of habitat remediated. The EPA describes this AOC as being “a shining example of successful collaboration efforts between the federal, state and local partners in cleaning up contaminated sediments and restoring degraded habitat to increase environmental productivity and improve recreational potential.”4 Increased connectivity between habitats, more breeding and spawning areas, the removal of invasive vegetation, and the stabilization of shorelines have all been the objectives of the AOC’s restoration. As with the other Wisconsin AOCs reviewed above, the EPA initiated and directed cleanups of the PCB and PAH contaminated sediments prior to the AOC’s Remedial Action Plan formation. These were Superfund projects and consent decree (CRCA) projects. The WDNR was the lead agency for the remediations of this AOC. The projects organized by its TACs included dredging and habitat restoration. This AOC’s TACs consisted largely of WDNR representatives plus a few who represented other federal, state, and local government agencies, environmental advocacy organizations (EAOs), and academicians. The non-WDNR personnel who served various subcommittees included representatives of the Sheboygan River Basin Partnership, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the City of Sheboygan, Sheboygan County, and the University of Wisconsin Extension (UWEX). For example, consider that the subcommittee that provided technical expertise and project management to remediate the impairments of degraded fish and wildlife populations and degraded of fish and wildlife habitat. It consisted of 8 representatives of the WDNR, and

4 See www.epa.gov/great-lakes-aocs/sheboygan-river/aoc.

352

R. M. ROBINSON

2 from other government agencies. This specific TAC prepared the assessment projects and RAP initiatives that were funded by the GLRI. These projects are now completed. In a similar way, 8 representatives of the WDNR constituted the TAC that addressed the degradation of benthos impairments. As with the other Wisconsin AOCs, the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Sheboygan AOC was appointed by the WDNR. It consists of representatives of community NGO organizations, individual citizens, adjacent landowners, businesses, and local governments. The expressed purpose of this committee was to provide feedback on proposed or ongoing projects, and for organizing community educational efforts. This committee acted as a communication conduit for community interests and stakeholders. 2.5

The WDNR and Its Activist Leadership

The four Wisconsin AOCs reviewed above (the Lower Menominee River AOC, the Milwaukee Estuary AOC, the Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC, and the Sheboygan River AOC) demonstrate the organizational leadership and involvements of a dedicated state agency, i.e. Wisconsin’s DNR. In particular, the scientists of the WDNR were the coordinators of the AOCs’ restoration efforts. They were the dominant force behind the Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) that implemented the Remediation Action Plans (RAP). As a group, they formed, they revised, and they evaluated the results of the RAPs as documented extensively in Chapter 5. But the WDNR also organized the Citizen Action Committees (CACs) for these AOCs. Only one of these committees was particularly active, the “Clean Bay Backers.” This CAC was largely led by the representatives of University of Wisconsin’s—Sea Grant Program. They organized significant community outreach and communication efforts, in particular the annual tours of the restoration accomplishments within the AOC. The CACs of the other Wisconsin AOCs acted merely as sounding boards for the efforts organized by the Technical Advisory Committees. The Wisconsin restorations were therefore primarily led by the scientists of its key state agency, the WDNR.

11

3

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

353

Some Lessons from Ohio’s AOCs

Ohio has four AOCs: (i) the lower two miles of the Ashtabula River, (ii) the lower 15 miles of the Black River, (iii) the lower 46.5 miles of the Cuyahoga River, and (iv) the lower 22 miles of the Maumee River. (Figure 1 in Chapter 8 illustrates these locations.) The essential issues posed by these AOCs include the arrangements and roles of the Ohio state agencies in accomplishing the restorations of these severely contaminated localities. Are the scientific and engineering experts of these agencies leading in these local restoration efforts or are citizen committees in the lead, or perhaps state appointed Administrators? What might the consequences be for the various structures of this leadership? In three of these AOCs (Black River, Cuyahoga River, and the Maumee River), barriers to progress in removing impairments occurred due to the pollutions originating outside the official AOCs’ borders, and also perhaps because of some confusion of responsibilities and associated inefficiencies in administration. In response, in 2020 the Ohio EPA (OEPA) reorganized its policies concerning the formation and implementation of the AOCs’ remedial action plans (RAPs). To this end, the OEPA’s Lake Erie Program Staff sought to accelerate progress in its restorations by establishing clearer lines of authority and coordination, and it did this via a fourth reorganization of Ohio’s AOC policies since 1988.5 Ohio’s AOC Program structure and responsibilities were redesigned accordingly. Now the lead state agency in charge is the new Ohio Lake Erie Commission which coordinates with the OEPA and other federal, state, and local institutions. This Commission is now led by a Ohio Lake Erie AOC “Program Administrator” who oversees the (i) planning, (ii) implementation, and (iii) monitoring for all of Ohio’s AOCs, and also supervises the particular AOC Coordinators (one for each AOC) who then organize these three functions for their respective areas. 3.1

Ohio’s Paths to Delisting and Boundary Problems

The International Joint Committee (IJC) defines the delisting standards for AOCs.6 The Ohio Lake Erie Commission and the OEPA interpret 5 See Fig. 3 in Chapter 8 and the detailed explanation of Chapter 8 concerning this reorganization. 6 See Sect. 3 of Chapter 8.

354

R. M. ROBINSON

these criteria as allowing delisting if the impairment is caused by sources outside the AOC. Even if the impairment is not restored, the impairment classification can be removed or changed to “impairment not due to local sources.” The presumption is that responsibility for addressing “out of AOC” sources is then assigned to another party or program (e.g., Lakewide Management Plan, or health department, or sewerage districts). If the goal is environmental restoration of a particular AOC, then the specification of the AOC’s boundaries can be crucial because whether an impairment is caused by factors within or outside the AOC depends on where the boundary is drawn. If a source of pollution is upstream of the boundary, then downstream AOC remediations cannot resolve the problem. This is the reason why the Army Corps of Engineers, for example, does not dredge sediments downstream of pollution sources; it requires that the dredging begins at the farthest upstream pollution source. The primary example, however, concerns the agricultural runoff from watershed tributaries outside the AOC. If the intention is environmental restoration, then the AOC’s boundaries should be set to include all of the watershed’s pollutions so that the remediation strategies are designed accordingly. If after the AOC’s boundaries are set, the sources of pollution are discovered as coming from outside the boundaries, then logic dictates that the boundaries should be expanded. The boundaries have been widened in the AOCs of other states (as documented above for Wisconsin’s Milwaukee AOC and also in Duluth, documented in Chapter 4), so that remediation can be achieved. This should also be the case in Ohio. Note that the impetus of the criteria presented above is that authority and responsibility for remediation would be reassigned to entities outside the AOC. Perhaps remediation can be achieved by this reassignment. But this might also be far from the best resolution. Why? Because federal resources are designated to the specific AOC, and local funding might not be adequate to accomplish the task. Consequently, funding must come from other sources. Overall, the AOC program is well organized and coordinated and this organization might be lost when authority and responsibility is placed elsewhere. The organization of Ohio’s AOC Program is now simplified and clear. As of 2020, Ohio’s AOCs are directed by the central authority of the Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC) with its overall AOC Administrator. Under this Administrator, each of Ohio’s four separate AOCs now has a Facilitating Committee responsible (i) for managing administrative and

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

355

secretarial services, (ii) for identification and coordination of management actions aimed at remediations of its BUIs, and (iii) for coordinating outreach and information sharing with the local communities. These are the actions directed by, and in support of each of the four local Coordinators. They are responsible for identifying the funding sources for remediations, for managing the AOC’s budget, and for implementing grants from federal, state, and private sources. Note that the US EPA still has overall approval of its project funding, and the International Great Lakes Commission has overall approval of all BUI recognition and delisting. Hence we have a separation of authority and possibly a barrier to communication that might be of considerable importance. A simplified state organization might, therefore, still pose some difficulties for restoration. Most notable is the possible expectation to “perform quickly or be replaced by political authorities.” A possible question is then, “Do we organize our bureaucracies so as to best restore the environment or to make it easier to push responsibilities onto others in order to meet political demands?” The incentives for administrative behavior should be to encourage environmental restoration. The International Great Lakes Commission (IJC) established standards for delisting BUIs. The Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC) and the Ohio EPA (OEPA) have interpreted these standards for application to Ohio’s four AOCs. These interpretations are applied through its AOC Coordinators The IJC standards allow delisting BUIs when the specific impairment is either “not due to local sources,” or the impairment is “lake wide or area wide.” For example, a degraded fish population—say Great Lakes Sturgeon—could require reestablishment of habitat within the AOC. But this is a lake-wide problem, so the impetus is that requirements for delisting of the impairment of degradation of fish populations might not apply. Hence, habitat and spawning grounds might not need to be remediated in a particular AOC in order for delisting. As another example, upriver agricultural runoffs or combined sewer overflows might impact an AOC, but delisting of the impairment of nuisance algae blooms is still attainable without remediation if the sources of pollution are outside the AOC. This is, of course, a bureaucratic dodge around the whole spirit of the GLWQA and GLRI.7

7 Note Wisconsin’s use of GLRI grants to remediate this problem.

356

R. M. ROBINSON

We also have the example of the Black River AOC where local authorities grant thirty permits for industrial discharges, and also have their litter control program in the hands of private organizations without public funding. One must consider if these examples illustrate a lower priority for environmental restoration than the preservation of ongoing legacy businesses and local practices. What would be the relevance of delisting when the impairment is not remediated? Perhaps a type of bureaucratic progress would be indicated by this sort of delisting, and perhaps local “energy” could be maintained. But the goal of the AOC Program is restoration and not mere delisting. Also, full publicity as to what the problem is, and where it originates, is of considerable political value for pursuit of this restoration. Delisting by way of exceptions is mere obfuscation by way of exceptions. Perhaps the International Joint Commission (IJC) should consider asserting its authority and not allow delisting when the circumstances indicate that the intention of restoration, which should clearly be consistent with the intention of the overall AOC program, is subverted. The IJC could publicize that the local AOC’s authorities are not at fault in not achieving some particular delisting, that continued listing is caused by problems outside of local control, and that the problem persists because the local region’s efforts are hampered. This sort of political pressure is germane to the fundamental motivation of the GLWQA and GLRI. This fundamental political motivation should not be obfuscated because of local administrative difficulties. Instead, those “local administrative difficulties” should be made public. For the overall AOC Program to be a success, perhaps the IJC must consider recognizing and implementing this principle: the intention of restoration must be demonstrably present or the IJC’s political influence must find a way to be exerted.

4

Michigan’s Two Coastal AOCs

What lessons can we draw from Michigan’s AOC restorations? These lessons must concern post-delisting management of what should be successfully restored areas. Saginaw Bay is on Lake Huron—the east coast of Michigan’s lower peninsula. The region around the Saginaw River and Bay encompasses the largest contiguous freshwater coastal wetland in the US. But the Bay is shallow with elevated plant growth. It is highly stressed with more than half the land use in the watershed being agricultural, and with the rural

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

357

counties along the Bay being largely served by aged and less than effective septic systems. The Saginaw River and Bay have been threatened and degraded by industrial wastes, sewerage, and agricultural runoffs. Nevertheless, it is far from being destroyed by these toxins; it can be restored to some degree of pristineness. This is the aim of the AOC’s Public Advisory Council (PAC). Progress, however, has been slow, perhaps due to inconsistent citizen leadership. It has yet to manage its skeptic-sewerage problems. But this problem might still be resolved. In juxtaposition with Saginaw Bay, the Muskegon Lake AOC is on the west coast of Michigan’s lower peninsula. The Lake is formed by the confluence of several rivers and creeks. This confluence forms a waterbody with a single narrow outlet to Lake Michigan. The area has been badly polluted by multiple industries, but through considerable citizen involvement and direction, it is now being restored to more natural settings. This AOC’s essential current problem concerns its post AOC-delisting’s development. 4.1

Saginaw River and Bay

The Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed became that AOC’s Public Advisory Council (PAC). This partnership is charged with overseeing and implementing the restoration efforts that would ultimately lead to delisting the AOC. The first restoration targets were set in 2000. These targets applied to the habitats of coastal wetlands and marshes, as well as key fish and wildlife species. The original targets were revised in the 2008 Habitat Restoration Plan, especially considering the development of the Bay’s problems with invasive species. With that revision, the elimination of the various invasive species became the more significant focus of habitat restoration efforts. The Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed was formed in 1995. In 2012, it became the conduit of technical advice to direct the AOC’s remediations. This Public Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of: a. The Conservation Fund (TCF)—one of the North America’s most significant environmental advocacy organizations (NGO), b. Ducks Unlimited (DU)—the world’s leading advocacy organization for conserving wetlands and waterfowl, c. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ),

358

R. M. ROBINSON

d. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) which conducts aquatic surveys and assessments for managing fish and wildlife populations, e. The Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy (SBLC) which acquires and conserves lands to protect the waters of the Basin, f. Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network (WIN) is led by leaders of The Conservation Fund to organize community-based projects that preserve the watershed and that strengthens the identity of the Basin as an environmentally sustainable community, g. Bay County Department of Environmental Affairs and Community Development, h. US Fish and Wildlife Service. This Partnership offers an opportunity for both agency and citizen involvement in restoration of one of the more rural and semi-rural areas of the Great Lakes Basin.8 The restoration requires scientific expertise, which therefore involves the expert agents of various state and federal departments, and also various advocacy organizations. Because of this involvement, the restoration efforts demonstrate a considerable degree of success. As reviewed in Chapter 7, the 2000 RAP-update set wetland preservation as a priority, and Ducks Unlimited—a contributing organizational member of the partnership—played a strong role in the Saginaw restoration process. In coordination with the Partnership, it conducted an analysis of coastal wetlands within the AOC, an analysis that indicated that considerable progress occurred between 2000 and 2012. Of the areas targeted in 2000, sixty percent of coastal wetlands below the 585foot contour (585 feet above sea level) have now been protected either through public ownership, or permanent easements.9 The remaining forty percent of wetlands have been prioritized for follow-up protection through either easements or public purchases. Other than Bay County (which has the highest population of the five counties along the Bay), most of the Saginaw Bay region relies on septic systems to treat household wastes. More than 60,000 homes in the region—approximately 50% of all houses in the region—have septic

8 See https://www.psbw.org/water-quality/saginawaoc_id/. 9 The 585-foot level refers to the USGS estimated highest 100-year floodplain.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

359

systems. The key determinant of whether a system fails is its age, i.e. after 30 years failure is common. The distribution of this age-failure profile indicates that as many as 15,000 systems are failing in the five counties along the Bay. This implies that at least 505 million gallons of sewerage enters the local environment each year. These old systems therefore pose the significant and immediate problem in need of resolution. A 2016 survey of county government leaders by Public Service Corporation (PSC), however, indicates that they believe the public does not yet recognize the sewerage problem, and that there is insufficient data to persuade the public otherwise. These leaders indicate the need for an integrated information system that identifies the sources, the extents, and the locales of the pollution. Since many of these residents have limited means, they might also need financial support to remedy their septic systems. The community leaders also indicated that a sense of regional identity was growing in the environmental community. The interviewees, however, also believed that an identity of “living in an area of pollution and contamination” also exists among the watershed-wide general public. Despite the considerable and successful AOC-related restoration efforts in the Basin, the interviews indicated that the public did not yet recognize the resulting improvements. The narratives concerning these improvement efforts were yet to be communicated to the public. There was, therefore, a need for enhanced coordination and collaboration among the environmental organizations to publicize the relevant restoration successes. (For comparison, see the review of the communication efforts of the Muskegon AOC, as presented below, with the Wisconsin AOCs’ efforts reviewed above.) Restoration progress has been made in the Saginaw River and Bay AOC, but more effort needs to occur to complete the remedies of impairment that result from the Bay’s skeptic problem. But if the analysis of community leaders accurately indicates the Basin’s preferences, then more coordination and publication efforts remain. 4.2

Muskegon Lake AOC

Muskegon Lake is a slightly inland on the west shoreline of Michigan’s lower peninsula. Muskegon River (Michigan’s second longest) flows from Central Michigan and into Muskegon Lake. Since 1910, chemical and petrochemical industries, foundries, a coal-fired power plant, and a paper mill were all established on the lake’s shoreline. The Lake’s water was

360

R. M. ROBINSON

heavily polluted; its natural habitat was degraded; its south shorelines were extensively filled and hardened; and toxic sediments were deposited that contained mercury, poisonous hydrocarbons, and other environmentally poisonous compounds. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources developed the original remedial action plan (RAP) in 1987. In the early 1990s, the Muskegon Lake Watershed Partnership became the public advisory committee (PAC) for this AOC. It was formed to solicit public input. As a result of improved sewerage and wastewater management, phosphorous and other contaminants were reduced in the Lake. By 2000 the eutrophication reduction targets of the PAC were being met and the remaining environmental challenges were under control. This AOC is ready for delisting. Muskegon is a port city that supports much of the area’s employment and income. With the past emphasis being the environmental restoration of the AOC, a relevant question concerns the future economic development of the Muskegon area. Both the Muskegon County Port Advisory Committee and West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission were formed in 2015 for the purpose of influencing the regional impact of the extensive environmental restoration of the Lake. The planning document, “Muskegon Lake Vision 2020,” resulted. In June of 2015, the West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission held four separate “forums” with 40–60 attendees at each. These attendees represented the commercial interests of the City and Lake area. The forums concerned the (i) management of natural resources, (ii) the management of recreation, (iii) the future of commerce in the Lake area, and (iv) the residential issues of the Lake area. The attendees discussed these issues in the typical manner of strategic planning sessions; they formed a consensus about resolutions for these issues. The participants in the “four forums” of June, 2015, were largely the same at each—40 to 60 participants in each session. In the Natural Resources Forum, “Seventy-three percent of forum participants strongly agreed or agreed that the sustainability of Muskegon Lake’s natural resource assets is a local responsibility.” (Muskegon Lake Vision 2020, p. 15, West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission.) As reviewed in Chapter 4, the AOC program provided approximately $75 million in funding for Muskegon Lake’s restoration as organized from federal (EPA and NOAA) and state sources. The program does direct the local PAC to manage these restorations, but the efforts entailed are science based and aimed at environmental restoration. The interests

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

361

served are those of the entire ecosystem (the Great Lakes Basin), and the US and Canada as specified by the GLWQA. This directs any economic development to be environmentally supporting. The Muskegon Lake Vision, 2020, report includes terms such as “sustainable,” “to reach its full potential as a regional economic catalyst,” and “potential for future commercial port development.” But these are not well-defined terms, and they may have been interpreted by the forums’ participants differently from the interpretations of other local citizens, or regional citizens, or from national-level interpretations. For example, the housing forum recommended large developments on both the north and south sides of the Lake, and also recommended a wide variety of new housing and restoration of old housing. This sort of development involves an increase in population, which requires resolving the problems of sewerage management, suburban and urban runoff management, and transportation management, all problems unaddressed by the “Vision 2020” document. Development without resolution of these problems would mean that the restored environmental “assets” would again be threatened. Similarly, the recommended industrial and commercial development along the south side of the Lake requires more than just building facilities; it also requires management of pollution wastes and transportation in such a way that would not further corrupt the environment. Without proper environmental planning, the restorations associated with the AOC program will likely revert to conditions of degradation. The Great Lakes Areas of Concern Program was not intended to be an effort of “lets clean the slate so we can exploit new pollution opportunities.” It was not meant to “clean so we can again degrade.” Economic benefits surely follow naturally from the environmental restorations, and sustainable development should certainly follow from restoration. But the Great Lakes must not again be envisioned as just a series of locales in search of their own economic prosperity. To say, “the sustainability of Muskegon Lake’s natural resource assets is a local responsibility” can be understood in either of two ways: (1) local residents and their local government entities must maintain the environmental sustainability of Lake Muskegon, and/or (2) the environmental governance of Lake Muskegon should not be the responsibility of others outside of the AOC’s locale. This latter view is wrong! This approach describes how we came to degrade this globally important resource. The AOC Program overall, and any particular AOC restoration, must fit with the broader goal of maintaining the entire Great Lakes Basin; that is why the US and Canada

362

R. M. ROBINSON

undertook and funded the GLRI. That is why we are federally funding restorations of these local AOCs. The responsibility of restoration and its maintenance lies both with locals and with state and federal entities, and the latter entities must supervise the local entities so that sustainability is achieved. 4.3

Leadership in Michigan’s AOCs

Both Saginaw AOC and Muskegon AOC illustrate strong citizen leadership. The former, however, hesitates to completely delist until its sewerage problem is resolved, although its other impairments have been remediated. Saginaw shows a stubborn unwillingness to settle for a delisting that is not justified until a complete restoration is accomplished. On the opposite coast, the real estate development interests of Muskegon appear to seek a “post delisting boom” that is perhaps not environmentally sustainable. This AOC has accomplished a considerable restoration, but development interests perhaps now loom to unsustainably take advantage.

5 Significant Lessons from the St. Louis River AOC The St. Louis River flows though the twin ports of Duluth and Superior, the former city being in Minnesota on the River’s northern bank, and the latter city being in Wisconsin on the River’s southern bank. Both cities border on Lake Superior (see Fig. 1 in Chapter 4). It has a large estuary that includes shallow backwaters, bays, and islands that ideally would provide ecologically healthy aviary and wildlife habitat. It is potentially a unique ecosystem with regional and global significance. Parts of the upper estuary (the section farthest from the Lake) appear almost pristine, but the lower estuary (closer to the Lake) was both channeled and filled to accommodate shipping. Nearly one-third of the original estuary was either filled or channeled, yet it still remains one of the most biologically diverse and complex bodies within the Great Lakes Basin. Since the early twentieth century, large freighter ships have operated out of Duluth to carry iron ore from the “Iron Range,” just north of Duluth, to the steel plants on the southern Great Lakes. But DuluthSuperior also has several grain elevators that ship grain from the upper Mid-Western Plains. In 1907, on Spirit Lake—which is eleven miles

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

363

upriver from the Lake Superior, but still within the confines of Duluth— the US Steel Company built the Duluth Works steel mill. This significantly contaminated the area. It is also important to note that the Fond du Lac Chippewa Tribe’s Reservation is immediately adjacent to the western edge of the AOC. (See Fig. 1 in Chapter 4.) This Reservation has been negatively and substantially affected by the environmental degradations of the area so that this restoration poses an important issue of environmental justice. Several hundred years ago, the search for “food that grows on water” led the Ojibwe (Chippewa) to the Upper Great Lakes. This food became their staple. “On reaching the mouth of the St. Louis River … we here saw plenty of wild rice,” wrote Henry Schoolcraft in 1820 on an exploratory expedition through the area. As late as the 1930s, locals were actively “ricing” in the estuary. Although there is little rice left, it can still be found in the upper reaches of the Pokegama Bay (see Fig. 1 in Chapter 4), and small amounts are scattered throughout the estuary in shallow flats. Thousands of people still harvest rice by the traditional way (by canoe) in Minnesota and Wisconsin, but very little is now harvested from the St. Louis Estuary. Wild rice is a tall aquatic grass found in the rivers and lakes throughout the Great Lakes Basin. It grows in clear shallow water of 1.5 to 3 feet in depth, and only in slight current on a silty bottom that is free of toxins. Changes in water depth, excessive wave action from watercraft, plus toxic sediment and foraging wildlife are factors that harm rice paddies. Wild rice is a nutritional grain that is central to the Ojibwe. It is also important to the ecology of the St. Louis River Estuary where rice once grew in abundance in shallow bays and backwaters. During the area’s industrial development, however, pollution, channelization, and logging came close to eliminating rice producing wetlands. Only remnants are now left in only a few acres in the 12,000-acre estuary. Currently, the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa/Ojibwe and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission are working with other partners to restore 275 self-sustaining acres of wild rice within the AOC. This is a multiagency effort with funding partners from the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).

364

R. M. ROBINSON

5.1

Restorations of the Habitats of Locally Endangered Species

This AOC focused on the restoration and preservation of many of the area’s natural habitats for locally endangered species such as wild rice, Lake Sturgeon, Piping Plover, and the Common Tern. This restoration effort included: i. the removal of the contaminated sediment, ii. the control of the invasive plants, iii. the improvement in the connectivity of the preserved areas to the River and Bay, iv. the improvement of the habitat for fish and wildlife, and v. the control of the stormwater runoff. Through these actions and preservations, the locally endangered species are assured of proliferation. To this end, environmental preserves were established at Clough Island, Grassy Point, Kingsbury Bay, Wisconsin Point, and Minnesota Point. 5.2

Public Engagement

The formation and implementation of this AOC’s RAP were the responsibility of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Managers from these three agencies plus a Fond du Lac Chippewa Board representative comprised the leadership team for the RAP effort. The St. Louis River Alliance (SLRA) is the designated Public Advisory Committee (PAC) for public consultation and financial review of the effort. The US Army Corps of Engineers, the US EPA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA are active “partners” who together with environmental advocacy organizations and the PAC, provide input to the process of formation and management of the RAPs actions. The 2013 RAP outlined an extensive public engagement process for composing, directing, and monitoring the remediation actions. This included involvements by the county governments in Minnesota and Wisconsin, the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and also the affected area’s businesses. The process also included the “partners” as listed here:

11

• • • • • •

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

365

St. Louis River Alliance, St. Louis River AOC Citizen Advisory Committee, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Fond du Lac Chippewa Tribe.

Of particular note is that the staff of the AOC’s Citizen Advisory Committee is provided by the St. Louis River Alliance. They also organize an Annual St. Louis River Summit to further engage the public. Updates on the “progress made” are publicized at the Summit, and also at an Annual Celebration of Progress event. This publicity effort provides relevant lessons for other AOC management teams who struggle with engaging their public concerning their accomplishments and the needs for further progress. No other AOC appears to be more organized in propagating their efforts among the public. (Note the example of publicity problems associated with the Saginaw River and Bay AOC as reviewed above and examined in more detail in Chapter 7.) The publicity efforts of the Saint Louis River AOC are, therefore, germane. In addition, a 2020 “Public Engagement Survey” was conducted by the St. Louis River Alliance. This survey was administered to the various partners and stakeholders so that adjustments could be made concerning the effectiveness of the AOC’s efforts. In addition to the Detroit examples reviewed in Chapter 3, the Duluth case presents a “rust belt” urban example of necessary “old industrial” cleanup that serves the physical and psychic health of those living in the area. Although this area includes old industry, after restoration it is much closer to being a natural semi-pristine area with considerable environmental assets. The cleanup of the industrial poisons left in the sediments and habitats of this area is, however, necessary for the ecological health of the entire Great Lakes Basin. Progress is ongoing and worthy of note for this AOC. This is documented in Chapter 4 as being relevant for similar restorations. As reviewed above, the restoration of this AOC has been led by the Minnesota and Wisconsin state agencies (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) together with the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa/Ojibwe, and the St. Louis River Alliance. Funding

366

R. M. ROBINSON

came from the GLRI through the EPA and NOAA, and also from a significant number of environmental advocacy organizations (the Friends of the Superior Municipal Forest¸ the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, The Minnesota Land Trust, the Clean Water Legacy Fund, and numerous other significant environmental funds). The Lake Superior Research Institute, The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and the abovementioned array of agencies all contributed to both the direction of the restoration, and also the monitoring of results. 5.3

Relevance of the St. Louis River Restoration

Of particular note is the public communication effort by the AOC’s Public Advisory Committee. They effectively communicated the progress of the AOC effort and solicited input reviews from the concerned public. These efforts have made the environmental restorations of this area popular. The old heavy industry abandoned the Twin-Port Cities, but the environmental restoration has led a resurgence in the area that rebuilds the local economy along with the ecology. All of this is well documented in Chapter 4. Besides the general restoration of the St. Louis River to a healthy, non-toxic environment, the restoration accomplishments also include: • local habitat restoration that preserves locally endangered species, and • the provision of some degree of environmental justice to the indigenous people—Fond du Lac Ojibwe.

6

The Essential Organizations

Chapter 4 reviews the efforts of Dorthy Anway and the Friends of the Superior Municipal Forest to halt a poorly planned development of Clough Island in the St. Louis River AOC. This island is now one of the many areas being effectively restored into being an environmental asset. Other chapters reviewed similar efforts by local advocacy organizations that precipitated significant remediations. For example, Friends of the Detroit River (Chapter 3) halted a development along the Detroit River, and this action precipitated the movement that led to that area’s

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

367

restoration. The Mystic River Watershed Association (Chapter 10) initiated the monitoring of the Mystic’s water quality, and this precipitated their extensive leadership in an essential large-scale restoration of their important environmental asset. In a similar way, the Housatonic Valley Association and the Penobscot Nation effectively precipitated large-scale restorations for their important rivers. The role played by these and many other EAOs to initiate and energize large restorations of our water bodies are extensively documented in the chapters above, but also reviewed is the essential roles of the various state environmental agencies in all these restorations. Along with federal agencies, they provide the scientific and engineering expertise that make these restorations effective. For example, the environmental agencies of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Massachusetts have played the critical roles in restorations of their states’ rivers. Nevertheless, the funding has been largely federal along with considerable amounts from private environmental organizations. The Nature Conservancy provides an example of the latter. Federal leadership and funding (in both US and Canada) are appropriate for these restorations given that the Great Lakes are North America’s resources. Even rivers such as the Penobscot should be considered as essential for North America given its role as a restored spawning river for Atlantic salmon. More recently, however, we have the development of a relatively new funding source for our river’s restorations, one with great potential impact—the Urban Waters Federal Partnership Program (UWFP). This program can provide the resources to be marshaled by local EAOs and state agencies to fund the sorts of restorations we witness in the Great Lakes. The UWFP is supported by 14 US federal agencies and more than 28 environmental NGOs. This relatively new program began in 2011, and is currently funding 20 restorations of various water bodies dispersed around the US. For example, in the early twentieth century the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey was severely impacted by industrial wastes (such as dioxins and mercury). Due to the severity of the contamination, the nearby population shunned what should have been an important community resource. As in the AOC Program examined in Chapters 3–9, the US EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are leading in the sediment removals, but restoration requires more than this as indicated in these chapters. Full restoration can in part be funded by the UWFP. The aim of this relatively new UWFP Program is fourfold:

368

R. M. ROBINSON

• to break down federal program silos to promote more efficient use of federal resources through better coordination and targeting of federal investments, • to recognize and build on local efforts and leadership by engaging community partners, • to work with local officials and community-based organizations to leverage area resources, and • to learn and publicize early accomplishments in order to stimulate longer-term actions.10 In addition to the Lower Passaic River, the other nineteen UWFP Programs are listed below: 1. Anacostia Watershed (District of Columbia and Maryland) 2. Blue River (Kansas City, Missouri) 3. Bronx and Harlem River Watersheds (New York City) 4. Caño Martin Peña (Puerto Rico) 5. Grand River/Grand Rapids (Michigan) 6. Delaware River Watershed (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Greater Philadelphia) 7. Green-Durwamish Watershed (Washington) 8. Lake Pontchartrain (New Orleans, Louisiana) 9. Los Angeles River Watershed (California) 10. Meramec River and Big River (Missouri) 11. Middle Rio Grande (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 12. Mystic River Watershed (Massachusetts) 13. Northwest Indiana (Indiana) 14. Patapsco Watershed (Baltimore, Maryland) 15. Proctor Creek Watershed (Atlanta, Georgia) 16. Rio Salado (Central Arizona) 17. San Antonio River (Bexar County, Texas) 18. South Platte Watershed (Colorado) 19. Western Lake Erie (Toledo, Ohio) It is rather obvious that the UWFP Program is an outgrowth of the Great Lakes AOC Program, and was likely stimulated by the successes 10 See www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

369

of the restorations of the urban rivers in the AOCs such as those of the Detroit Area, and of Duluth-Superior, and others documented in Chapters 3–9. The lessons concerning (i) how to organize, (ii) how to include the necessary expertise, and (iii) how to solicit community involvements are all illustrated by these AOC restorations. In particular, although many of these restorations were precipitated by the efforts of local EAOs, state environmental agencies frequently carried the weight of these efforts. The administrative structures generally included technical expertise that operated through the management committees that created the remediation plans and the follow-up monitoring systems. These experts and committees identified the specific and measurable impairments and indicated when these impairments were remediated. An overall supervisory committee organized and audited the funding. The evidence indicates that this structure effectively accomplishes restorations. In the opposite direction, there is some evidence that centralized state bureaucratic direction has weaknesses in accomplishing remediations as indicated by the Ohio example reviewed in Chapter 8. It appears that perhaps Ohio’s attention on accomplishing restorations was diverted toward other political objectives.

7

A Final Restoration Examination: The Hudson River Estuary11

At this point, I ask the reader for a bit more patience in order to review one more restoration, one that is extraordinarily broad in scope and bold in importance. It involves coordination across multi-political jurisdictions. It involves the political arrangement for refurbishing a very old and wornout infrastructure, plus the remediation of societal sins of environmental justice. The restoration is titled The New York – New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program (HEP). This is the cleanup of New York City’s Hudson River Estuary and surrounding area. Among other substantial efforts, this requires the restoration of New York’s Lower Hudson River, and also of New Jersey’s Raritan, Passaic, and Hackensack Rivers, all severely polluted by legacy industrial sources. It also requires managing an information

11 Material for this section can largely be found at www.hudsonriver.org/estuary.pro gram.

370

R. M. ROBINSON

system that will motivate the political forces of restoration, forces that span two states and their large metropolitan areas. According to the 2020 census, New York City’s Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) includes 20.1 million people within a 3,450-square-mile area. It includes the New York City’s political boundaries, plus Long Island, Mid- and Lower Hudson Valley, and the six largest New Jersey cities: Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Elizabeth, Lakewood, and Edison. It also includes six of the seven largest cities in Connecticut: Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford, Waterbury, Norwalk, and Danbury. It is the largest MSA in the US. The US Congress created the National Estuary Program (NEP) in a 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act . The purpose was to create “comprehensive management plans” for 28 estuaries of national importance because they were threatened by pollution and development. These estuaries are located along the US Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Coasts and Puerto Rico. A list of the 28 estuaries, along with their locations, is presented by Table 1. The US EPA is the lead federal agency for managing this program, but state and government agencies, university resources, and environmental NGOs are utilized for developing and implementing environmental restoration plans. Each of the 28 estuaries develop and implement Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) that address water quality and other environmental issues. These Plans are organized in conjunction with a local Management Conference (MC) that solicits and uses a “collaborative consensus-building approach” among the estuary’s stakeholders to develop and implement the CCMP.12 Because the environmental problems of these estuaries cross local political boundaries, the NEP defines their management areas and committees according to watershed boundaries and the ecosystems within. The similarities of the National Estuaries Program to the AOC Program are apparent. Federal funding is granted for the management actions generated by the CCMPs. The New York–New Jersey HEP was created in 1988 by the US EPA at the request of the Governors of New York and New Jersey. It represents an ongoing effort to develop and implement a consensus driven restoration. The New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary is the most significant public resource in the largest and most densely populated US 12 See “Overview of the National Estuary Program” at https://epa.gov/nep/basic-inf ormation’about’estuaries.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

Table 1 National Estuary Program Areas

371

Site

Location

Casco Estuary Piscataqua Estuaries Massachusetts Bays Buzzards Bay Narragansett Bay Long Island Sound

Maine Maine Massachusetts Massachusetts Rhode Island New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island New York New York and New Jersey New Jersey Delaware Delaware Maryland North Carolina Florida Puerto Rico Florida Florida Florida Alabama Louisiana Texas Texas California California California Oregon Oregon and Washington Washington

Peconic Estuary New York–New Jersey Harbor Barnegat Bay Delaware Estuary Delaware Inland Bays Maryland Coastal Bays Albemarle – Pamlico Estuary Indian River Lagoon San Juan Bay Estuary Coastal and Heartland Estuary Sarasota Bay Tampa Bay Mobile Bay Barataria–Terrebonne Estuary Galveston Bay Coastal Bend Bays Santa Monica Bay Morro Bay San Francisco Estuary Tillamook Estuaries Lower Columbia River Puget Sound

metropolitan area. Managing this resource is the shared responsibility of at least five federal agencies, two states, 11 large sewerage agencies, hundreds of local political entities (counties, cities and towns), and 20 million people. HEP attempts to collaboratively develop and implement actions that pursue five long-term goals: (i) cleaner water, (ii) restored fish and wildlife habitat, (iii) improved public access, (iv) a more efficient maritime industry, and (v) a more intensive and widespread community engagement. These five broad goals are organized into 17 specific objectives and 40 actions. The Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan

372

R. M. ROBINSON

was developed after 25 outreach events and with 30 civic partners. It is described by “The State of the Estuary Report,” and its “Monitoring Plan.” It now has an agenda of actions that extends to 2025. The organizational structure is similar to many of the AOC Program’s (reviewed extensively in Chapters 3–9). The EPA selected the Hudson River Foundation to administer the HEP. It employs a “Program Director” and staff that operate under an overall Policy Committee’s direction. The Policy Committee includes a “Citizen Advisory Committee” (CAC) and a “Science and Technical Advisory Committee” (TAC) that is charged with ensuring that the plans are scientifically based. This distinction between the CAC and TAC is similar to many AOC’s structures. The Hudson Estuary lies at the center of the largest and most densely populated urban area in the US (see Fig. 1). Its wastewater and stormwater management systems are extensive, but to a large extent, they are old and consequently inadequate. Upgrades are often expensive because they are technically difficult to integrate into, and construct within this vast urban complex. Responsibility is politically fragmented across jurisdictional agencies. Contamination of the Estuary stemmed from legacy industries, outdated wastewater treatments, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs), a combination generally found in AOCs. The dredging of contaminated sediment is also required throughout the Estuary’s watershed. The surfaces of the areas of Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and the New Jersey harbor are 75–100% impervious to rainwater and snowmelt. This drainage washes concrete and asphalt, and deposits road chemicals, plastics, and other wastes into its storm sewers and finally into the Estuary. But the area’s combined sewer outlets, and wastewater treatment outlets discharge in the vicinities of public beaches and other public water-contact access places. Controlling these problems requires an extensive public information system that HEP is attempting to provide. The political consequences of a publicly accessible real-time (or near real-time) monitoring system of water quality are substantial. When the public knows the extent and sources of the problems, it will likely politically react accordingly. Maintaining an effective system is therefore a priority of HEP. The monitoring, however, requires citizen-scientist

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

373

Hudson River

N

Bronx

Harlem

3 Hackensack River

Long Island

Sound

New Jersey Passaic River

2

Manhattan Queens

1

East River 9

7 4 Brooklyn Raritan River

Staten Island

6 5

Raritan Bay

8

1: Newark 7: Bayonne 2: Jersey City 8: Sandy Hook 3: Paterson 9: Rockaway 4: Elizabeth 5: New Brunswick 6: Edison

Fig. 1 Lower Hudson Estuary Area

volunteers and other competent personnel to energize an extensive system.13 (Please note the similarity with the Mystic River’s systems.) HEP places public access to the Estuary’s resources as a priority both because it encourages engagement in healthy physical activity and it encourages stewardship of these important assets. Consequently, HEP

13 See www.hudsonriver.org/estuary.program for maps of this extensive system. For water quality reviews see www.hudsonriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-Wat erQualityReport.pdf.

374

R. M. ROBINSON

establishes a target that by 2050, all residents close to the Estuary should be within either a short walk or short public transit ride from an accessible water-contact point (a beach or public boat dock). A 2016 report identified 539 access points that ranged from the small waterways adjacent to dead-end streets, up to developed esplanades, sandy beaches, and public boat marinas.14 Four of these parks—Liberty State Park, Hudson River Park, Brooklyn Bridge Park, and Governors Island—now attract more than 26 million visitors per year. Also note that kayaks and human powered boats provide more than 100,000 uses per year within the Estuary’s watershed. But there are only 14 sandy beaches within the Estuary, and 6 additional beaches on the ocean side of Sandy Hook and the Rockaways. There are an additional 139 sites where people can wade, or kayak or use small boats. But there are still large stretches of waterfront that are inaccessible to residents. For example, the Passaic River between Paterson and Newark is almost entirely inaccessible (see Fig. 1). Also, maritime shipping facilities make large sections of the Estuary’s waterfronts inaccessible for security reasons.15 Across the Estuary’s watershed, there are marginalized disadvantaged communities of lower income that are situated in older dense tenementtype neighborhoods with few public parks and no ready access to waterfront assets. Consequently, HEP focuses on 12 waterfront disadvantaged communities identified in the 2016 “Public Access report” referred to above. These focus areas include the Urban Waters Federal Partnerships of the Passaic River and the Bronx and Harlem River (see Fig. 1). These community improvement efforts are led by the NYC Department of Parks and Recreation.16 In addition to the broad water quality and access goals, HEP also includes the broad goal of making the Estuary’s port facilities ecologically sustainable while keeping the facilities economically efficient and competitive. The Port of New York and New Jersey is the largest port on the US Atlantic Coast. It annually processes 3.7 million containers and 500,000

14 See “Connecting Our Waterways: Public Access and its Stewardship in the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary,” 2016, at www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/50713. 15 For public access issues, see www.hudsonriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ PublicAccess.pdf. 16 Concerning access to the Estuary for lower-income groups in NYC, Robinson (2021, p. 267) documents the Riverkeepers early involvement in expanding this access.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

375

automobiles per year, as well as other cargo worth $200 billion. It directly supports 190,000 jobs. Managing the quantity and quality of the sediment that flows into the navigational channels and docks is one of the more significant problems addressed by HEP. Effectively managing this problem can substantially reduce the costs of dredging while reducing the exposure of people and wildlife to the poisons in the sediment. The Hudson and other rivers transport sediment into the Estuary where between 400,000 to 1,400,000 metric tons move annually through this hydraulic system. The past conversion of agricultural and forested lands to impervious surfaces creates surges of stormwater runoff that erode streambanks and streambeds. These high sediment movements damage aquatic habitats and fill navigational channels and docking facilities. In addition, sediment runoffs from construction sites are usually severe.17 Understanding how to reduce the movement of this material should enable (1) protection of habitat, and (2) the lowering of dredging costs. Past industrial activity along these waterways has left sediments contaminated with heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs, and other poisons that are toxic to people and habitat. These contaminants result in reduced recreational opportunities, degraded water quality, and degraded habitats. Contamination of navigational dredging materials also results in large increases in dredging costs. Cleaning the material concentrated at the Superfund sites in the Passaic River, Newtown Creek, and Gowanus Canal, especially in the Upper Hudson River, help eliminate contaminations in down-river sites. A 2007 analysis of contaminants identified the relative contributions of these and other sources, but a more detailed and updated mapping will help trace these toxic contaminants to help guide dredging decisions and public access projects. This essential updating of source maps is part of HEP. A 12-year, $2.1 billion Harbor Deepening Project is now near completion. By increasing the depth of eight navigational channels in the Estuary, this Project lowered the demands for annual maintenance dredging. But dredging can alter or destroy aquatic habitats thereby destroying the benthos and fish spawning areas. Therefore, restrictions on dredging within the Estuary are essential for habitat restoration. HEP therefore

17 See www.hudsonriver.org/estuary.program, p. 51.

376

R. M. ROBINSON

plans the following actions: (1) the mapping of current sediment conditions throughout the Estuary, (2) identifying the changes in sediments over the past fifteen years; and (3) convening technical advisors to develop the appropriate dredging restrictions.18 The Lower Hudson Estuary is a major ongoing port facility. Its surrounding area is extremely dense in population and old in urban infrastructure. A complete government directed restoration of this resource is near impossible even with substantial federal funding through the National Estuary Program. Such a restoration is “near impossible” because the Port and society of the New York City’s metropolitan area must be continually sustained within this environment of functional hostility to the natural. The sewerage and stormwater problems are by themselves singularly massive tasks of civil engineering, but the sediment management tasks are equally massive and challenging. The toxicity of the sediments adds mountains to the engineering tasks. An addition to these tasks is the expansion of accessible natural interactions for the population of this area. This last task appears to be a considerable stretch for this Estuary’s restoration program, but government agencies are facing the challenge. Such is the extent of the local restoration movement. Given the lessons drawn from the restorations reviewed in Section 10 in Chapter 3, we should ask the following: 1. Does the scope of the Hudson Estuary’s vast and complex restoration make it functionally different from the AOCs? Should it be subdivided into separate locales such as the Passaic River, the Hackensack River, and Raritan River and Bay? (See Chapter 4 and the four Detroit area AOCs.) Are there local EAOs that might effectively lead these local restorations? 2. For engineering feasibility, should large subareas of this metropolis be planned for more substantial refurbishment so that infrastructure can be completely reconstructed? Of course, such efforts would need plans involving lengthy lead times, perhaps decades or longer. It should be noted, however, that many of the AOC’s projects spanned more than thirty years.

18 For the “Regional Sediment Management Plan,” see www.hudsonriver.org/wp-con tent/up;oads/2017/10/Reg_Sed_Mgmnt_Plan0908.pdf.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

377

With respect to both of these questions, we should recall the valuable lesson from the Grand Calumet River AOC. That restoration is still ongoing after more than forty years given that the early Superfund projects began in the 1970s. This AOC restoration is led by the EPA, and it is deemed necessary for the health of the larger Great Lakes Basin. It has no local EAOs of residents spurring it on. Ultimately, that restoration seeks to transform the character of the northwest corner of Indiana away from being only a poisonous industrial dump. A substantial difference between cleaning the Grand Calumet area and the Lower Hudson Estuary area is that the former had little population, but the latter has 20.1 million people. Persuading the residents of one small section at a time to move elsewhere so that the area can be reconstructed and subsequently restored might be the only effective and feasible option. The Hudson Estuary Project is the largest restoration effort reviewed in the eleven chapters of this book. The National Estuary Program is administered by the EPA. Through this program, this federal agency solicits input from local governments and environmental advocacy organizations. The EPA funds the actions (or organizes the funding) developed under the individual estuary management plans. This Estuary Program is similar to the AOC Program both in its organizational structures and funding methods. It is a long-term ongoing program of local restorations.

8

The Envisioning Problem

Whether it was the Willamette River restoration, or the St. Louis River, or the Mystic River, or any other remediation reviewed in the above chapters, the effort always began with an individual envisioning what could be. That person might have been experienced or knowledgeable in restorations and associated problems, or perhaps inexperienced and naïve. But whichever they were, their ability to persuade must have existed. It is unfortunate that a river must first be severely degraded to stimulate such a visioning. With today’s environmental movement, all such degraded rivers, bays, and lakes will eventually have leadership aiming at restoration. The relevant question is therefore, “Will the envisioning motivate us to employ the resources and the support necessary to enable the effort to be successful?” We see that this is largely the case in our Great Lakes efforts, and perhaps in our burgeoning Urban Waters Federal Partnerships program. The necessary expertise exists in our federal, state, and provincial agencies, and in our EAOs. They provide the scientists, the engineers,

378

R. M. ROBINSON

and funding sources for our efforts. These experts also help us envision what could be, and they do have the organizational weight to see that the effort is successful. Examples of this are amply provided in the above chapters. The National Estuary Program is, however, more centrally led by federal agencies than either the Urban Waters Partnerships or the AOC Program. But the Estuary Program also solicits and uses local input from state and local agencies, universities, and EAOs. In all three of these programs, the local input appears to be the key motivating factor for restoration. This recognizes that a considerable degree of the expertise necessary for success resides in these local agencies, universities, and environmental organizations. For the purpose of serving our socio-economic welfare interests, are there any other broad efforts that could serve the public better than our local environmental restorations? Perhaps there are. But if so, then these broad efforts would be few, perhaps those aimed at resolving climate change, or depletion of our oceans’ resources, or some other very broad human problem that demands attention. Nonetheless, we suspect that our local water resource restorations must be high on our welfare priority list. For this, we need the envisioning and technical expertise we now find in our government agencies and our EAOs. The above chapters reviewed a lengthy list of local environmental restorations. Some are clearly successful, and some less successful. But all are reactions to the unfortunate degradations of nature that people find themselves engulfed within. The organizational challenges of restoration efforts are being faced, and lessons can be drawn as indicated above. But the more significant lesson is that people do react to degradation and push for environmental change. We have now developed the science and engineering expertise necessary to meet our restoration challenges. They reside in our government agencies, our academic institutions, and our EOAs. These energize the environmental movement. The chapters above document that by using these resources, we have planned significant restorations on substantially large scales, and we have completed many of these necessary remediations. But now many other restorations demand our attention.

11

CONCLUSION: SOME LESSONS FROM LOCAL RESTORATIONS

379

Reference Robinson, Richard (2021), Environmental Organizations and Reasoned Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland.

Appendix A: Invasive Aquatic Species

Introduction1 In the Western Hemisphere, cultural interactions and sea trade have occurred since the time of the ancient Phoenicians, Greeks, and Persians. Perhaps, true globalization began with the Viking invasions of Southern Europe the late eighth century, or perhaps with the great navigators of the fifteenth century. The benefits of all this interaction and trade include the discovery of new products, be they food or textiles or new ways of transportation, or medicines, art, architecture, or new production methods. Civil engineering advances—road and harbor construction, the transportation of clean water into our cities, and wastewater out—were spread into the Mediterranean area and Southern Europe by the Romans. But the cost of all this trade and discovery came with the spread of unfamiliar diseases such as the black plague, smallpox, and rubella. Trade, be it centuries ago or more recent, also spreads invasive species that once

1 See “Least Wanted” AIS List, Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Governors & Premiers at www.gsgp.org/projects/aquatic-invasive-species/. The information for this section comes from numerous sources that include National Geographic, Wikipedia, US EPA, the Natural Resources Research Institute, The National Park Service, and the Minnesota Aquatic Invasive Species Research Center (MAISRC), and others as cited.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7

381

382

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

introduced into an ecosystem, have no predatory controls. Ship waterballast and anchors have a tendency to facilitate these invasions. It is not just humanity that upsets or destroys the natural environment; other species can be rather destructive as well. Some of these recent destructive invasions are documented in these appendices. In this appendix, eight invasive aquatic species (animals) are reviewed. They are invasive and destructive of the marine environments in the Great Lakes and other Northeastern-US and Eastern-Canadian waterbodies. In general, they are non-native to the Great Lakes and North America. Their destructive damage and methods of remediation are also reviewed. These eight species include: • • • • • • • •

the the the the the the the the

Zebra Mussel, Quagga Mussel, Round Goby, Asian Carp, Ruffe, Alewife, Sea Lamprey, and Spiny Water Flea.

These invasive animals are examined here in turn. Others could have been included, but these eight appear to be the most destructive up to now. We should have no doubt, however, that others will follow.

Zebra Mussels2 The zebra mussel is a small freshwater mollusk. It was originally native to the lakes of southern Russia and Ukraine, but it has been accidentally introduced elsewhere as a globally aggressive invasive species. Since the 1980s, it has aggressively invaded the Great Lakes and the Hudson River with considerable resulting damage. This mollusk was first identified in 1769 in the Ural, Volga, and Dnieper Rivers. This mollusk gets its name from the stiped pattern commonly found on its shell. It can grow to 2 2 See Hoddle, M.S., “Quagga & Zebra Mussels,” Center for Invasive Species Research, UC Riverside, at http://cisr.ucr.edu/quagga_zebra_mussels.html. See also, “Species Profile—Zebra Mussel,” National Invasive Species Information Center, United States National Agricultural Library.

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

383

inches in length. It is easily identified by the flat-bottomed “D” shape to its shells, which allows it to lie flat against a solid surface thereby enabling its strong attachment. Zebra mussels are filter feeders that can process up to one liter of water per day. They deposit feces on the floor of the waterbody. Also, non-food particles are combined with mucus and deposited as pseudofeces. Since the zebra mussel became established in Lake Erie, because of this pseudo-feces process, the water clarity increased from six inches to up to three feet in the areas where this mussel predominates. This increased water clarity allows sunlight to penetrate deeper which enables submerged aquatic plants to grow more than they otherwise would. When these plants die and decay, they wash up on shorelines and foul beaches as in the case of Saginaw Bay reviewed previously in Chapter 7. Lake floor food supplies are enriched by zebra mussels as they filter pollution from the water. This biomass becomes available to bottomfeeding fish and the fish that feed on them. The catch of yellow perch, for example, increased by fivefold since the invasion of zebra mussels into Lake St. Clair. Zebra mussels attach to most surfaces below the water line. This includes sand, silt, and harder surfaces, but juveniles prefer harder rockier surfaces. Other mussel species are frequently the most stable objects in silty water beds, and zebras often attach to them which kills the native mussels. Zebras also build colonies on native clams, reducing their ability to move, feed, and breed. This eventually leads to their extinction. This led to the near extinction of native clams in Lake St. Clair and the western basin of Lake Erie. This pattern is being repeated in other Great Lakes’ waterbodies. The life span of a zebra mussel is four to five years. An adult female zebra can produce over one-million eggs per year. Free swimming microscopic larvae, called “veligers,” can drift in the water for several weeks before settling on a hard surface (any hard submerged surface). These mussels can tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions, and adults can survive out of water for about seven days. Research on natural enemies has focused on predators, particularly birds (36 species) and fish (15 species that eat veligers and 38 that eat attached mussels). Wintering waterbirds at Lake Constance have been found to decrease zebra mussel biomass in shallow waters by 90%. But almost all of zebra’s natural enemies are not present in North America.

384

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

Crayfish could have a significant impact on zebra mussels. An adult crayfish can consume more than 100 zebra mussels per day. These predation rates, however, are significantly reduced at lower water temperatures. But some fish, such as the smallmouth bass, are predators of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Also, Canadian conservation authorities have successfully used a liquid fertilizer that kills zebras. Other tests of biopesticides have proved effective in Illinois, Minnesota, and Michigan. Zebra mussels were first detected in Lake St. Clair. They were thought to have been inadvertently introduced into the Great Lakes by ballast water of ocean-going ships, or perhaps ship anchors. They enter the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence Seaway. From their first appearance in American waters in 1988, zebra mussels have spread to a large number of waterways including Lake Simcoe, the Mississippi, Hudson, Ohio, Cumberland, Missouri, Colorado, Arkansas, and Tennessee Rivers, plus various lakes. Scientists predict that this mussel will continue to spread to other rivers and lakes through recreational boats. Congressional researchers have estimated that the zebra mussel has cost communities over $5 billion and power companies $3 billion.3 In 1993, a major decrease in water dissolved oxygen which was observed in the Seneca River in central New York. This was caused by a high concentration of zebra mussels. The Seneca also experienced significant reduction in water dissolved chlorophyll because of the zebra mussels. Also, zebra mussels are the source of a deadly avian botulism that killed tens of thousands of birds in the Great Lakes since the late 1990s. Zebras are edible and accumulate biotoxins.

The Quagga Mussel Like the zebra mussel, the quagga (Dreissena rostriformis) is a freshwater mussel—an aquatic bivalve mollusk. It is indigenous to the Dnieper River of the Ukraine. Because of the pattern of its stripes, it is named after an extinct subspecies of African zebra. It is a damaging invasive species that is currently of major concern in the Great Lakes.4 3 See Connelly, N.A., and C.R. O’Neill et al. (2007), “Economic Impacts of Zebra Mussels on Drinking Water Treatment and Electric Power Generation Facilities,” Environmental Management, 40 (1): 105–112. 4 See Reintelen, T., and D. Van Damme (2011), “Quagga Mussel Dreissena,” at www. iucnredlist.org/soecies/188911/8661357. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

385

The shell of the quagga mussel is usually black or yellow, but a distinct variation in Lake Erie is pale or white. The quagga is paler than the zebra mussel and smaller—about the size of a thumbnail. As a mussel, the quagga is a filter feeder; it uses its cilia to draw water into its siphon to feed on phytoplankton, zooplankton, and algae. It is a prolific breeder and spreads rapidly in the Great Lakes. The quagga mussel was first observed in North America in 1989 when it was discovered in Lake Erie along the Ontario coast. It was identified as a distinct species in 1991. By 2021, the biomass of quagga in the lower four Great Lakes was estimated to be so great that it was the primary regulator of phosphorous, remetabolizing and recirculating it instead of allowing it to sedimentize as it normally would. The introduction of quagga into the Great Lakes appears to be the result of ballast water discharged from transoceanic ships that were carrying juveniles or adult mussels. The quagga is highly prolific with high potential for rapid adaption and expansive colonization. Quagga’s ability to rapidly colonize hard surfaces causes serious economic costs. This biofouling organism clogs water-intake structures such as pipes and screens, which reduces pumping capabilities for power and water treatment plants. Docks, break-walls, buoys, boats, and beaches have all been heavily colonized. Many of the potential impacts of quagga are still unknown, but its rapid spread across Europe’s differing regions indicate its high potential for rapid adaptation to varied climates. It therefore might have high capability to adapt to climate change. It causes the same problems as zebra mussels. It destroys life-supporting algae, and damages boats, power plants, harbors, and native mussel populations. Quaggas filter large amounts of water to feed on substantial amounts of phytoplankton and suspended particulates. This decreases chlorophyll concentrations and accumulates pseudo-feces. By removing phytoplankton, quagga mussels decrease the food available for zooplankton thereby altering the food chain. This filtration also increases the water’s transparency which causes a proliferation of aquatic plants. This alters the entire ecosystem. The pseudo-feces accumulate on the bottom. As the waste particles decompose, however, oxygen is depleted, water acidity increases, and toxic byproducts are produced. The quagga mussels also accumulate pollutants in their tissues which are then passed up the food chain, thereby increasing wildlife exposure to these pollutants. Native freshwater mussels are eliminated along with the plankton that previously supported the native fish. The yellow perch and the sunfish of the

386

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

Great Lakes feed on the quagga, but the poisons do bioaccumulate thus contaminating these fish stocks.

The Round Goby5 The Round Goby is a small bottom dwelling fish that is native to Central Eurasia and the Black and Caspian Seas. They have established large nonnative populations in several Eurasian rivers, and the North American Great Lakes. The round goby is a small soft-bodied fish characterized be a distinctive black spot on the first dorsal fin. The eyes are large and protrude slightly from the top of the head. They range in length from 4 to 10 inches. When they mature, round gobies become mottled with gray, black, brown, and olive gray markings. Since 1990, round gobies have rapidly expanded into the Great Lakes and its tributaries, and recently were discovered in Cayuga Lake—one of New York State’s “Finger Lakes.”6 Since it was first discovered in the Great Lakes in 1990, the round goby has been considered an invasive species with significant ecological consequences. But these consequences are complex because the fish both competes with native species and provides an abundant source of food for them while consuming other invasive species. In this latter sense, the round goby acts as an invasive control. It is aggressive and outcompetes native species such as the sculpin and logperch for food (largely snails and mussels) thus substantially reducing their numbers. Round gobies are voracious predators of the eggs of native fish. They are also very adaptable to degraded environmental conditions. Many native predatory fish such as smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, salmon, and trout prey on the round goby. But the goby preys on the zebra and quagga mussels which concentrate the toxins they accumulate into the flesh of the fish that eat the goby. In this process, gobies inhibit the spread of the invasive zebra and quagga mussels but contaminate the native predatory fish. In addition, the round goby has become food for the Lake Erie Watersnake, once listed as a threatened species. The goby now accounts for 90% of the Watersnake’s diet.

5 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundgoby. 6 See Jude, D.J., R.H. Reider, and G.R. Smith (1992), “Establishment of Gobiidae in

the Great Lakes Basin,” Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science, 49 (2): 416–421.

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

387

As a result of all this, while the round goby is invasive and preys on the eggs of native fish, it also helps to limit other invasive species, and has become an important food source for some native fish.

Asian Carp There are four species of what is commonly called Asian carp that are invasive and destructive of native fish populations. These four include: • The bighead carp (Hypophtyalmichthys nobilis) is a filter feeder of the plankton that feeds the young native fish and native mussels. • The silver carp (Hypophtyalmichthys molitrix) is also a filter feeder of the plankton that is the food for young native fish and native mussels. • The black carp (Hypophtyalmichthys piceus), is carnivorous and feeds on native mussels and snails, some of which are already endangered. • The grass carp (Hypophtyalmichthys idella) is herbivores and feeds on aquatic plants to such an extent that the food web of native fish and invertebrates is impacted. These four species proliferate to great numbers in the Mississippi, and potentially can dominate the Great Lakes and its tributaries, thereby destroying the native fish populations. The extremely high abundance of bighead and silver carp in the Mississippi Basin can potentially limit the plankton food and habitat space of native fish populations. The grass and black carp are bottom feeders that with their great abundance, also destroys the habitat and food sources of native fish. It is the proliferation of the carp throughout the upper mid-west of the US that poses the urgent problem. When they enter a waterbody, they proliferate quickly and the native species decline. For example, between 2010 and 2019, Illinois contract fishermen harvested 7.5 million pounds of carp from the Illinois River.7 These carp uproot vegetation and create

7 See Roman, Joe, “Asian Carp,” at http://eattheinvaders.org/Asian-carp/.

388

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

muddy water through their rooting in the mud for food. This causes the decline in the native fish.8 A report issued in 2012 by the Great Lakes Commission concludes that physical separation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River watersheds is the best long-term solution to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from migrating between the waterbodies.9 Stopping these invasive species from spreading into Lake Erie is a particularly significant concern because Lake Erie provides the ideal habitat for carp. In October of 2013, scientists documented that carp had reproduced in Ohio’s Sandusky River, a large tributary of Lake Erie.10 A 2013 study detailed the devastating potential of a possible carp invasion on the native fish of Lake Erie.11 Silver carp can grow to 100 pounds, and are notorious jumpers (up to 8 feet above the water). They are scared easily by boats, and numerous boaters have been severely injured by collisions with airborne fish. According to an EPA report, injuries include cuts caused by fish fins, black eyes, broken bones, back injuries, and concussions.12

Eurasian Ruffe The Eurasian ruffe is a small freshwater fish native to temperate regions of Eurasia. It is invasive in the Great Lakes and can reproduce faster than other species. The ruffe’s color and markings are similar to the walleye— an olive-brown to golden-brown color on its back, paler on the sides with a yellowish white underside. It grows to almost ten inches in length. It has a large spiny dorsal fin that is spiked to keep away predators. It is a very aggressive fish. The ruffe’s diet is primarily zoobenthos: small water bugs, eggs, and larvae. It has the capacity to reproduce at a very high rate.

8 See Fuller, Pam (July 6, 2005), “Species Fact Sheet: Cyprinus carpio,” US Geological Survey, at https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=509. 9 See Lundgren, Timothy, and Varnum LLP (February 6, 2012), “Report Recommends Great Lakes Separation to Address Asian Carp,” The National Law Review, at www.nat lawreviewe.com/article/report-recommends-great-lakes-separation-to-address-asian-carp. 10 See USA Today, October 28, 2013. 11 See Christian Science Monitor, January 5, 2016. 12 See www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2007/July/Day-10/i13371.htm.

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

389

The accidental introduction of the ruffe to Lake Superior at Duluth is causing significant damage to native fish. It effectively competes for habitat space and food. It has similar eating habits to perch but it also has accelerated reproduction rate compared to other fish. Having more ruffe, therefore, leads to less food for other fish. The ruffe is unique in its ability to adapt to many habitats and temperatures, resulting in its success in spreading despite factors such as climate change. The ruffe also has an exceptional ability to detect water vibrations through organs called neuromasts. This trait both aids the ruffe’s ability to find food and to avoid predators. These organs advance to being more sensitive as the ruffe matures, while the perch’s neuromasts weaken as it matures. The ruffe has the ability to overpopulate and crowd out many other fish species, and consequently to damage the Great Lakes ecosystem. According to the US Geological Survey, without concerted intervention, the ruffe might ruin Lake Superior.13 The ruffe is the first invasive species classified as a nuisance by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Program. Along with it being the most populous fish in the St. Louis River basin (in Duluth, Minnesota), it has disrupted ecosystems all across the Great Lakes. The invasion was first noticed in the 1980s by Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources. They suggest that the fish was introduced to the lake by ballast water dumped into Duluth’s harbor by freighter ships. Ever since the ruffe were detected, studies show that the ruffe and the yellow perch are closely related and are rivals for food and habitat. The ruffe is expanding in this area, and the perch are contracting. Ever since the ruffe was detected in the Great Lakes, the authorities have been trying to control them. The first method was to increase the Walleye and Northern Pike because they are natural predators. If a large school of ruffe is found, they can be poisoned, but if some survive, they will reproduce rapidly. The chemical Lampricide TFM kills ruffe but leaves other fish unharmed. Pheromones are also being investigated as a control. After extensive study, it has been discovered that ruffe are repelled by their own pheromones. When injured, a ruffe will release pheromone into the water to warn other ruffe. Scientists have concluded that:

13 See sID=7.

“Ruffe—FactSheet,”

https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/factsheet.aspx?Specie

390

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

• The pheromone is species-specific so it only repels ruffe, not other fish. • The pheromone is resilient to freezing so it could be used during Minnesota’s long winter season. Through this method, scientists can block ruffe from their natural mating spots and produce a population decline. Their goal, of course, is to eliminate the species in the Great Lakes.

Alewife14 The alewife (Alosha pseudoharengus) is an anadromous species of herring found in North America. It is a North American shad. As an adult, it is a marine species of the northwest Atlantic. It moves into estuaries before swimming upstream to breed in freshwater habitats, but some populations never leave fresh water. It invaded the Great Lakes by using the Welland Canal to bypass Niagara Falls. In the Great Lakes, its population rose, peaking between 1950 and 1980, mostly in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, to the detriment of many native species. To control them, Pacific salmon (coho and Chinook) were imported with partial success. The alewife is a National Marine Fisheries Service “Species of Concern.” The average length of an alewife is 10 inches, but it can grow to 16 inches. The front of the body is deep and larger than other fish found in the same waters. Both anadromous and landlocked forms occur. (The landlock form is called a “sawbelly.”) Adult alewife are caught during their spring spawning migration upstream by being scooped by nets. They are the preferred bait for the spring lobster fishery in Maine. Alewife are eaten by people, mostly after being smoked. In spite of the introduction of Pacific salmon, alewife contributed to the decline of many native Great Lakes species. Alewife is also a common predator of numerous native and non-native zooplankton. Several factors limit the spread of alewife. These factors include loss of the spawning habitat due to dam constructions, and recently because of the recovering of striped bass populations. Recently, because of the declines in the alewife, the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island,

14 See Fisheries, NOAA (2021), Also see “Mystic River Herring Monitoring Project,” at https://mysticriver.org/herring-monitoring.

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

391

Connecticut, Virginia, and North Carolina have established moratoria on harvesting them. The alewife is a US National Marine Fisheries Service Species of Concern. In the Spring, alewife migrate upstream in north Atlantic rivers to spawning grounds in ponds and lakes. After spawning, they return back to the ocean. After the eggs hatch, the young fish live in the lake eating the zooplankton that drift with the currents. After some growth, they feed on bottom dwelling crustaceans. After growing above one inch, they journey to the ocean. And grow to adults. They have numerous predators such as bass, trout, and birds. In Cambridge Massachusetts, the Alewife Brook flows into the Mystic River watershed. Alewife Station, at the end of the Boston MTA’s Red Line, is named after this once numerous fish. But today, there no longer are alewife in the Alewife Brook. According to the watershed scientist Andy Hrycyna of the Mystic River Watershed Association, this is because the brook is overly polluted with very low dissolved oxygen. In other sections of the Mystic, alewife is still abundant. In 2012, the Mystic River Watershed Association has established a fish ladder and elevator that enable the fish to reach its spawning ground in the Upper Mystic Lake.15

Sea Lamprey16 The sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is a parasitic native to the Northern Hemisphere. It has an eel-like body without paired fins. Its mouth is jawless, round, and sucker-like, and wider than the head with sharp teeth arranged in concentric circular rows. Sea lampreys are olive or brown-yellow on the dorsal and lateral part of the body with some black and lighter coloration on the belly. Adults can grow to 47 inches in length and a weight of over 5 pounds. This species is found in the northwest Atlantic and is invasive in the Great Lakes. They have been found at depths of 4,000 meters and can tolerate a wide temperature range. Sea lampreys are anadromous. From 15 Farley, Jeanine (April 9, 2022), “Everything There Is to Know About the Alewife,” Cambridge Day. 16 See US Geological Survey, “Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Factsheet: Petromyzon marinus,” USGS. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?specie sID=836. Also see “Great Lakes Fishery Commission—Sea Lamprey,” at www.glfc. org/sea-lamprey.php.

392

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

their lake or sea habitats, they migrate up rivers to spawn. After spawning, the lampreys die. Larvae filter feed on plankton. After several years, the larvae undergo a metamorphous that allows them to migrate to the sea or lake, and to start adult bloodsucking for feeding. Some start feeding prior to reaching the sea where they prey on a wide variety of fish. The lamprey uses its suction cup-like mouth to attach itself to its prey, and uses its sharp tongue to rasp away flesh and to start bloodsucking. Victims die from excessive blood loss. After a year and a half of feeding, the lampreys return to the river to spawn and die. Sea lampreys are a nuisance in the Great Lakes. They are native to the inland Finger Lakes, Lake Champlain, and Lake Ontario. Improvements in the Welland Canal at Niagara Falls in 1919 are thought to have allowed its spread from Lake Ontario to Lake Erie, and then to Lake Michigan where it decimated the native fish populations (in particular lake trout, but also fish-like alewife) in the 1930s and 1940s. The lake trout should be an apex predator in Lake Superior. But the sea lamprey has become the actual apex predator since it preys on the lake trout, and has decimated its population. The relationship between predators and prey are now unbalanced. The control program includes both electric current and chemical lampricides, but they have had only partial success. The control program is under the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a joint CanadianUS body. Michigan State University researchers are leading experiments in a newly synthesized pheromone that interrupts lamprey spawning. But as of 2017, the most effective control is a selective pesticide. The current lamprey control program relies on lampricides being applied when the lampreys are congregated in the Great Lakes tributaries in either the adult or larval stages. Previously, Niagara Falls served as a natural barrier that prevented lamprey from entering the Great Lakes. By 1938, however, sea lampreys had spread throughout the entire Great Lakes system. These invasive fish were able to thrive once they invaded the Great Lakes because of the availability of excellent spawning and larval habitat, an abundance of host fish, a lack of predators, and their high reproductive ability. Sea lampreys have had an enormous negative impact on the Great Lakes fishery. Before their invasion, Canada and the US harvested about 15 million pounds of lake trout in the upper Great Lakes each year. By the late 1940s, lamprey populations had exploded. They fed on large numbers of lake trout and other fish that were once the mainstay of a thriving

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

393

fishery. By the early 1960s, the catch had dropped to 300,000 pounds, about two percent of the previous average.

Spiny Water Flea17 The spiny water flea (Bythrotrephes cederstroemi) is a planktonic crustacean of approximately one-half inch in length. It is native to fresh waters of Eurasia, but in 1980 it was accidentally introduced to the Great Lakes by ship ballast water. It has a long abdominal spine with several barbs which protect it from predators. This spine is about seventy percent of its body length. The adult has three to four barbs along the spine. This crustacean has one large eye that is usually black or red. It has four pairs of legs, and it also has mandibles for the consumption of its prey. Planktonic crustaceans are usually only a few millimeters long. They are the primary food source for all the juvenile fish in the Great Lakes. The most important of these planktons is the Daphnia—a genus that comprises some 100 freshwater species. These tiny animals are critical to lake health. Besides providing food for fish, they graze on floating algae. By beating their legs constantly to create tiny currents, they pull algae toward them. Daphnia keep algae in balance, but they are declining in Lake Superior and other Great Lakes. This is due to the invasive spiny water flea, a predator several times larger than Daphnia. The spiny water flea is now established in dozens of lakes across the upper Midwest and Ontario. It is voracious in feeding on Daphnia and other zooplankton. Recent studies found that since the arrival of the spiny water flea, native plankton has declined by sixty percent in some of Minnesota’s lakes. This impacts the populations of game fish such as yellow perch and walleye. The juvenile stage of these game fish cannot eat the spiny water flea because of the spines. But the water flea is decimating the zooplankton that juvenile fish do feed on. In addition, the water flea fouls fishing lines, nets, and other equipment. There are currently no controls for this invasive predator.

17 The material of this section is largely taken from Folger, Tim (December 2, 2020), “This Ferocious Water Flea is Mauling the Great Lakes,” National Geographic, at www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/invasive-water-fleasdecimating-plankton-in-great-lakes.

394

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

Invasive Species and the Future of the Great Lakes The plankton shredding spiny water flea is one of the many invaders of the Great Lakes—there are more than 180 other invaders. As reviewed above, lampreys invaded in the mid-nineteenth century. Many of the worst invaders arrived in the ballast water of freighter ships. Also as reviewed above, quagga and zebra mussels have radically changed the ecology of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. These invaders now number in the trillions. In Lake Michigan, they now filter about half the Lake’s water every few days. In commenting on the clarity of the water, Hugh MacIssac, an invasive species biologist from the University of Windsor in Ontario, said “Lake Michigan now almost looks like open Caribbean water.”18 But only a few decades ago, Lake Michigan was full of plankton and more murky as a result. Now these waters are clear because they are lifeless, devoid of the plankton necessary for the Lake’s food chain. The State of Michigan now stocks the lake with fewer salmon. This non-native fish was deliberately established in Lake Michigan as a $7 billion sport fishing industry. But now the “main prey species of salmon are growing at half the rate before the mussels invaded,” observed Edward Rutherford, a fishery biologist at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.19 To oppose the problems of invasive species, we now have new water ballast laws. Since 2008, all ships entering the St. Lawrence are required to flush their ballast tanks with saltwater, which kills any freshwater species. Also, in 2017 a United Nations regulation now mandates that all new ships be equipped with ballast-water treatment systems. These new regulations have had effects. “We went from almost two invasive species per year (in ballast water) to zero in the last decade,” observed Rochelle Sturtevant, and ecologist with the NOAA.20 Unfortunately, there are no currently effective ways to control invasive mussels or spiny water fleas. Fish don’t eat them because the barbed tail gets caught in their throats, so they spit them out. Spiny water flea populations now become so dense that they clog fishing lines with gooey blobs that prevent the line from passing through the eyelets of fishing rods. While it is unlikely that Daphnia and other plankton in the Great Lakes 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid.

APPENDIX A: INVASIVE AQUATIC SPECIES

395

will be entirely eliminated by the water flea, this invader has substantially altered the food web upon which the fish survive. The future of the Great Lakes, therefore, remains uncertain.

Appendix B: Invasive Vegetation

Introduction Eliminating invasive vegetation is a common task in all of the river and waterbody restorations explored in this book—those along the Great Lakes and in the northeastern section of the US. But invasive vegetations generate problems throughout North America, problems sufficiently severe that several states (Oregon and Washington as examples) have established government agencies that identify where and when invasive species become apparent in their locales. They then develop elimination and control programs to combat the damage. There are seven specific species examined here. They form a group of particular concern in the Great Lakes and Northeastern US. They include: 1. Phragmites australis or common reed, 2. Phalaris arundinacea or reed canary grass, 3. Typha or cattail reed, 4. Hydrocharis morsus-ranae or common frogbit, 5. Myriophyllum spicatum or Eurasian watermilfoil or spiked watermilfoil, 6. Potamogetonaceae crispus or crisp-leaved pondweed or curly pondweed, and 7. Lythrum salicaria or purple loosestrife. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7

397

398

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

There are more than these seven species causing problems in our waterbodies, and new ones are always invading. But the above listed species generate the most common and extensive problems for our current restoration efforts. These invasive vegetations are found along North America’s waterways, marshes, and wetlands. Although these vegetations usually prefer sun, they adapt readily to differing conditions and soils. In fact it is their common nuisance characteristic that they grow into dense plantings that reduce and then eliminate fish and wildlife. Additionally, their dense growth also inhibits navigation. These plants are not amenable to native birds, mammals or waterfowl because they prevent nesting and food foraging. As waterways are taken over by these invasive plants, the habitats, food supplies, and breeding areas are reduced for the native fish and wildlife. Invasive vegetation can take over a site very quickly, i.e. in a single season. They not only reduce the native food supply and habitat for wildlife, they also reduce water flow through their invaded waterways, thus causing the water quality to decline. The waterbody then becomes stagnant. This increases the costs of navigational dredging and habitat restoration. Unfortunately, in the invaded areas, these vegetations have no natural predators such as insects, diseases, or animals that would prevent their spread. In their native habitats, they have these natural predators to keep them in balance as is the case with North America’s native vegetations. The invaders spread quickly and are costly to eliminate. Their descriptions are provided below. Purple Loosestrife21 Purple loosestrife is a flowering plant of the family Lythraceae. It is a perennial that is native to Europe and Asia. It can grow to almost 7 feet tall forming numerous erect stems growing from a single woody root mass. The stems are reddish purple, and flowering lasts throughout the summer. When the seeds are mature, the leaves turn bright red in early autumn. The red color may last for two weeks. 21 See “Invading Species.com” (www.invadingspecies.com/purple-loosestrife/), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. See also “Species Profile—Purple Loosestrife” (www. invasivespeciesinfo.gov/profile/purple-loosestrife), National Invasive Species Information Center, United States National Agricultural Library.

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

399

Although purple loosestrife is native to Europe and Asia, it has become naturalized (spreads on its own) in temperate parts of the world including North America. Since the flowers are showy and bright, it is cultivated as an ornamental plant in gardens. It is readily adaptable to damp and poorly drained locations such as marshes and other wetlands. Infestations of purple loosestrife result in dramatic disruption of water flows, and a sharp decline in biological diversity as native food and cover plants, notably native cattails, are completely crowded out. The life cycles of organisms from waterfowl to amphibians, and even to algae, are disrupted. A single plant produces millions of tiny seeds annually. These seeds are easily carried by wind and water to germinate in moist soils. Once established, these stands are difficult and costly to remove by mechanical or chemical means. Nevertheless, purple loosestrife provides a model of successful biological pest control. Research that began in 1985 now leads to the plant being effectively managed through intentional insect infestations. Five species of beetle use purple loosestrife as their natural food source. These beetles include two species of leaf beetle and three species of weevil. Intentional infestations of either beetle or weevil is very effective in totally eliminating a stand of loosestrife. Phragmites Australis22 Phragmites is a genus of four species of large perennial reed grasses generally found in wetlands throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the world. Phragmites australis is one of these four species. It is usually called common reed. Common reed is important for wildlife and conservation where the habitats of several aviary species consist of large stands of phragmites. This is especially true in Australia where reedbeds provide cover for grassbirds of various sorts. This common reed is cultivated as an ornamental plant in

22 See “Great Lakes Phragmites Collaborative—Linking People, Information & Action,”

in www.greatlakesphragmites.net. Also see “Groups battle invasive species at St. Johns Marsh” at www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2017/03/05/wil dlife-reeds/98791024/. The Detroit News. Also see “Invasive Phragmites australis: What Is It and Why Is It a Problem?,” www.canr.msu.edu/news/invasive_phragmites_australis_ what_is_it_and_why_is_it_a_problem. MSU Extension.

400

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

aquatic and marginal settings such as ponds and coastal borders of lakes. But its aggressive colonization requires that it be utilized with care. This reed is used in many areas for thatching roofs, and also for making baskets, mats, and paper. But phragmites australis is one of the important wetland plant species used for phytoremediation water treatments. Sewerage wastewater and graywater from kitchens is routed to an underground septic tank where the solid waste is allowed to settle. This water is then allowed to trickle through a constructed wetland of reed bed where bioremediation bacteria on the surface of roots and leaf litter removes some of the nutrients in a biotransformation. The water is then suitable for irrigation, groundwater recharge, or release to natural watercourses. Phragmites spread very rapidly and phragmites australis is found throughout the non-desert US. In the Great Lakes region, it has become the dominant reed. It very quickly spreads in marshes and other wetland areas to replace native plants. It destroys aviary, fish and other wildlife habitat. It spoils shoreline views and navigation, and even poses fire hazards. These phragmites can drive out competing vegetation in two ways: (i) their height (frequently almost twenty feet) blocks the sunlight necessary for other plants to survive, and (ii) the chemicals produced by their decay reduce the germination of competing seeds. Once common reed is established, removal by hand is impossible. The seeds or rhizomes can quickly lead to new dense stands. The most successful phragmite control requires application of aquatic herbicide followed by burning of the roots and stalks to prevent regrowth. The unintended consequence, however, can be that a large amount of decaying dead plant material can depress oxygen levels in the water and kill all the fish in the area. Goats have also been used for eradication, and controlled burns have been used.

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

401

Reed Canary Grass23 Reed canary grass is a tall (up to 6.5 feet) perennial bunchgrass that commonly forms extensive single-species stands along the borders of lakes and streams or other wetlands. This vegetation has a wide distribution in Europe, Asia, Northern Africa, and North America. Another common name for the plant is gardener’s garter. The leaf blades are green or variegated. Some ornamental cultivators of this species include striped versions called ribbon grass which has a pink tinge to the leaves. Reed canary grass likes abundant water, but it also grows well on poor soils and contaminated industrial sites. Researchers at Teeside University’s Contaminated Land & Water Centre suggest reed canary grass is the ideal candidate for phytoremediation to improve soil quality and biodiversity at brownfield sites. This grass can also easily be turned into bricks or pellets for burning in biomass power stations. Furthermore, it provides fibers useful in pulp and papermaking. Reed canary grass is an invasive species in wetlands, particularly in previously cultivated areas. It is an invasive weed in floodplains, riverside meadows, and other wetland habitats. When it invades a wetland, it inhibits native vegetation and reduces biological diversity. It alters the entire ecosystem. Like most invasive plants, the grass is capable of dominating areas where it becomes established. It crowds out native vegetation and alters the area’s diversity of plants and animals. This grass propagates by seed and rhizome, and once established, it is difficult to eradicate. It establishes dense stands, and impedes water flow which degrades the waterbody or wetland. Reed canary grass dominates a significant number of wetlands in the Great Lakes Basin.

23 See “Phalaris arundinacea,” https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/gringlobal/ taxonomydetail. Aspxid=27512. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. See also, “Phalaris arundinacea,” http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_phar3.pdf. USDA NRCS Plant Guide. See also, Kim, K.D., et al. (2006), “Controlling Phalaris arundinacea (Reed Canary Grass) with Willow Stakes: A Density-Dependent Response,” Ecological Engineering, 26: 219–227. See also Batzer, Darold P., and Rebecca R. Sharitz (2006), “Wetland Restoration,” Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands, Berkeley, California, University of California Press, p. 395. See also USDA Plants Database: Phalaris arundinacea, https://plnts.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PHAR3.

402

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

Common Frogbit Common frogbit (hydrocharis morus-ranae) is a floating flowering hydroplant. In North America, it is often referred to as European frogbit to distinguish it from the noninvasive American frogbit. This European frogbit is invasive and fast growing. This small floating plant resembles a small water lily. It has small, three petalled white flowers. The floating leaves are kidney-shaped and grow in rosettes on the water surface with the roots hanging down into the water column but not normally touching the bottom. Frogbit is fast growing and spreads rapidly by stolons, long chord-like horizontal connections between large floating mats of connected plants. It survives the winter as dormant turions—a wintering dormant bud which rests on the bottom, rising again to the surface in the spring in order to flower. Common frogbit is native to Europe and parts of Asia, but it was introduced to Canada in the 1930s and has now become invasive in eastern Canada and the northeastern US, particularly around the Great Lakes. It colonizes and quickly forms dense masses on the surface and threatens native biodiversity and navigation. Attempts to eliminate this floating weed by mechanical means or by hand or rake will likely spread the floating plants elsewhere. Effective and safely controlled herbicides are being used to eliminate common frogbit . Common Cattail24 Common cattail (also called broadleaf cattail, common bulrush, and punks) is a perennial herbaceous plant of the genus Typha. It is native to North and South America, Eurasia, and Africa. It grows to heights of 5 to 7 feet. It is mostly, however, found in the Northern Hemisphere in wetland habitats. The head of the cattail ripens into a cottony fluff which disintegrates with the wind and spreads its seeds. Because of its wind dispersed seeds, Typha are often among the first wetland plants to colonize areas of newly exposed wet mud. Buried seeds can survive in the soil for long periods. They then germinate with sunlight

24 See “USDA Plant Guide: Typha latifolia,” at http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/ pdf/cs_tyla.pdf, United State Department of Agriculture. See also Turner, Nancy J. (1997), Food Plants of Interior First Peoples, Victoria, UBC Press.

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

403

and fluctuating temperatures. These plants also spread by rhizomes that form large and interconnected stands. Typha is considered to be a dominant competitor in wetlands. They often exclude other plants with their dense canopy. Plant surveys found that in the nineteenth century, there were at least 140,000 square miles of cattail swamps in the US. In the bays of the Great Lakes, they are now among the most abundant wetland plants. Cattail grows mainly in fresh water, but it also occurs in slightly brackish marshes. Cattail can displace other species native to salt marshes, and it can therefore interfere with preservation or restoration of salt marsh habitat. But cattail absorbs pollutants and can be used for restorations. Although Typha are native wetland plants, they can be aggressive in their competition with other native species. They have been problematic in many regions in North America, from the Great Lakes to the Everglades. Control is difficult. The most successful strategy appears to be mowing or burning to remove the stalks, followed by prolonged flooding. It may be more important to prevent invasion by purposely fluctuating water levels. Traditionally, the plant has been a part of certain indigenous cultures of British Columbia as a source of food and medicine. The rhizomes are edible after cooking and removing the skin, while peeled stems and leaf bases can be eaten raw or cooked. The young flower-spikes, the young shoots, and sprouts at the end of the rootstocks, are all edible as well. The pollen from the mature plant can even be used as a flavoring. The starchy rootstocks are ground into meal by Native Americans. Curly Pondweed25 Curly pondweed (potamogeton crispus), or curly-leaf pondweed, is a species of aquatic plant native to Eurasia. In North America, it is an invasive and noxious weed that spreads quickly through rhizomes. It is a perennial that produces a flat-branch stem up to a meter long. It might be bright green, or olive green, and it is fibrous. It notably has serrated leaves, a feature that distinguishes the plant from other pondweeds. The 25 See “Potamogeton crispus L.,” at www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-000076 9780#synonyms, the World Flora Online, 2022. See also “Species Profile-Curly Pondweed” (Potamogeton crispus) at www.invasivespecies.gov/aquatic/plants/curly-pon dweed, National Invasive Species Information Center, United States Agricultural Library.

404

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

leaves usually have curly edges. It flowers from May until October. The turions of the plant germinate, and after being dormant, it sprouts new plants in the Spring. This pondweed is considered an invasive species in North America. It was introduced to the Great Lakes and other lakes within the upper Midwest region of the US. The plant thrives in conditions less habitable for similar native plants. It is able to thrive beneath the surface of frozen waterways and then resume its rapid growth before other water plants can regrow. It competes with native plants and sometimes displaces it. Curly pondweed clogs waterways. It damages the habitats of native fish and wildlife, and prevents navigation. Curly pondweed is highly invasive. It forms dense monocultures that impede water flow, thereby degrading the water quality and fish habitat. It crowds out native aquatic plants. It dies after mid-summer, thereby releasing large amounts of phosphorous which feeds algae blooms causing oxygen eutrophication, thus degrading fish habitat. Eurasian Watermilfoil26 Eurasian watermilfoil is native to Europe, Asia, and North Africa, but it now has a wide distribution in North America. It is a submerged aquatic plant that grows in stagnant or slow-moving water. It is considered a highly invasive species in North America. Eurasian watermilfoil has slender stems of up to 8.2 feet long. The submerged leaves appear in whorls of four with numerous thread-like leaflets. Flowers are produced on top of spikes that emerge vertically above the water surface. Each flower is an inconspicuous orange-red. This aquatic plant was likely first introduced to North America in the 1940s where it quickly became an invasive species. By the mid-1970s, watermilfoil covered many thousands of acres in British Columbia and Ontario. It then spread downriver via the Columbia River into the US Pacific Northwest. It is now found across most of North America where it is recognized as a noxious weed.

26 See USDA, NRCS “Myriophyllum spicatum,” The PLANTS Datbase, National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, North Carolina. Also see Couch, R., and E. Nelson (1985), “Mryiophyllum Spicatum in North America,” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Watermilfoil and Related Species: 8–18.

APPENDIX B: INVASIVE VEGETATION

405

In lakes or other aquatic areas where native aquatic plants are not well established, the Eurasian watermilfoil spreads quickly. It is known to crowd out native plants by creating dense mats that also interfere with navigational and recreational activities. This dense growth also negatively impacts fisheries by creating microhabitats for juvenile fish but obstructing space for larger fish. This ultimately disrupts the normal feeding of the larger fish. Densely populated areas of this plant creates an ecosystem devoid of fish. It also creates hypoxic zones by blocking out the sunlight’s penetration to native aquatic vegetation, thus preventing them from photosynthesizing. This Eurasian watermilfoil grows primarily from broken-off stems known as shoot fragments which enable the plant to spread rapidly. Hence, this plant became a nuisance. It is known to hybridize with the native northern watermilfoil, and this hybrid has also become a nuisance. This hybridization has now spread across the upper Midwestern US. The aquatic moth acentria ephemerella—the water veneer moth—feeds upon and damages the Eurasian watermilfoil . This moth has been used as an agent for biological pest control of this aquatic plant. The milfoil weevil has also been used as a biocontrol. Another agent is the grass carp which have been bred to be sterile. These fish feed on aquatic plants and have proven effective. These carp, however, decimate other aquatic species prior to devouring the milfoil, but they are affective in decimating the milfoil. Hand harvesting milfoil has also been a success as a management technique especially in New England. This method does not entirely eliminate the milfoil species, however, so that follow-up maintenance is required. For example, after only three years of hand harvesting in Saranac Lake in the Adirondacks, the harvest reduced from 18 tons to only 800 pounds across the lake.

Appendix C: Toxic Contaminants

Introduction to the Toxic Contaminants Found at the Restorations Reviewed All of the restorations reviewed above required that a variety of toxic chemical substances be initially removed or otherwise remediated by containment methods. These toxic substances were found in the streambeds and/or streamside soils of the targeted sites. These poisons were frequently carcinogens such as PCBs, dioxins, or PAHs, or neurotoxins as in a variety of the heavy metals found. These substances were generally found in legacy industrial wastes that were left behind in abandoned steel mills, or by smelter facilities, or generated by pulp and paper facilities. The list of toxins reviewed here is not inclusive of all the contaminants mentioned in the reviews presented in the eleven chapters above. The most frequently occurring toxins are, however, included: PCBs, PAHs, mercury, cadmium, chromium, lead, dioxins, and arsenic. We now live in an age when the poisonous nature of these chemical elements and compounds are known, but for many of these, their toxic nature was also known at the time of their original deposits and contaminations. For example, the toxic nature of PAHs was not known until recently, but the neuro-health effects of lead poisoning has been known for centuries.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7

407

408

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Their Sources and Effects27 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are man-made organic chemicals of combined carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine atoms. They have been identified by the EPA as human carcinogens. The arrangement of the chlorine atom in the PCB molecule determines its chemical properties and toxicity. PCBs have no taste or smell. They were domestically manufactured from 1929 until manufacturing was banned in 1979. Their consistencies range from thin lightly colored liquids to yellow or black waxy solids. They are non-flammable, and chemically stable with a high boiling point. In particular, they have very good electrical insulating properties. PCBs were used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications that include: • • • •

electrical, heat transfer and hydraulic equipment, platsticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products, pigments, dyes, and carbonless copy paper, and a variety of other industrial applications.

The products that may contain PCBs include: • • • • • • • • • • •

transformers and capacitors, voltage regulators, electrical switches, and electromagnets, hydraulic oil and motor oil, fluorescent light ballasts, cable insulation, thermal insulation, adhesives and tapes, oil-based paints, caulking materials, carbonless copy paper, and floor-finishing products.

PCBs enter the air, water, and soils during their manufacture and transportation. They can be released into the environment from poorly maintained hazardous waste sites, illegal dumping, leaks from electrical 27 See www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs.

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

409

transformers, or the burning of some wastes in municipal or industrial incinerators. Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down. They can travel long distances in the air or water. A small amount of PCB may dissolve in water, but most stick to particles or soil or sediments that also include organic carbons. Each PCB has a different degradation time with lighter mixtures degrading faster. The heavier PCBs, however, are the ones found in the Housatonic watershed as an example. These are more persistent in the soils and sediments of rivers. Their rate of deterioration is slow. PCBs in the environment are absorbed by animals and a few plants. Bioaccumulations occur in both wild populations and in animals raised for food in backyard operations. The rate of bioaccumulation and therefore concentration of PCBs are impacted by the amount of fat in the animal’s body. In general, organisms accumulate higher concentrations if they have higher amounts of body fat since the PCBs are found in that body fat. Once PCBs have entered the body, they are slow to leave it. They typically stay for the life of the animal. Hence, this “bioaccumulation” reaches concentrations in the body thousands of times greater than in the water or soils from which they are absorbed. These high concentrations lead to consumption advisories for fish and waterfowl in the contaminated watershed. In contrast, most plants do not accumulate PCBs due to their waxy layers which binds the PCBs and prevents them from being absorbed into the plant. Some plants in the squash family do accumulate PCBs from the soil through their roots. Tomatoes also can absorb airborne PCBs through their leaves. Generally, however, most PCBs remain on the surface of fruits and vegetables, often as part of the soil deposited on the plant from rainwater splash. PCBs have been found to cause a wide variety of adverse health effects including cancers. There are a significant number of non-cancerous effects including impacts to the immune system, reproductive system, nervous system, endocrine system, and other organs. The data indicates that PCBs are probable human carcinogens, and the EPA has classified them as such. Concerning the reproductive effects of exposures, PCBs were found to reduce the birth weight, conception rate, and the live birth rates of monkeys. PCB exposure was also found to reduce sperm counts. Also, children born to women who worked with PCBs in factories showed decreased birth weight and there was also a significant decrease in gestational age with increasing exposures to PCBs.

410

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

The effects of PCBs on nervous system development have also been studied. Newborn monkeys exposed to PCBs show persistent and significant deficits in neurological development including visual recognition, short-term memory, and learning. Studies in humans have suggested effects similar to those observed in monkeys exposed to PCBs including learning deficits. Elevations in blood pressure, serum triglycerides, and serum cholesterol have also been reported with increased levels of PCBs in humans.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Their Sources and Effects28 Driveways and parking lots are common. They are generally either concrete or asphalt, and many of the latter are coated with a black, shiny sealant—usually with the commercial names of “Sealcoat,” “Pavement Sealant,” or “Driveway Sealer.” These are marketed as improving appearance and increasing longevity. These sealers are frequently constituted from refined coal tar of the sort developed at the sites reviewed in Chapters 4 and 5. These refinements are significant sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These hydrocarbons are known carcinogens and cause a variety of environmental damages. The significant sealcoat products marketed today are either from refined coal tar or asphalt emulsion. Coal tar pitch, a known human carcinogen, is a residue of the distillation of crude coal tar, a byproduct of coking coal. It contains approximately 200 PAH compounds. Most coal tar-based sealcoat consists of 20–35% pitch. Asphalt, however, is a residue from the distillation of crude oil, and is used in asphalt-based sealcoat products. PAH compounds are 1,000 times more present in coal tar-based sealants than in asphalt type sealants. In the US, coal tar-based sealants are primarily used in the East; asphalt-based sealants are primarily used in the West. Coal tar-based sealants are also used in Canada. These geographic differences reflect the location of steel mills which are primarily found in the eastern and central US. Steel mills use coke, and as a byproduct they refine coal tar 28 For a significant study of these compounds, see Van Metre, Peter C., and Barbara J. Mahler (2010), “Contribution of PAHs from Coal-Tar Pavement Sealcoat and Other Sources to 40 U.S. Lakes,” at https://pubmed.ncbi.nih.gov/211 12613/. This section is based on this study.

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

411

pitch. Since 2000, PAHs have been found to be increasing in many urban lakes, while other toxins such as lead and PCBs have been decreasing. But in 2003, the City of Austin in Texas, found that samples from small tributaries and drainages in largely residential areas have elevated PAH levels. The source was found to be the coal tar-based particles and dust eroded from the pavements of parking lots. Rainwater washes this dust and particles into the drainage network, and then into streams and lakes. PAHs compose a large group of organic compounds composed of two or more fused benzene rings that occur in various arrangements. PAHs occur naturally in coal and petroleum products and are also formed by the incomplete combustion of organic matter such as fossil fuels, wood, or tobacco. Some common sources include used motor oil, automobile exhaust, industrial emissions, tire particles, and asphalt. Of all possible sources, coal tars and creosote have the highest concentrations of PAHs. Tires and snowplows combine with severe temperature changes to erode sealed surfaces. Studies find that overall, the annual loss of sealcoat from parking lots averages about 2.4% of the total sealcoat applied. It becomes dust that is carried away with storm runoff, and in many locales, it is washed temporarily into containment ponds and then into rivers and lakes. It causes tumors and other problems in fish. The EPA classifies several PAH compounds as probable human carcinogens. The dust can be breathed in, and PAHs are readily absorbed through the skin. In addition to Austin in Texas, an increasing number of municipalities have banned coal tar-based sealants. Also, these products are increasingly being dropped from hardware chains.

Mercury Poisoning Mercury (Hg, atomic number 80) is a naturally occurring chemical element found in rock including coal. It exists as elemental (metallic) mercury, or inorganic mercury compounds, or methylmercury and other organic compounds. Metallic mercury is a shiny silver-white metal (quicksilver) and is liquid at room temperature. It was previously used in thermometers, fluorescent lightbulbs, and some electrical switches. At or above room temperature, the liquid metallic mercury can evaporate to become an invisible, odorless gas. Mercury combines with chlorine, sulfur, or other elements to form inorganic salts which can be transported in water or exist in soil. Dust that contains these salts can enter the air from mining. But emissions of metallic or inorganic mercury also come

412

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

from coal-burning power plants. Inorganic mercury compounds are also being used in soaps and skin creams for skin lightening. Human exposure to inorganic mercury salts occurs in occupational and environmental settings such as mining, electrical equipment manufacturing, and chemical and metal processing. But microscopic organisms can combine mercury with carbon which converts it from inorganic to organic form. Methylmercury is the most common organic mercury compound found in the environment. It is highly toxic. It usually emerges from coal burning to become airborne. In the US, power plants that burn coal to create electricity are the largest source of emissions; they account for approximately 44% of all man-made mercury emissions.29 Burning iron ore, coke, and limestone in electric arc furnaces to produce steel are also sources. Mercury poisoning is a type of metal toxicity. Mercury is a neurotoxin. Symptoms include muscle weakness, poor coordination, numbness in extremities, skin rash and pealing, anxiety, memory difficulties, and/or trouble with speaking, hearing, or seeing. Kidney problems and lower intelligence are some long-term effects. Methylmercury in the blood of developing babies and young children harm their developing nervous systems and affect their cognition abilities. The most significant source of mercury poisoning is from consuming fish or shellfish that contains methylmercury in their tissues. Note that fish higher up the food ladder are more likely to be contaminated. Breathing the vapors from coal or coke burning from the manufacturing of pig iron or steel are also a more common cause of poisoning. Birds and mammals that eat fish have more exposures to methylmercury than other animals in the ecosystem. Predators that eat these animals are at risk. Methylmercury is found in eagles and many other birds and animals. This toxin can cause death, but it also causes reduced reproduction capability and slower growth and abnormal behaviors.30

29 See “2014 National Emissions Inventory, version 2, Technical Support Document,” July 2018, at https://epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-07/documents/nei2014v2_ tsd_05jul2018.pdf. 30 See National Park Service, “Effects of Air Toxics/Mercury on Ecosystems,” at www. nps.gov/index.htm.

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

413

Cadmium Cadmium (element Cd, atomic number 48) is a soft silvery-white metal similar in chemical properties to zinc and mercury. It is found in small quantities in zinc ores, and is a byproduct of zinc production. It has been used as a corrosion resistant plating for steel, and also for various pigments in paint and glass, and for nickel-cadmium batteries. These uses have all found replacements. Cadmium makes up about .1 ppm (parts per million) of the earth’s crust. (Zinc is 65 ppm.) There are no known minable ores for cadmium. Cadmium has no known biological functions in humans, other animals, or plants. It is toxic. It is a carcinogen in humans and also causes renal disease, atherosclerosis, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease.31 Previous to World War II, zinc mining contaminated the Jinzu River in Japan with cadmium, which then accumulated in rice to poison some agricultural workers and consumers, primarily post-menopausal women who otherwise suffered from low iron. The cadmium poisoning caused a painful joint disease. Cadmium can also be absorbed by smoking tobacco, or from consuming some root vegetables (beets or potatoes) or from consumption of crustaceans, mollusks, frog legs, or fungi.

Chromium The steely grade, lustrous, hard, and brittle metal element chromium (Cr, atomic number 24) is valued for its high corrosive resistance and its hardness, the third hardest element after carbon and boron. Added to steel, chromium produces the alloy stainless-steel, a metal that does not tarnish or discolor. Industrial production of chromium is from chromite ore which is used to produce the iron-chromium alloy—ferrochromium. This is used to produce the alloy stainless steel. But pure chromium metal is produced by heating and leaching chromite to separate it from iron. Chromium is the twenty-first most abundant element in the earth’s crust with an average concentration of 100 ppm. Chromium compounds are found in the environment from the erosion of chromium containing

31 See “ARL: Cadmium Toxicity,” at www.aritma.com, and “Cadmium Exposure Can Induce Early Atherosclerotic Changes,” in Wayback Machine, Medinews Direct, September 7, 2009.

414

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

rocks, which are then redistributed by volcanic disruptions. In the US, trivalent chromium is considered an essential nutrient in humans necessary for insulin, sugar, and lipid metabolism. While trivalent chromium is considered non-toxic, hexavalent chromium is a toxic carcinogen. Abandoned chromium production sites often have hexavalent chromium and therefore require environmental cleanup. The biological beneficial effects of chromium are debatable. Chromium is accepted by the US National Institutes of Health as a trace element for its effects on insulin, and the metabolism of carbohydrates, fat, and protein.32 In contrast, hexavalent chromium is highly toxic. Ingestion of hexavalent chromium dissolved in water is linked to stomach tumors. Industrial use in rubber, stainless steel manufacturing, chrome plating, dyes for textiles, tanneries, and other uses are known to contaminate water resources. After hexavalent chromium is ingested, it reaches the blood stream, damages kidneys, the liver, and blood cells through oxidation reactions. Renal and liver failure results. Also, chromate dust is a known carcinogen. It is also particularly toxic to fish because it is easily absorbed through the gills. Because of its role in dyes, paints, and tanning compounds, hexavalent chromium is often found in the soil and groundwater at active or abandoned industrial sites. These sites need environmental cleanups. Primer paint containing hexavalent chromium is, however, still used in aerospace and automobile finishing.

Lead33 The chemical element lead (Pb, atomic number 82) is a dense heavy metal that is soft and malleable with a low melting point. Lead is silvery gray when freshly cut, but in air it tarnishes quickly to a dull gray. Some heavier elements become lead after nuclear decay. When ingested or breathed even in small amounts, lead is toxic, especially for small children. It is also toxic for the environment.

32 See “Chromium,” Office of Dietary Supplements, US National Institutes of Health, 2016, at https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Chromium-HealthProfessional/#h2. 33 This section is partly based on several sources that include an excellent wiki review at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lead and www.chemistryexplained.com/ele ments/L-P/Lead.html and www.dcd.gov/niosh/topics/lead/health.html and www.epa. gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule plus the sources as cited below.

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

415

At 20 ppm in the Earth’s crust, lead is in the upper third of abundance among the elements. This abundance, high density, malleability, and low melting point has resulted in its frequent use for batteries, pipes, bullets and shot, weights, solders, paints, radiation shielding, and leaded gasoline. But lead is a neurotoxin that accumulates in soft tissue and bones in humans. It damages the nervous system and interferes with the function of biological enzymes, causing neurological disorders that range from behavioral problems to brain damage. It also affects general health, cardiovascular, and renal systems. Lead has no confirmed biological role, and there is no confirmed safe level for exposure.34 A 2009 study indicated that lead “may cause adverse mental health outcomes.”35 Continued exposure may result in bioaccumulation. Lead is highly poisonous whether inhaled or swallowed. It affects nearly every organ and system in the body. Most ingested lead is absorbed into the blood stream, and airborne levels of lead are immediately dangerous to life. The primary cause of toxicity is due to its interference with the proper functioning of enzymes.36 Lead can cause severe damage to the brain and kidneys. By mimicking calcium, lead can cross the blood– brain barrier to degrade neurons and interfere with neurotransmission routes and neuron growth.37 In a child’s developing brain, lead interferes with synapse formation in the cerebral cortex. Early exposure causes increased risk of sleep disturbances and excessive daytime drowsiness.38 In animals, lead is toxic to organs, the renal system, cardio system, and reproduction. Bioaccumulation occurs in the food chain. Industrial emissions, especially from coal-powered plants, cause environmental destruction due to lead. By the mid-1980s, environmental regulations

34 See Bouchard, M.F., et al. (2009), “Blood Lead Levels and Major Depressive Disorder, Panic Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in US Young Adults,” Archives of General Psychiatry, 66 (12): 1313–1319. 35 Ibid. 36 US Food and Drug Administration (2015), “Q3D Elemental Impurities Guidance

for Industry,” US Department of Health and Human Services, pp. 41–42. 37 Rudolf, A.M., et al., (2003), “Lead,” Rudolf’s Pediatrics, 21st Edition, McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 369. 38 Liu, J., et al. (2015), “Early Blood Levels and Sleep Disturbance in Preadolescence,” Sleep, 38 (12): 1869–1874.

416

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

reduced lead entering the environment, especially through leaded gasoline and power plants after control devices were required. Blood levels of lead declined after the 1980s.

Dioxins39 Dioxins are a group of toxic chlorinated compounds that are persistent organic pollutants (POPs because they are very stable and last in the environment for lengthy periods). Consequently, they accumulate in the food chain, and once ingested by an animal, they are very slow to leave it. In humans, they have a half-life of 7 to 9 years. This broad class of polychlorinated compounds have differing toxicity that depends on the position of the chlorine atom in the molecule. Dioxins are highly toxic and cause (i) cancer, (ii) problems in reproduction and development, (iii) damage to the immune system, and (iv) interference with hormones. Throughout the world, dioxins are found in the environment where they accumulate in food chains and concentrate in the fatty tissues of animals. According to the EPA, more than 90% of human exposure occurs through ingestion of animal fats from meats, dairy products, fish, and shellfish. Several hundred dioxin chemicals exist. As a collection, they are members of three closely related families: • polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), • polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and • some polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Only those PCDDs, PCDFs, and PCBs that have the chlorine atoms in specific positions are toxic. PCDDs and PCDFs are not created intentionally but they can be produced as a byproduct result of human activities such as the backyard burning of trash. Natural processes such as forest fires also produce PCDDs and PCDFs, but PCBs are manufactured products that are no longer produced in the US. Dioxins, however, are a byproduct of waste incinerations or the burning of fuels such as coal. They are also produced

39 See www.epa.gov/dioxin/learn-about-dioxin.

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

417

by chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper products, and even by cigarette smoke. Pure dioxin appears as white crystalline needles. In the environment, it is generally attached to soils and dust particles and is therefore not perceived by the eye. Dioxin is not produced or used commercially in the US. But it is a contaminant formed during the production of some chlorinated organic compounds that include herbicides. Over the past thirty years, the EPA and industry have reduced the production of dioxin and its release into the environment. Although the environmental levels of dioxin have decreased in the past thirty years, dioxins are extremely persistent compounds that breakdown very slowly. A large part of the current exposures to dioxins are due to releases that occurred decades previously. Dioxin can be deposited into drinking water through air emissions from waste incinerations followed by deposits into reservoirs, or into the water through the effluent from chemical factories.

Arsenic The chemical element arsenic (As, atomic number 33) occurs in various minerals, usually in combination with sulfur and metals, but it also occurs in a pure crystalline form. It has a metallic appearance and has had important applications to industry. It comprises approximately 1.5 ppm of the Earth’s crust, the fifty-third most abundant element. Prior to the discovery of DDT, arsenate of lime and arsenate of lead were widely used as insecticides. During the Bronze Age, arsenic was included in bronze to make a harder alloy. The primary use of arsenic is in alloys of lead, for example, uses in car batteries and ammunition. Arsenic and its compounds, especially the trioxide, are used in the production of pesticides, treated wood products, herbicides, and insecticides. But these applications are declining with the increasing recognition of arsenic’s toxicity. Trace elements of arsenic are essential to the diets of rats, hamsters, goats, chickens, and perhaps other species, but there is no known role in human metabolism.40 Arsenic poisoning occurs in all these species if quantities are larger than needed. Arsenic contaminated groundwater is a global problem that affects millions of people. The US EPA states that all 40 See Anke, M. (1986), “Arsenic,” in Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition, edited by W. Mertz, Orlando, Florida, Academic Press.

418

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

forms of arsenic pose serious threats to human health. The EPA classifies arsenic as a “Group-A Carcinogen.”41 The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ranked arsenic at the top of its “2001 Priority List of Hazardous Substances at Superfund Sites.”42 Most arsenic refinement operations in the US and Europe have closed because of environmental concerns. Arsenic is found in the residual dust from copper, gold, and lead smelters, and is primarily recovered from copper refinement dust.43 The toxicity of arsenic to insects, bacteria, and fungi led to its use as a wood preservative.44 In the 1930s, a process for treating wood with chromated copper arsenate (CCA) began as the most widely used industrial use of arsenic. Discovery of its wide toxicity, however, led to its being banned in the US and Europe. CCA is still used, however, in other countries.45 Arsenic was also used in various agricultural insecticides and poisons. For example, lead hydrogen arsenate was a common insecticide for fruit trees until it was discovered to cause brain damage among the sprayers.46 Other agricultural uses have been phased out except for cotton farming. But arsenic is still used as a feed additive in poultry and swine production to assist in weight gain and to prevent disease.47 During the eighteenth to twentieth centuries, arsenic compounds were used for treatment of syphilis which is now treated with antibiotics. Arsenic trioxide has been used for centuries for the treatment of cancer, and it is still used for the treatment of some leukemia. Arsenic is also still used in some particular electronic applications.

41 See Didyendu, Sarkar, and Rupali Data (2007), “Biogeochemistry of Arsenic in Contaminated Soils of Superfund Sites,” EPA, Washington, DC 42 See Carelton, James (2007), “Final Report: Biogeochemistry of Arsenic in Contaminated Soils of Superfund Sites,” EPA, Washington, DC. 43 See Brooks, William, (2007), “Arsenic: Minerals Yearbook 2007,” United States Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 44 See Rahman, F.A., et al. (2004), “Arsenic Availability from Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood,” Journal of Environmental Quality, 33 (1): 173–180. 45 See Mandal, Badar, and K.T. Suzuki (2002), “Arsenic Around the World: A Review,” Talanta, 58 (1): 201–235. 46 See Peryea, F.J. (1998), “Historical Use of Lead Arsenate,” 16th World Congress of Soil Science, Montpellier, France. 47 See Nachman, Keeve, et al. (2005), “Arsenic: A Roadblock to Potential Animal Waste Management Solutions,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (9): 1123–1124.

APPENDIX C: TOXIC CONTAMINANTS

419

Naturally occurring sources of human exposure include volcanic ash, the weathering of minerals and ores, and the mineralization of groundwater. Arsenic is also found in food, water, soil, and air, and as a result, arsenic is absorbed in all plants, but it is more concentrated in leafy vegetables, rice, apple and grape juice, and seafood. An additional route of human exposure is the inhalation of atmospheric gases and dusts. In the US, arsenic is commonly found in the groundwater of the southwest. But significant amounts are also found in the groundwater in New England, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas.48 Increased levels of skin cancer is associated with exposures to contaminated drinking water even when it is below the standard of 10 ppb. The EPA finds that as many as 20% of private US wells exceed this standard. Bladder cancer has been associated with levels of drinking water below 10 ppb.49

48 See Welch, Alan, et al. (2000), “Arsenic in Groundwater of the United States: Occurrence and Geochemistry,” Ground Water, 338 (4): 589–604. 49 See Chu, H.A., and D.J. Crawford-Brown (2006), “Inorganic Arsenic in Drinking Water and Bladder Cancer,” International Journal of the Environmental Restoration and Public Health, 3 (4): 316–322.

Index

A Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 200, 201, 418 agricultural watershed management, 31, 33 Akron, City of, 247, 249, 252, 253 alewife, 32, 382, 390–392 algae blooms, 32, 33, 37, 43, 73, 90, 175–178, 182, 220, 255, 256, 258, 272, 284, 314, 321, 349, 404 nuisance algae blooms, 37, 270, 284, 355 Alliance of Rouge Communities (ARC), 101, 103, 110 Allied Chemical Corporation, 68 Allouez Bay, 123, 124, 129, 136, 140 American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), 74, 75 Ansul Fire Protection site, 344 Anway, Dorothy, 120, 121, 366 Appalachian Trail, 310, 334, 337

areas of concern (AOC), 3, 5, 16, 33–35, 39, 40, 45, 78, 82–84, 206, 209, 233, 245, 309 areas of concern program, 51, 54, 79, 83, 245, 342 bilateral AOC, 86, 88 Arlington, City of, 339 arsenic, 151–153, 155, 157, 191, 200, 201, 293, 344, 407, 417–419 Ashtabula River, 87, 233, 235–240, 353 Ashtabula River AOC, 235, 236, 238 Ashtabula River Cooperation Group, 235 Asian carp, 32, 382, 387, 388 Atlantic Salmon, 318, 321, 323–325, 339, 367 Atlantic Salmon Federation, 321, 324 Audubon Magazine, 10 Audubon Society, 13, 67, 121

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 R. M. Robinson, Environmental Advocacy and Local Restorations, Environmental Politics and Theory, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28439-7

421

422

INDEX

aviary botulism, 37 B Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 4 ballast water discharge, 385 Bay County, 218, 219, 358 beach closings, 85, 98, 102, 105, 107, 108, 132, 134, 154, 163, 169, 176, 177, 213, 218, 220, 223, 224, 248, 252, 263, 284, 300, 301 Belle Isle, 92–94, 98 beneficial use impairments (BUI), 35, 84, 86, 92, 97, 99, 100, 102–104, 107, 110, 119, 132, 133, 135–139, 141, 152, 155, 156, 159, 161, 176, 189, 216, 221, 224, 235, 239, 241, 244, 250, 252, 253, 256, 263, 266, 268–271, 278–284, 294–297, 301, 302, 306, 349, 355 benthos, xi, 97, 98, 101, 102, 105, 107, 119, 126, 131, 132, 134–137, 151, 154–156, 164, 168, 169, 176, 177, 179, 182, 196, 213, 235, 240, 248, 253, 257, 263, 267, 289, 294, 300, 302, 303, 375 benzene, 165, 236, 411 Bethlehem Steel, 286 binational groundwater monitoring, 38 Binational Public Advisory Council , 107 Black Lagoon, 92, 94 Black River, 233, 261, 263, 264, 267–269, 353 Black River AOC, 261, 263, 266, 268–270, 356 Black River AOC Facilitating Committee, 269

Black Rock Canal, 286, 294, 295 Blue Heron Lagoon, 94 Botts, Lee, 81, 111, 112 Boundary Waters Treaty, 30 brown bullhead catfish, 278, 280, 281, 297 brownfields, 83, 105, 162, 251, 299, 317, 347, 401 Buffalo, 28, 32, 206, 245, 276, 277, 285, 286, 295 Buffalo River, 81, 87, 285–289, 292, 296 Buffalo River AOC, 287, 290, 292, 306 the city of Buffalo, 276, 285, 292 Burford, Ann Gorsuch, 72 Burnham Canal, 167, 168 Burnham, City of, 188

C cadmium, 98, 167, 190, 191, 225, 407, 413 Calumet City, 188, 196–199, 206 Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment , 302 Cape Ann, 6, 44 Carson, Rachel, 5–13, 44, 65, 68 cattail reed, 397 Celeron Island, 92, 93 Chemicals of Mutual Concern, 36 chlorides, 211, 285, 302 chlorinated hydrocarbons, 69 chromium, 97, 98, 129, 190, 191, 225, 236, 407, 413, 414 Citizen’s Advisory for the Remediation of the Environment (CARE), 192, 193 Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), 61, 63, 141, 146, 147, 157, 162, 171, 178, 233, 243, 250, 347, 350, 365, 372

INDEX

Community Advisory Committee, 173, 184, 352 City Ship Canal, 288, 289, 292 Clean Bay Backers, 178, 179, 185, 352 Clean Water Act (CWA), 71, 74, 78, 112, 246, 370 Clean Water Legacy Fund, 130, 146, 366 climate change, 30, 38, 55, 77, 276, 341, 342, 378, 385, 389 Clinton River, 86, 87, 100, 104, 107–109 Clinton River Advisory Council , 107, 110 Clinton River AOC, 88, 107, 108, 177 Clough Island, 119–121, 147, 364, 366 coal tar, 103, 144, 151, 153, 155, 344, 410, 411 Coal Tar Site, 152, 344 coke tar, 143 combined sewer overflows (CSO), 27, 108, 119, 151, 159, 192, 219, 252, 254, 256, 261, 268, 270, 279, 288, 300, 301, 303, 313, 346, 355, 372 common frogbit , 397, 402 common reed, 397, 399, 400 Common Tern, 126, 135, 136, 147, 364 competent moral judges , 57–59, 62 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 69–72, 191, 193, 194 concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), 64, 73–75, 78 Confined Disposal Facility (CDF), 196, 239, 258

423

conflicts of interest, 8, 46, 57–59, 62, 75 Conservation Law Project, 39 considered moral judgements, 59 contaminated groundwater, 25, 36, 144, 417 contaminated sediment, 17, 34, 36, 83, 91, 92, 94, 101, 108, 128, 129, 135, 137, 144, 151–153, 156, 162, 163, 166, 169, 175–177, 180, 183, 188, 190, 196, 204, 223–226, 238–241, 247, 249, 251, 253, 256–258, 262, 266, 289–291, 294–296, 344, 347, 349, 351, 364, 372 copper, 19, 98, 118, 128, 143, 157, 167, 191, 301, 418 criteria for fairness , 61 Curly pondweed, 397, 403, 404 Cuyahoga River, 44, 66, 81, 87, 233, 245–247, 249, 252, 253, 353 Cuyahoga River AOC, 244, 248, 250, 251 Cuyahoga River Restoration Committee, 248 Cuyahoga Valley National Park, 247, 249–251 D Davis, Cameron, 82, 83 DDT, 5–8, 10, 12, 13, 67, 108, 417 dead zones, 35, 37, 78, 84, 90, 132, 134, 167, 212, 252, 255, 256 Delisting Principles and Guidelines, 86 delisting standards, 241, 353 Detroit River Detroit River AOC, 88, 89, 92, 96–98, 104 Detroit River Canadian Partners, 96 Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge, 91, 99

424

INDEX

Detroit River Public Advisory Council (PAC), 92, 99, 100 Detroit Riverwalk, 92, 94 dioxins, 25, 69, 191, 211, 319, 367, 375, 407, 416, 417 Douglas, William O., 9 Dow Chemical, 210 dredging, 17, 25, 49, 91, 94, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 118, 132, 137, 138, 145, 151, 154, 156, 164, 175–177, 182, 188, 195, 196, 213, 223, 235, 236, 239, 242, 256–258, 263, 266, 284, 289, 294, 295, 298, 300, 349, 351, 354, 372, 375, 376 hydraulic dredging, 143, 239, 257 navigational dredging, 151, 155, 241, 248, 267, 289, 344, 375, 398 Ducks Unlimited (DU), 216, 217, 256, 258, 357, 358 Duluth, 115, 117, 118, 120, 125, 126, 130–132, 140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 202, 205, 206, 242, 285, 354, 362, 363, 365, 389 Duluth, City of, 117, 118, 127, 144, 149 Duluth-Superior Harbor, 116, 118, 125 Duluth-Superior, port of, 117, 118, 132 Duluth Works , 117, 118, 138, 142–144, 363 duty, 47–49, 51–56, 59, 60, 65 imperfect duty, 47–52, 54–56, 60 perfect duty, 47, 49 E East Chicago, City of, 200, 201, 206 East River Marsh, 294, 296 Ecological Restoration Master Plan, 263

economic impact, 14, 15, 116, 145 economic opportunity costs, 5, 14 ecosystem management, 35, 84 ecotourism, 15 endangered species, 14, 15, 125, 126, 135, 154, 177, 259, 345, 364, 366 Endangered Species Act (ESA), 13–16, 66 environmental advocacy organizations (EAO), 23, 33, 40, 49, 55, 60, 61, 63, 65, 101, 103, 133, 141, 146, 156, 157, 161, 171, 178, 181, 184, 206, 217, 295, 309, 329, 338, 339, 341, 342, 345, 346, 348, 350, 351, 357, 364, 366, 377 Environmental Defense Fund, 12, 65, 67 environmental justice, 56, 171, 245, 275, 318, 363, 366, 369 Environmental Pesticides Control Act, 67 Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), 300, 306, 307 envisioning problem, 377 Erie, City of, 28, 32 Erie County Environmental Coalition, 278, 283 Erie Harbor Improvement Council, 283 Estech General Chemical, 197 Eurasian ruffe, 388 Eurasian watermilfoil , 397, 404, 405 eutrophication, 73, 210, 212, 213, 223, 248, 252, 263, 300, 321, 360, 404 Everett, City of, 310, 315–317, 339 externalities, 1, 2, 64, 74, 75, 77, 190, 265

INDEX

F fair and reasoned, 2, 45, 46, 61–63, 78 fecal coliform bacteria, 181, 190, 351 federal navigation channels , 288 Fields Brook, 235–237, 239 fish consumption advisories, 101, 128, 133, 305 fish tumors, 35, 97, 102, 132, 163, 176, 235, 239, 248, 263, 271, 278–283, 288, 294, 297 Fond du Lac Chippewa (Ojibwa), 123, 127 Fond du Lac Dam, 123, 142 Ford Motor Company, 261 four aesthetic categories, 302 Fox River, 173–178, 181, 348–350 Fox-Wolf Watershed Alliance, 31, 181, 350 Friends of Lincoln Park, 162, 347 Friends of the Detroit River (FDR), 91–95, 99, 100, 110, 366 Friends of the Saint Claire River, 107, 110 Friends of the Superior Municipal Forest, 120, 121, 146, 366 Fund for Lake Michigan (FLM), 161, 162, 167, 346, 347 furans, 211

G Gary, City of, 32, 188, 190, 202, 285 Goby, 32, 386, 387 Grand Calumet River, 87, 159, 187, 188, 190, 192, 193, 197, 204, 209 Grand Calumet River AOC, 377 Grand Calumet River Restoration Fund, 193 Great Blue Heron, 26, 94, 135, 154, 266

425

Greater Milwaukee Foundation, 161, 162, 346, 347 Great Lakes Alliance, 33, 81 Great Lakes Areas of Concern Program, 2, 50, 92, 229, 361 Great Lakes Binational Commission, 157 Great Lakes Compact , 2, 30, 33 Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 32, 391, 392 Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, 123, 146, 363, 366 Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA), 34, 83, 128, 166, 168, 169, 183, 194, 223–225, 238–240 Great Lakes Restoration Fund, 162, 346 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 83, 84, 91–94, 104–107, 109, 110, 123, 124, 130, 132, 146, 154, 157, 158, 167–169, 177, 183, 184, 190, 196, 211, 225, 229, 238, 240, 249–251, 256–259, 270, 271, 289, 291, 295, 349, 352, 355, 356, 362, 363, 366 Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, 96 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), 2, 34, 35, 45, 56, 82, 84–86, 101, 107, 110, 112, 157, 159, 163, 181, 192, 228, 243, 246, 248, 270, 271, 288, 293, 346, 355, 356, 361 Green Bay, 149, 151, 153, 173–175, 178, 179, 343, 344, 348, 349 Green Bay, City of, 149, 173, 179, 348 groundwater monitoring, 263 gypsy moth, 7

426

INDEX

H Habitat Focus Areas , 321 habitat preservation, 5, 14, 15, 44 habitat restorations, 38, 47, 83, 86, 92, 93, 96, 102, 105–107, 109, 119, 120, 129, 131, 132, 136, 139, 160, 162, 170, 179, 194, 214, 216, 225–227, 249, 257, 289, 291, 294, 318, 321, 325, 328, 346–348, 351, 357, 366, 375, 398 Hackensack River, 369, 376 Hammond, City of, 188, 191 Hazardous Ranking System, 71 heavy metals, 34, 84, 101, 128, 143, 152, 153, 155, 167, 177, 181, 190, 191, 194, 196, 200, 211, 225, 235, 239, 249, 254, 256, 261, 263, 271, 278, 282, 284, 288, 289, 301–303, 307, 344, 349, 351, 375, 407, 414 hexavalent chromium, 414 Housatonic River, 310, 326, 329, 339 Housatonic River Commission (HRC), 331, 335, 336, 338 Housatonic River Commission Overlay Zone, 336 Housatonic River Greenway, 328 Housatonic Valley Association (HVA), 310, 328, 329, 335, 337–339, 367 Hudson River, 28, 68, 369 Hudson River Estuary, 343, 369 Hudson River Foundation, 372 hydropower dams, 319, 321

I Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), 192–194, 196 Indiana Dunes , 111, 112, 188

Indiana Dunes National Park, 112, 188 Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal , 188–190, 195 Institute of Great Lakes Research, 272 Interlake Tar site, 118, 144 International Great Lakes Commission, 241, 244, 260, 355 International Joint Commission (IJC), 2, 30, 33, 35, 82, 85, 100, 110, 212, 241, 269–272, 279, 280, 296, 302, 353, 355, 356 International Wildlife Refuge, 92, 94 Interstate Island, 126, 136, 147 invasive species, 30, 32, 37, 84, 106, 107, 109, 119, 121, 128, 129, 135, 139, 140, 151, 195, 210, 212, 216, 220, 259, 264, 301, 337, 357, 381, 382, 384, 386–389, 394, 397, 401, 404 invasive vegetation, 26, 27, 43, 121, 131, 132, 135, 151, 153, 154, 156, 169, 183, 196, 266, 267, 289, 290, 292, 296, 317, 335, 344, 351, 397, 398 Iron Range, 117, 202, 362 Izaak Walton League, 67

K Kant, Immanuel, 51 Keating Channel, 298, 302, 305 Kepone, 68 Kingsbury Bay, 130–132, 139, 140, 364 Kinnickinnic River, 162, 163, 346, 347 Kirtland’s Warbler, 15 Knowlton Creek, 119, 130 Kresge Foundation, 99

INDEX

L Lackawanna, City of, 118, 285, 292 Lake Erie, 28, 32, 37, 44, 67, 86, 88–90, 92, 95, 99, 104, 236, 237, 240, 244–246, 248, 249, 254–256, 261, 267, 276, 277, 280, 284–287, 292, 368, 383, 385, 388, 392 Lake Huron, 28, 86, 89, 104, 209, 210, 356, 390, 394 Lake Michigan, 28, 30, 32, 38, 89, 90, 142, 149, 151, 159, 162, 163, 173, 181, 187, 188, 192, 194, 196, 202, 205, 207, 209, 210, 221, 343, 347, 348, 350, 351, 357, 390, 392, 394 Lake Michigan Federation, 81, 82, 111 Lake Okonoka, 92, 93 Lake Ontario, 28, 32, 86, 292, 293, 297, 298, 305, 392 Lake Sturgeon, 135, 136, 154, 249, 345, 364 Lake Superior, 28, 89, 115, 117, 118, 120, 123–125, 127, 132, 142, 145, 147, 362, 363, 389, 392, 393 Lake Superior Research Institute, 123, 125, 146, 366 Lake Wide Management Plan, 36 lamprey, 32, 391, 392, 394 lead, 75, 97, 98, 118, 128, 129, 143, 152, 167, 190, 191, 198–201, 215, 225, 236, 278, 288, 293, 301, 353, 357, 407, 411, 414, 415, 417, 418 legacy industrial wastes, 407 Lloyd Flanders Paint Sludge Site, 151, 344 Long Point Inner Bay, 280, 297 Lorain, City of, 244, 261, 265, 267

427

Lower Green Bay and Fox River AOC, 173, 176, 180, 184, 348, 352 Lower Hudson River, 369 Lower Menominee River, 88, 149, 151, 156, 159, 184, 343–345, 352 Lower Passaic River, 367, 368 M Mackinac Straits, 28 Malden, City of, 317, 338 Malden River, 317 Management Action Implementation Team (MAIT), 170, 348 manufactured gas, 175, 177 Marine Debris Program, 104 marine pollution reporting system, 95 Marinette, City of, 149, 154, 343, 345 marshlands, 161 Masabi Range, 236 Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, 316, 317 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), 313 Maumee River, 233 Maumee River AOC, 253, 254 Maumee River State Forest, 258 Medford, City of, 310, 317, 339 Menekaunee Harbor, 152, 344 Menominee, City of, 149, 153, 154, 157, 343, 345 Menominee River, 149, 153, 343, 344 Menominee River AOC, 151 Menominee River Citizen Advisory Committee, 152, 345 Menomonee River, 167 Menomonee River AOC, 163 Menomonee River CAC, 162, 347

428

INDEX

Menomonee Valley Menomonee Valley Partners, 162, 346, 347 mercury, 34, 37, 84, 94, 97, 118, 120, 128, 129, 133, 143, 151, 153, 190, 191, 198, 222, 225, 236, 269, 288, 293, 305, 326, 344, 360, 367, 407, 411–413 methyl mercury, 33, 90, 98, 101, 411, 412 Michigan, 7, 28, 81, 88, 90–92, 95, 100, 104, 107, 118, 149, 209, 218, 221, 343, 356, 357, 359, 367, 384, 419 Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, 151 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 94, 95, 100, 108, 216, 223, 225, 357 Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), 93, 95, 130, 132, 133, 136, 141, 143, 151, 158, 216, 344, 358, 364 Michigan Depart of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), 152, 156–158, 184, 344, 345 Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 4 Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 4 Miller Lagoons, 188 Milwaukee Milwaukee, City of, 32, 160, 170, 285, 346 Milwaukee Estuary, 161, 343 Milwaukee Estuary AOC, 159, 163, 166, 184, 346, 352 Milwaukee Estuary Waterways Restoration Partnership, 162, 347 Milwaukee, Port of, 161, 346 Milwaukee River, 162, 166, 346, 347

Milwaukee River Basin, 162, 347 Milwaukee Riverkeepers, 161, 162, 346, 347 Minnesota Land Trust, 127, 131, 146, 366 Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund, 123, 127, 130, 132, 146, 363, 366 Minnesota Point, 124–126, 364 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 133, 139, 141, 143, 144, 364, 365 Mississippi River Coalition (MRC), 74 Morgan Park, 117 Muskegon, City of, 221, 227, 360 Muskegon County Port Advisory Committee, 227 Muskegon Lake Muskegon Lake AOC, 210, 221, 224, 225, 357, 359 Muskegon Lake Vision 2020, 227, 228, 360, 361 Muskegon Lake Watershed Partnership, 223, 224, 226, 360 Muskegon River, 159, 221, 225, 226, 359 Mystic Lakes, 310, 313, 315–317, 342, 391 Mystic River, 309, 310, 315, 338, 373, 377 Mystic River Watershed Association (MyRWA), 312–318, 338 Mystic River Watershed Initiative, 312, 315, 318 N National Aquatic Resources Surveys (NARS), 74 National Cancer Institute, 7 National Estuary Program, 40, 370, 371, 376–378

INDEX

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 123, 130, 146, 363, 366 National Marine Fisheries Service, 14 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 93, 94, 104, 125, 127–129, 133, 146, 184, 228, 250, 256–258, 260, 321, 322, 324, 351, 360, 364, 366, 394 National Priorities List (NPL), 24, 69, 71–73, 143, 144, 175, 191, 198, 200, 201, 236, 349 National Wet Weather Demonstration Project, 103 National Wildlife Federation, 67 native vegetation, 1, 3, 26, 102, 105, 106, 109, 129, 131, 140, 153, 154, 167, 194, 238, 248, 252, 256, 257, 264, 266, 267, 289, 290, 295, 296, 304, 398, 401 Natural Resources Council , 321, 324 navigational dredging, 151, 155, 241, 248, 267, 289, 344, 375, 398 Nemadji River, 118, 132 New York & New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP), 370 New York–New Jersey, 369–371, 374 New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary, 370 New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC), 291, 293 Niagara Falls, 28, 69, 70, 292, 390, 392 Niagara River, 28, 86, 271, 280, 285, 287, 292–296, 306 Niagara River Declaration of Intent (NRDOI), 293 Niagara River Habitat Restoration Plan, 294

429

Niagara River Toxins Management Plan (NRTMP), 293 nickel, 98, 167 Non-indigenous Aquatic Prevention and Control, 389 non-point agricultural pollution, 74 non-point industrial pollution, 152 non-point suburban pollution, 218

O Oak Openings Conservation Area, 259 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 250, 252, 258, 259 Ohio Edison Gorge Dam, 246 Ohio EPA (OEPA), 233, 241, 242, 252, 253, 260, 263, 266, 268–270, 353, 355 Ohio Lake Erie Commission (OLEC), 242, 260, 266, 269, 270, 354, 355 Ojibwe (Chippewa), 118, 122–124, 146, 363, 365 O’Neill, Onora, 48, 49, 63 Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (OMECC), 300 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), 300 outstanding remarkable values (ORV), 331

P Packet Parks, 291 paint sludge, 151, 155, 344 Partners for a Cleaner Environment, 161, 346 Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed, 215, 217, 357 Passaic River, 374–376

430

INDEX

Pennsylvania Depart. of Environmental Protection (PADEP), 278, 281, 283, 284 Penobscot Bay, 319, 321 Penobscot Indigenous Nation, 310 Penobscot Project , 322 Penobscot River, 309, 310, 318, 323, 338, 339 Penobscot River Restoration Trust , 310, 321, 322, 324 Peregrine Falcon, 15 persistent toxic substances, 35, 82 personal care products, 37 pesticides, 5–9, 11–13, 24, 25, 65, 67, 68, 121, 155, 196–198, 249, 284, 288, 293, 307, 392, 417 pesticide regulations, 7 pharmaceuticals, 37 Phillips, Butch, 325 phosphorous, 37, 90, 108, 137, 162, 182, 190, 212, 223, 301, 313, 347, 351, 360, 385, 404 phosphorous detergent, 32 Piping Plover, 119, 125, 126, 129, 135, 136, 147, 364 Pittsfield, City of, 326, 329, 337 plankton, 176, 182, 385, 387, 392–394 poisonous hydrocarbons, 222, 225, 360 Pokegama Bay, 122, 363 pollution, 1, 3, 12, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 32, 33, 43, 60, 61, 64, 66, 68, 71, 74, 75, 83, 85, 90, 91, 101, 105, 118, 123, 146, 158, 166, 175, 187, 189, 190, 192, 197, 200, 204, 205, 218, 219, 229, 233, 237, 239, 242, 255, 261, 263, 269, 288, 300, 307, 310, 313, 326, 328, 336, 338, 344, 349, 353–355, 359, 361, 363, 370, 383

non-point source, 24, 27, 37, 74, 92, 282, 307 point source, 23, 27, 282 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), 24, 25, 34, 37, 68, 84, 90, 94, 97, 98, 101, 108, 112, 128, 133, 151, 152, 155, 165, 166, 174–176, 181, 183, 189–191, 194, 198, 211, 212, 225, 235, 236, 239, 240, 249, 254, 256, 271, 284, 288, 289, 293, 301, 303, 305–307, 326–331, 344, 348–351, 375, 407–411, 416 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), 25, 90, 101, 118, 126, 128, 129, 143, 144, 153, 155, 157, 165–167, 175–177, 181, 183, 190, 191, 194, 198, 236, 249, 254, 257, 261, 266, 267, 271, 278, 282, 288, 289, 293, 301–303, 307, 344, 348, 349, 351, 407, 410, 411 Port Lands, 298, 299 Presque Isle Bay, 44, 278, 281, 283, 297, 307 Presque Isle Bay AOC, 277 pristine wilderness, 45 process for restoration, 45 Project Trackdown, 305, 307 Propositions of Collective Imperfect Duty, 60 Propositions of Environmental Knowledge, 48, 63 Public Advisory Council (PAC), 92, 96, 209, 215, 357 public engagement, 139, 141, 364 public engagement survey, 141, 365 Public Service Corporation (PSC), 215, 218–221 pulp and paper mills, 23, 81, 174, 175, 181, 319, 348–350

INDEX

purple loosestrife, 135, 397–399 pursuit of a moral community, 54 Q quagga mussel, 31, 37, 301, 382, 385, 386 R Radio Tower Bay, 127, 140 Raritan River, 376 Rawls, John, 57, 58 Red Wolf, 15 reed canary grass, 397, 401 Refuse Act, 64, 78 Remedial Action Plan (RAP), 35, 61, 63, 84–86, 92, 96, 98, 100, 108, 110, 125, 132, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 151, 152, 155, 157–159, 169, 173, 178, 184, 185, 192, 213–215, 217, 223, 226, 233, 235, 238, 243, 244, 255, 278, 300, 302, 304, 344–347, 350, 352, 353, 360, 364 Republic Steel, 261–263 reservation demand, 14, 227 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 152, 153, 165, 191, 197, 201, 204, 205, 266 consent decree, 64, 155, 176, 349 Rio Vista Slough, 157, 158 Riverkeeper, 94, 95, 170, 171 River Revitalization Foundation, 161, 162, 346, 347 River Rouge River Rouge Advisory Council, 101 River Rouge AOC, 88, 100, 104 River Rouge Park, 103 River Rouge Plant, 101 River Rouge Restoration Project, 277

431

Rivers and Harbors Act , 65 River St. Claire River St. Claire AOC, 86 road salts, 285, 301, 302 Round Goby, 382, 386 Roxana Marsh, 196 Ruckelshaus, William D., 65–67, 73, 77 Ruffe, 32, 135, 382, 388–390 runoff agricultural runoff, 23, 26, 37, 73, 138, 162, 209–211, 213, 214, 242, 254–256, 261, 268–270, 282, 293, 301, 346, 347, 354, 355, 357 industrial runoff, 153 suburban runoff, 36, 37, 162, 213, 301, 347 S Safe Drinking Water Act , 68, 76 Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy (SBLC), 216, 217, 358 Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network (WIN), 216, 217, 358 Saginaw, City of, 210, 212 Saginaw River and Bay, 212 Saginaw River and Bay AOC, 141, 159, 209, 210, 221, 230, 356, 357, 359, 365 Saugus River Watershed Council, 40 sceptic systems, 158 Science and Technical Advisory Committee, 372 Sediment contaminated sediment, 17, 34, 36, 83, 91, 92, 94, 101, 108, 128, 129, 135, 137, 144, 151–153, 156, 162, 163, 166, 169, 175–177, 180, 183, 188, 190, 196, 204, 223–226, 238–241, 247, 249, 251, 256–258, 262,

432

INDEX

266, 289–291, 294–296, 344, 347, 349, 351, 364, 372 poisoned sediment, 35, 88, 266 sediment buildup, 35, 104, 150, 214, 344 sediment removal, 83, 92, 128, 129, 139, 155, 160, 166, 170, 223, 227, 239, 249, 346, 348, 367 Sheboygan Sheboygan, City of, 181, 184, 351 Sheboygan Falls Dam, 181 Sheboygan River, 183, 343 Sheboygan River AOC, 181, 183, 350, 352 Sheboygan River Basin Partnership, 184, 351 shipbuilding, 115, 117, 236 shoreline hardening, 35, 91 Silent Spring , 5, 7–13, 65, 67, 68 simple random sample assumption, 281 skeptic systems, 357, 359 snail darter, 44 social-economic welfare, 145, 378 Somerville, City of, 310, 316, 317, 339 spawning, 37, 92, 93, 95, 96, 105, 106, 118, 119, 150, 183, 213, 214, 289, 324, 344, 351, 367, 375, 390, 392 spawning grounds, 31, 86, 92, 93, 97, 106, 154, 156, 177, 213–215, 230, 238, 248, 249, 266, 270, 295, 319, 321, 322, 345, 355, 391 species endangered species, 14, 15, 125, 126, 135, 154, 177, 259, 345, 364, 366 loss of species, 44 species proliferation, 16 Spiny Water Flea, 382, 393, 394

Spirit Lake, 117, 118, 120, 138, 140, 142–144, 362 stability criteria, 57 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), 38 St. Claire Flats, 104 St. Lawrence Seaway, 28, 29, 285, 292, 384 St. Louis River St. Louis River Alliance, 121, 125, 133, 141, 146, 364, 365 St. Louis River and Bay AOC, 118, 128, 133, 139, 141, 142, 148, 220, 362, 365, 366 St. Louis River Estuary, 115, 122, 123, 125, 130, 147, 363 St. Louis River Summit, 141, 365 stormwater runoff, 95, 108, 119, 120, 126, 128, 155, 175, 190, 220, 248, 261, 300, 303, 310, 313, 314, 348, 349, 364, 375 Superfund, 24, 25, 64, 69–73, 78, 118, 138, 142, 145, 175, 181, 183, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196–198, 200, 201, 204, 205, 235, 236, 238, 263, 326, 349–351, 375, 377, 418 Superior Bay, 124, 128, 129 Superior, City of, 115, 117–119, 124, 125, 127, 128, 149, 362

T Technical Advisory Committees (TAC), 63, 152, 155–158, 177, 180, 184, 185, 343, 345, 346, 350–352 The Conservation Fund (TCF), 216, 357 The Edge of the Sea, 6 The Nature Conservancy, 61, 99, 121, 147, 192, 196, 258–260, 310,

INDEX

321, 323, 324, 334, 337–339, 367 The Sea Around Us , 6 tidal pools, 6, 44 time series inventory, 271 Toledo, City of, 253, 254, 257, 258, 285 Toronto Toronto and Region AOC, 300, 302, 304–306 Toronto, City of, 297, 300 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 302, 303 Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), 300, 302, 303, 305, 306 toxic algae, 43, 90, 177, 179, 349 toxic sediment, 68, 83, 84, 97, 122, 137, 139, 145, 150, 155, 180, 211, 218, 222, 224, 240, 246, 294, 326, 360, 363 toxic industrial discharges, 159, 190, 346 toxic sediment buildups, 150, 344 Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, 72 Toxic Substance Control Act , 68 tragedy of the commons , 60, 331 Trust for Public Lands , 26, 99 turbidity, 108, 213, 249, 302 turning basin, 151, 152, 344 Twin-Port Cities, 117, 146, 366 U unimpacted control site, 279 University of Wisconsin–School of Freshwater Sciences, 346 University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, 206 Urban Ecology Center, 161, 346 Urban Waters Federal Partnerships (UWFP), 367

433

urban watershed management grants, 31 US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), 23, 99, 103, 125, 133, 151, 156, 224, 235, 250, 253, 267, 268, 344, 345, 364 US Bureau of Land Management, 156, 184, 345, 351 US Department of Agriculture, 6, 336 US EPA, 13, 30, 34, 50, 64, 85, 94, 100, 112, 133, 152, 156, 190, 191, 199, 200, 236, 238, 240, 244, 246, 253, 257, 259–261, 263, 266, 267, 269, 293, 345, 355, 364, 367, 370, 417 US Fish and Wildlife Service, 92, 100, 121, 125, 126, 128, 133, 156, 158, 184, 193, 216, 235, 250, 324, 345, 351, 358, 364 US Geological Survey (USGS), 179, 180, 260 US National Marine Fisheries Service, 391 US National Park Service, 331 USS Lead, 197, 199–201 US Steel, 92, 117, 118, 138, 142–144, 190, 193, 197, 202, 204, 205, 261, 262, 266, 363 UW—Green Bay, 177 UW—Sea Grant, 177 UW-Extension, 162, 347 W wastewater management, 223, 360 Water Chemistry Monitoring Project, 108 water diversions, 30, 82 Waterfront Toronto, 299 Waterkeepers Alliance, 91, 94 Water Resources Development Act , 30 Waterway Restoration Partnership, 161, 346

434

INDEX

Welland Canal, 292, 390, 392 Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD), 120, 126 wetland destructions, 30 wetland development, 38 whooping cranes, 5 Wild and Scenic River, 331–334, 339 wild rice, 121–123, 127, 129, 140, 167, 363, 364 Willamette River, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25–28, 377 Windsor, 90 Wisconsin Department of Coastal Management, 125 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 121, 124, 125, 127–129, 133, 136, 139,

141, 151, 152, 156–158, 162, 165–167, 169, 171, 173, 177–180, 183–185, 343, 345–352, 364, 365 Wisconsin Point, 119, 124–126, 129, 364 Wisconsin Point Bird Sanctuary, 124 Woods Pond, 326, 329 Wyandotte National Wildlife Refuge, 91 Z zebra mussel, 31, 212, 382–385, 394 zero discharge rules, 36 zinc, 98, 118, 128, 143, 167, 236, 413