Community, Roles & Relationships in Michigan's Most Challenging Areas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Community, Roles & Relationships in Michigan’s Most Challenging Areas of Concern A Mixed-Methods Case Study Approach University of Michigan – School for Environment and Sustainability Report by: Evan Madden, Kyle Pettibone, and Alison Rentschler April, 2020 1 Bigelow Park on Middleground Island – Bay City, Michigan Community, Roles & Relationships in Michigan’s Most Challenging Areas of Concern: A Mixed-Methods Case Study by Evan Madden, Kyle Pettibone, and Alison Rentschler A practicum submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (University of Michigan, School for Environment and Sustainability) April 2020 Advisors: Dr. Paul Seelbach and Dr. Katie Williams 2 Dedications To the Great Lakes EPA Duluth Office for hosting us and helping us get started on this year-long adventure, and Dr. Katie Williams especially, for all of your energy and insight. To Rick Hobrla, John Riley, and Jennifer Tewkesbury for all of the time and effort - and patiently answering our endless questions. To the KRWC, RRAC and PSBW: thank you for your warm reception and detailed insights. Your passion within your collective watersheds was a beautiful sentiment to observe. To the communities and community groups of the Kalamazoo, Rouge, and Saginaw AOCs. To Dr. Paige Fischer for helping us develop and workshop our methods, and for teaching us the power of qualitative data. To our advisor, Dr. Paul Seelbach, whose wisdom flows like a mighty river. And lastly, to our friends and family - for all of your support and compassion over the last year. You’ve prevented us from pulling out a lot of hair. 3 Table of Contents Section I. Executive Summary..........................................................7 Section II. Introduction....................................................................8 Section III. Methods........................................................................12 Section IV. The Kalamazoo River Area of Concern.......................20 Section V. The Rouge River Watershed Area of Concern..............44 Section VI. The Saginaw River & Bay Area of Concern................71 Section VII. Case Study Synthesis..................................................96 Section VIII. Conclusion................................................................125 Section IX. Recommendations to EGLE........................................126 Section X. References....................................................................128 Section XI. Appendices.................................................................132 List of Tables & Figures Figures Figure 1. Neighborhood Model Figure 2. Conceptual Model Figure 3. Map: Site Observation Locations Figure 4. Map: Kalamazoo AOC Boundary - EPA Figure 5. Map: Kalamazoo Site Observation Locations Figure 6. Photo: ‘Don’t Eat the Fish’ Signage Figure 7. Photo: Fishing Dock at Fannie Pell Park Figure 8. Photo: Beach-goers at Saugatuck Dunes State Park Figure 9. Photo: Nuisance Algae at Verburg Park Figure 10. Map: Rouge AOC Boundary - EPA Figure 11. Photo: Historical Image of Rouge River Fire Figure 12. Map: Rouge Site Observation Locations Figure 13. Photo: Access Comparison of Kessey Fieldhouse and Linden Park Figure 14. Photo: Rouge River Cleanup Event Figure 15. Photo: Eagle Scout Bat Boxes Figure 16. Photo: River Sampling in Heritage Park - Farmington Hills Figure 17. Map: Saginaw Bay Watershed and Counties Figure 18. Map: Saginaw AOC Boundary - EPA Figure 19. Map: Saginaw Site Observations Map Figure 20. Photo: Sand Point Nature Preserve Sign Figure 21. Photo: Beach-goers at Caseville County Park Figure 22. Photo: Citizens observing Saginaw Bay at Quanicassee State Wildlife Area 4 Tables Table 1. Kalamazoo River AOC BUIs Table 2. Rouge River Watershed AOC BUIs Table 3. Saginaw River & Bay AOC BUIs Table 4. Modes of Engagement - Kalamazoo River AOC Table 5. Modes of Engagement - Rouge River AOC Table 6. Modes of Engagement - Saginaw River & Bay AOC Table 7. A Comparison of Perceived Beneficial Uses in the Kalamazoo River AOC Table 8. A Comparison of Perceived Beneficial Uses in the Rouge River AOC Table 9. A Comparison of Perceived Beneficial Uses in the Saginaw River & Bay AOC Table 10. A Comparison of Beneficial Use Impairments in the Kalamazoo River AOC Table 11. A Comparison of Beneficial Use Impairments in the Rouge River AOC Table 12. A Comparison of Beneficial Use Impairments in the Saginaw River & Bay AOC Abbreviations ARC Alliance of Rouge Communities AOC Areas of Concern BUI Beneficial Use Impairment CMU Central Michigan University CSO Combined Sewer Overflow CAG Community Advisory Group CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CISMA Cooperative Invasive Species Management Areas EMCOG East Michigan Council of Governments FOTR Friends of the Rouge GLC Great Lakes Commission GLRI Great Lakes Restoration Initiative GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement IRB Institutional Review Board IJC International Joint Commission KRWC Kalamazoo River Watershed Council KVCC Kalamazoo Valley Community College MDEGLE Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation MSU Michigan State University NFWF National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 5 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPL National Priorities List NM Neighborhood Model OU Operable Unit PSBW Partnership for the Saginaw Bay Watershed PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PRP Potentially Responsible Party PAC Public Advisory Council RAP Remedial Action Plan R2R2R Remediation to Restoration to Revitalization RC&D Resource, Conservation & Development RRAC Rouge River Advisory Council SBLC Saginaw Basin Land Conservancy WIN Saginaw Bay Watershed Initiative Network SVSU Saginaw Valley State University SEMCOG Southeast Michigan Council of Governments SMLC Southeast Michigan Land Conservancy USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services USGS United States Geological Survey WMU Western Michigan University 6 Section I. Executive Summary The 1987 Amendments to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement designated 43 Areas of Concern (AOC) which prioritized coastal areas throughout the Great Lakes found to have highly degraded environments, due to decades of unbridled industrial progress. While AOCs have historically struggled to make progress due largely to lack of funding, the introduction of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative in 2010 has driven historic progress toward Beneficial Use Impairment removal among many AOCs and eventual ‘delisting’ from the AOC program. While many AOCs are making strides towards delisting, other areas have fallen behind due to substantial contamination, among other complex area-specific factors. We were tasked with investigating three AOCs - the Kalamazoo River, the Rouge River Watershed, and the Saginaw River and Bay - in order to understand the complex narratives embedded in these areas, and offer recommendations to EGLE that could assist with boosting progress. Recognizing that AOC program effectiveness over the long-term is intimately tied to community understanding and support, our objective was to study community engagement and participation within these three AOCs. To address this, we employed a case study approach, consisting of participatory observation research and interview methods, to understand perceptions on relationships, roles, and values, as well as beneficial uses and their respective impairments held by state-level officials, PAC members, and local community members. These data were filtered, sorted, and analyzed using a mixture of inductive and deductive approaches to qualitative data analysis, through the use of the Neighborhood Model (Williams et al. 2018). Through our case studies, we found key themes involving both synergy and discord within roles, relationships, values, and understanding of beneficial uses among state (EGLE), PAC, and community levels of AOC involvement. While our three AOCs of study each possess unique structural and geographic barriers which inhibit the delisting process, we noted profound similarities in barriers to AOC progress; the most prominent involving communication and outreach to the broader community. We found that the communities who live within the neighborhood of AOC waters are largely unaware of the AOC program and its mission to restore their local water resources, due in part to a lack of concerted and organized AOC-specific communication. Through increased AOC-specific outreach, community members will be able to fully realize AOC restoration efforts that provide them benefits to their local water resources, mobilizing their sense of place-based attachment. Given this, our recommendations to EGLE provide suggestions for navigating structural barriers, as well as methods to bolster community outreach within the AOC program. 7 Section II. Introduction AOC Program Background By the 19th century, the Great Lakes had become an industrialized hub of manufacturing and trade. Chicago became one of the most commercialized ports in the United States; wheat was brought eastward from the Windy City, while Wisconsin and Michigan saw an explosion in lumber production and exportation through the St. Lawrence Seaway (Smith, J. 2018). Within the next hundred years, the lumber industry gave way to steel and heavy metals