Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project White
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project White Papers July 1992 The purpose of the white papers for the Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project (RRAP) was to provide Michigan-specific background information about each issue so that relative rankings would be based on common understandings of scientific knowledge. The papers also illustrated the current state of scientific knowledge and the major scientific uncertainties pertaining to the risks. It was requested that they include a statement of the issue; a description of the problem source, including the extent to which Michigan is a responsible party; a description of the effects and recovery time; and a description of the risks. These risks could involve a combination of ecological, economic, human health, and social effects. The white papers for each of the issues, prepared by members of the Scientist Committee, were distributed to all RRAP.committee members. The documents were reviewed by others knowledgeable about the issues. In a few cases, a member of the Agency or Citizen committees wrote or reviewed a white paper. Following are the 23 white papers as originally completed by the authors. Please keep in mind that there were different authors for each of these white papers and therefore the style and presentation of each vary. Consequently, they are presented here in their original form with no additional editing. This appendix was designed as a supplement to the final report of the Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project entitled "Michigan's Environment and Relative Risk." To receive a copy of the report contact the Michigan Department of Management and Budget, the Environmental Administration Division, P. 0. Box 30026, Lansing, Ml 48909. Table of Contents Absence of Land Use Planning that Considers Resources and the Integrity of Ecosystems ..... l Accidental Releases and Responses . 14 Acid Deposition . 19 Alteration of Surface Water and Groundwater Hydrology, Including the Great Lakes ....... 31 Atmospheric Transpon and Deposition of Air Toxics ............................. 47 BiodiverSity/Habitat Modification ........................................... 60 Contaminated Sites . 69 Contaminated Surface Water Sediments . 81 Criteria and Related Air Pollutants . 89 Degradation of Urban Environments . 96 Electromagnetic Field Effects . : . 105 Energy Production and Consumption: Practices and Consequences . l 09 Lack of Environmental Awareness . 128 Generation and Disposal of Hazardous and Low-level Radioactive Waste . 137 Generation and Disposal of High-level Radioactive Waste . 143 Generation and Disposal of Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste . 154 Global Oimate Change . 164 Indoor Pollutants . 171 Nonpoint Source Discharges 10 Surface Water and Groundwater, Including the Great Lakes . 181 Photochemical Smog . • . 193 Point Source Discharges to Surface Water and Groundwater, Including the Great Lakes . 206 Stratospheric Ozone Depletion ............................................ 216 Trace Metals in the Ecosystem . • . 225 ABSENCE OF INTEGRATED LAND USE PLANNING THAT CONSIDERS RESOURCES AND THE INTEGRITY OF ECOSYSTEMS Land use, by in large, determines the futuTC. The land in Michigan has a fundamental role in sustaining our society for the long haul. Despite this oveIWhelming importance, Michigan lacks a statewide planning system that encourages appropriate land uses with consideration for sustainable resources and long-term ecosystem health. This threatens Michigan's quality of life. The Michigan Relative Risk Analysis Project recognizes this problem as one of 24 outstanding environmental issues in Michigan. The lack of integrated land use planning is a broad issue with far-reaching effects. The objectives of this paper are to overview the problem, discuss some of the effects, and provide an up-to-date information base. The paper is presented in six sections. The first outlines Michigan's problem, risk, and opportunity. In the second section, recent developments in the field of land use planning are highlighted. Next, we describe the need for information and the importance of education to help address the probleIIL The fourth section introduces "goal-setting" for Michigan's land use. 1n the fifth section, "Michigan's Land Use Reality," we outline several example problems. Toe concluding section focuses on the planning process. The Problem, the Risk, and the Opportunity Our Michigan landscape represents a dynamic interface between social and environmental processes. Ecologists, land managers, and planners have traditionally ignored the interactions between the different elements of the landscape and have treated these elements as separate systems (although see Steiner and Osterman 1988 and Hale et al. 1991). In Michigan, state and local agencies tend to manage the resources under their jurisdiction as individual commodities. For example, within the Michigan Department of Natmal ResoUit:es (MDNR), Wildlife Division focuses on deer, grouse, and pheasants, Forest Management Division focuses on economic returns from the sale of fiber, Fisheries Division focuses on fish species that suppon a strong recreational induStry, Surface Water Quality Division focuses on clean water, and so on. Other state agencies concern themselves with agriculture, urban development, human health, and transponation at various governmental levels. A multitude of land use authorities and interests express their control and power on a local basis. Little attention is paid to coordinating the goals of these various entities to lay the foundation for integrated land use planning. Ramifications of this lack of coordination are numerous: the natural landscape pattern and its associated natural habitats and biota are generally unprotected and exposed to alteration; renewable resources such as trees and clean water are not being managed in sustainable fashion; a burgeoning deer herd degrades the recruitment of new trees in tl!e forests; wetland degradation robs us of valuable ecosystem functions; urban sprawl supplants prime agricultural land; and the unnatural complexion of our landscape (including poorly planned residential and industrial parks) offends human sensibilities. 1 Landscape ecological studies strongly suggest that a broad-scale perspective incorporating spatial relationships is a necessary part of land use planning (Turner 1989). Paraphrasing Richard Forman (1988), it should be a high priority for Michigan to develop a landscape plan that optimizes wood production, resource extraction, biological diversity, .clean water, cultural cohesion, human health, housing, and other societal goals. Not adopting this priority poses a severe, long-term risk to the sustainabilty of resources, integrity of ecosystems, and human health and existence. The concept of intergenerational equity mandates that we pass onto future generations landscapes undiminished in their capacity to yield valuable ecological goods and services (Norgaard 1991 ). Current science and technology is sufficient to allow us to undertake integrated land use planning now. The Field of Land Use Planning Numerous land use planning paradigms and methods have been developed. Ian McHarg pioneered a multidimensional approach to land use planning under the name of landscape architecture (McHarg 1971). In the 1970s, system scientists began to build simulation models of complex ecosystems based on mass and energy flows to depict landscape characteristics in functional terms to evaluate efficiency, productivity, and -sustainability (Koenig and Tummala 1972). The most recent developments in land use planning stem from the field of landscape ecology (Forman and Godron 1986). Landscape ecology is a holistic approach and considers the many features of the landscape (including human use) and their dynamics through time. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are tremendous computer tools for characterizing complex spatial patterns of landscapes. GIS can integrate soil characteristics, geological formations, surface and groundwater, biota, reso=s, human land use, and more, into one database system. The Importance of Information and Education In environmental planning, we seldom have all the necessary data to make the best possible choices. Our ability to acquire good data is compounded by complex synergisms, thresholds, and time lags operating in the natural world. A comparison of the arctic landscape in 1949 and 1983 demonstrated that indirect impacts of human-caused disturbances may have substantial time lags and the total area influenced by both direct and indirect effects can greatly exceed the area of planned development (Walker er al 1987). Other studies have suggested that the landscape has critical thresholds at which ecological processes will change qualitatively. Habitat fragmentation, for example, may continue without noticeable effect on a population until the important pathways of connectivity are disrupted. At this point a slight change can have dire consequences for the population (Turner 1989). These observations demand thoughtful, integrated land use planning in Michigan. Although some groundwork is established, we still require a great deal of baseline information on landscape strueture and function to conduct landscape level planning. The talents of many 2 of Michigan's citizens must be integrated: foresters, hydrologists, ecologists, limnologists, economists, social scientists, geographers, cartographers, epidemeologists, urban planners, farmers, and many others must share experiences and expertise. Education is critical to the