Lesson 4 Drinkable, Swimmable, and Fishable Waters FINAL 4 Drinkabl… · Explain how the CWA goals (drinkable, swimmable, and fishable) affect the water –society relationships

Michigan Technological University – GK12 Global Watershed Earth System Science (ESS) What is water? 4.1

Subject/ target grade: Earth Science (8th Grade) Duration: 4 class periods Setting: Classroom Materials and Equipment Needed: Per class Multiple colored chalk or dry-erase markers Clean Water Act 1972 40th anniversary article Computer, Internet access, LCD Projector, and speakers: • 1967 Youtube video of Cuyahoga River pollution (4:46)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxV6BbREfY • “Burn on, big river” by Randy Newman. Available at:

http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/03/cuyahoga-river-fire-of-1969.html

• EPA’s “How’s my waterway?” (2012). Available at: http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/mywaterway.html

• EPA’s “Summaries of water pollution reporting categories” (2012). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/34PARENTATTAINSDESCRIPTIONS.pdf

• MDCH’s “2011-2012 Michigan Fish Advisory A Family Guide to Eating Michigan Fish” Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FishAdvisory03_67354_7.pdf (OR your own regional fish advisory)

Per student Lesson 4 Evaluation Handouts: Drinking Water, Final Project, and Peer Review An assortment of different information pages from the above internet sources for student activity. (The teacher can make a couple of copies each of EPA’s summary and local fish consumption advisory information. Have packets pre-stapled—a different page of EPA category & advisory each—for students to use to complete Lesson 4 final project.)

Learning Objectives: Students will be able to: 1. Identify and explain the mission and primary goals of

the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972. 2. Explore the different categories of water pollutants &

provide examples of sources, types, and impacts. 3. Find out their local municipalities’ standards and

current performance. 4. Explain how the CWA goals (drinkable, swimmable,

and fishable) affect the water –society relationships in their local area using national, regional, and local sources of Agency information.

Michigan Content Expectations: E1.2k Analyze how science and society interact from a historical, political, economic, or social perspective.

Drinkable, Swimmable, and Fishable Waters Lesson Overview The Clean Water Act (CWA) 1972 recently celebrated its 40th birthday. Over 40 years ago, the CWA "declared as its objective the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Two goals also were established: zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 and, as an interim goal and where possible, water quality that is fishable and swimmable by mid-1983." (See: EPA and Clean Water Act). Thus far, these goals have proven elusive. Also, more than 40 years ago, national fish consumption advisory programs began assessing water and fish bodies across the nation to warn the public of dangerous contaminants and to teach them how to protect their health by making safe choices about fishing places and consumption using advisories. These advisory programs were intended to be temporary until the CWA met its drinkable, swimmable, and fishable goals. Needless to say, fish consumption advisory programs have become permanent alongside the limitations of reaching CWA goals. In this lesson, students will explore water quality through the goals and mission of the Clean Water Act of 1972, EPA’s water pollution categories, and then, by looking at their own local water quality assessments and regional fish consumption advisories. The quality of water will then be explored by the water – society relationships of drinking, swimming, and fishing. Students will learn about the quality of water in the following four ways: 1) identify and explain the mission and primary goals of the Clean Water Act of 1972; 2) explore the different categories of water pollutants and provide examples of sources, types, and impacts; 3) find out their local municipalities’ standards and current performance; 4) and explain how the CWA goals (drinkable, swimmable, and fishable) affect the water –


society relationship in their local community using information from the EPA’s water pollutant categories and “How’s my waterway”; local municipalities’ current performance; and their regional fish consumption advisory. For the final project, they will complete a series of assignments which will aid in an essay and class presentation. Each student will conduct independent research, write a draft, participate in a peer review, and present their findings in a final essay and class presentation. (Each student will be working with and presenting on different EPA pollution categories, state fish consumption advisories parts, and local municipal/well drinking water qualities’ information.) This will demonstrate their accomplishments of the Learning Objectives. Lesson Core The Guiding Question: Would you drink, swim, and fish in this water? Background Information for Teachers: Important Terms:

• Earth System Science (ESS) analysis and model

• Clean Water Act 1972 • EPA’s “How’s my waterway?” website • Water pollution types: Point and non-

point sources • Water pollutant categories: Sediment;

agriculture and lawn care; human/household waste; metals; petroleum-based; thermal/heat

• Fish Consumption Advisories Expected Prior Knowledge for Students: E2.1A Explain why the Earth is essentially a closed system in terms of matter. E2.1 Earth Systems Overview The Earth is a system consisting of four major interacting components: geosphere (crust, mantle, and core), atmosphere (air), hydrosphere (water), and biosphere (the living part of Earth). Physical, chemical, and biological processes act within and among the four components on a wide range of time scales to continuously

change Earth’s crust, oceans, atmosphere, and living organisms. Earth elements move within and between the lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere as part of geochemical cycles. E2.1B Analyze the interactions between the major systems (geosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere) that make up the Earth. E2.1C Explain, using specific examples, how a change in one system affects other Earth systems. E2.4B Explain how the impact of human activities on the environment can be understood through the analysis of interactions between the four Earth systems. Procedures: 1. Set the stage – Engage students in the

history of American environmental consciousness and water quality regulations using the history of the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969 using video, images, and “Burn on, big fire” which was inspired by the event. This will be followed by a brief discussion of the meanings of water ‘quality’.

2. Explore national, regional, and local water quality – Students will explore the Clean Water Act (1972) goals (drinkable, swimmable, and fishable), EPA programs on water quality, regional fish consumption advisory programs, and local municipalities’ water quality performances.

3. Assess water quality policies, standards, and performances based on CWA goals – Students will assess national, regional, and local water quality in relation to CWA goals and the scientific, political, economic, and societal resources required to reach them.

4. Apply water quality understandings – Students will research, write, and present information on national, regional, and local water quality as well as participate in a peer review session with their classmates. They will also explain through writing if their local waters and resources are “drinkable, swimmable, and fishable” using evidence provided by national, state, and local agencies.


-----------------------DAY 1--------------------------- Engage: The teacher will show the Youtube video about the Cuyahoga River pollution in 1967. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxV6BbREfY) Then, the teacher will conduct a Google Image search based on these search terms: “Ohio’s Cuyahoga River catching on fire in 1969”; pages and pages of images will appear. Leaving these images up on the screen, read the excerpt about the Cuyahoga River fire (Appendix A). Then, play students an excerpt of “Burn on, big river” by Randy Newman (as of 2-1-13, an excerpt can be found here: http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/03/cuyahoga-river-fire-of-1969.html). This song was inspired by the famous Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 that brought environmental awareness to an entire nation through Time Magazine (song lyrics in Appendix B).

Building on prior knowledge: The teacher will begin by asking students about their prior knowledge. Questions such as the following can elicit what they know:

What does water ‘quality’ mean? How would you describe polluted water?

What’s in it? How would you describe clean water? What types of natural processes change

water quality? Are these changes always ‘bad’? Name

some positive ways natural processes impact water quality.

What types of human processes change water quality?

Are these changes always ‘bad’? Name positive ways human’s impact water quality.

The teacher will record student’s prior knowledge on the chalk/whiteboard or ask students to come up and write their responses on their own. Ask students to also write all responses in their notebook as class notes.

Ask students to take 3 minutes to respond to the following question in their notebook:

Can we determine if water is ‘polluted’ just by looking at with our eyes? Why or why not?

The teacher will call on a few students to share their answers. Pre-teaching: The teacher will read the article: “Most U.S. waters are polluted and getting dirtier” (Appendix C). Ask students to take notes during the reading based on the following questions:

Why does the author believe that “most U.S. waters are polluted and getting dirtier”?

What does the author report about Great Lakes water quality?

What were the promises made by Clean Water Act legislation in 1972?

The teacher will call on a few students to share their answers. Ask students to respond to the following questions as a class discussion:

Has the Clean Water Act kept its promises? Why or why not?

Why do you think these promises are so difficult to keep?

Do you think it has anything to do with the multiple views, uses, and values of water? Can you give me some examples?

Explore and Explain (1-4): Explore 1: EPA’s “How’s my waterway?” The teacher will display for the students EPA’s “How’s my waterway?” (Available at: http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/mywaterway.html).


The website is searchable by zip code or city/state information. Before exploring your local region, search other areas of interest (the San Francisco Bay area has good water quality assessment information).

The screen will display several clickable features: “Show Map” and a list of water bodies within 5 miles of your search terms with “Reportable Conditions” (year assessed and polluted, unpolluted, or unknown); “Pollutant Types” (bacteria, chemical types, invasive species); and “What’s being done” (control projects & cleanup plans). In the list, each water body, pollutant type, and control projects and cleanup plans is clickable which will display more detailed information about the water quality assessment. Choose the San Francisco Bay area and explore the Bay’s water quality by clicking some of the different available information.

Explain 1: EPA’s “How’s my waterway?” The teacher will go back to the list of water bodies found in the Bay area (“Show List” button at the top of the screen) and scroll down to show students all the water bodies listed.

To assist students in the realization that numerous water bodies have no information available (“Unassessed/Condition Unknown”); to inquire why that may be; and connect that information back to the article read earlier (Appendix C), use the following questioning and discussion exercise:

What do you notice about the majority of water bodies listed in the Bay area?

How many water bodies have been assessed compared to water bodies that have no available information?

Why do you think that might be? What kind of people and agencies are

working on water quality assessments? What kinds of tools and instruments do

you think they use? How long do you think it takes to

complete an assessment? How much do you think it costs to

assess one water body?


Notice the years that the information came from. Can you imagine how much work, time, and money would have to be invested to monitor and assess all these water bodies every year?

When we searched the Bay area, the information shown only covers within a FIVE-mile radius. The work, time, and money used to assess this one area would have to be multiplied by all the five-mile radiuses across the nation. Is this possible? Should it be a priority? Why or why not?

Did the author in the CWA anniversary article explain any of these difficulties? (Infer) why do you think he did or did not? (The teacher can re-read the highlighted text in the article and propose these questions again.)

Explore 2: EPA’s Water pollution categories In this exploration, students will take a closer look at the pollutant types discovered in the Waterways exploration by looking at the EPA report used in developing that website. But first, use the following questioning exercise to get a list of some of the general pollutant types discovered and then, begin to place them in categories using the following questions:

Name some of the water pollutants we discovered in “How’s my waterway?”.

Now if we had to group some of these together based on similarities, what are some of them that could go together?

Could we give some of these groups a category name? What could some of the names be?

Do some of the other pollutants go under these category names?

The teacher will record student responses as a list on the chalk/whiteboard or ask students to come up and write their responses on their own. Ask students to also write all responses in their notebook as class notes. The teacher will explain that when the CWA was enacted and the EPA needed to assess water quality, they too, needed to come up with some

general categories and arrange pollutants into different types and categories. As of 2012, these are the categories used by EPA which also serves as an example for states. Display or project EPA’s “Summaries of water pollution reporting categories” (Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir/34PARENTATTAINSDESCRIPTIONS.pdf) for students and read the introductory paragraph.

Then the teacher will name several of the categories aloud. Scroll down to the category explanations and read some of the headers in one category.

Have students chose 2-3 pollutant types to read aloud some of the information that has been included. Explain 2: EPA’s Water pollution categories The teacher will scroll through additional information and explain the importance of having information about these categories using the following questions:


Do you see any categories addressing “drinkable” water quality? Which ones?

Do you see any categories addressing “swimmable” water quality? Which ones?

Do you see any categories addressing “fishable” water quality? Which ones?

Why is “drinkable, swimmable, and fishable” so important?

What are some of the specific consequences that could come from poor water quality for aquatic life? Human life?

Was there anything you learned from the “What can you do category” that you think you may try? What is it?

Explain to the students that they will each further explore one of these categories for their project assignment; one that they will ultimately share what they learned with the class. Explore & Explain 3: Local drinking water [Note to teachers: The teacher may want to pass this handout out to their students a day or two before this lesson is implemented to give students time to find this information.] The teacher will pass out and read through Lesson 4 Water Quality Assignment. Focus attention on #2 (where they may look to get this information) and #8 (what kind of information you would like them to find). Drinking water suppliers now provide reports (sometimes called consumer confidence reports) that tell where drinking water comes from, and what contaminants may be in it. And for well-water users, states offer ground water reports and recommend annual testing for home owners. Allow students at least 3 days to accomplish this assignment. Make sure they know and understand that they will need this information to complete a larger Water Quality Project. (This assignment has them get water quality information about where they live.) -----------------------DAY 2---------------------------

Recap and Review the Drinking water and CWA:

Questions about your home drinking water quality research?

Where did the swimmable, drinkable, and fishable water qualities come from?

Why did these issues arise nationally? When was this happening? And how are we doing nationally?

Explore 4: Regional or State fish consumption advisories In this exploration, students will take a closer look at regional water bodies, pollutant types, and area fish consumption advisories. But first, use the following questioning exercise to get an idea of what students currently know about advisories:

Are any of you avid fishers? Where are some of your favorite places to fish?

What kind of fish do like to catch and eat?

Has anyone ever heard of a “fish consumption advisory”? Can you describe one to the class? What kind of information is in an advisory?

Why are advisories important? The teacher will record student responses as a list on the chalk/whiteboard or ask students to come up and write their responses on their own. Ask students to also write all responses in their notebook as class notes. The teacher will recap EPA pollution categories and then, share the following information:

What were some of the EPA pollution categories we learned yesterday? (Display/project by overhead or LCD after a few responses.)

The primary path of human exposure to the majority of these pollutants is fish consumption. Shortly after the enactment of the CWA, the EPA delegated to state that they were to create fish consumption advisories to the public; Great Lakes states were the first to act.


The teacher will display the Michigan, or a different local region, advisory for the students. MDCH’s “2011-2012 Michigan Fish Advisory A Family Guide to Eating Michigan Fish” Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/FishAdvisory03_67354_7.pdf (OR your own regional fish advisory)

The teacher will explain that advisories began in the early 1970’s alongside the Clean Water Act and American environmental consciousness. Over 40 years of advisories have produced the following results nationwide: In the present-day, advisories cover dozens of fish species, 33 contaminants, & 42% of all lake acreage; 36% of the nations river miles, 42% of all coastlines, and 100% of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters are under one or more advisory. Great Lakes states are responsible for more than half of the nation’s advisories… The teacher will read “About the Michigan Fish Advisory” found on page 3 aloud to the students. (For other regions, find out more about their advisories.)

Scroll to pages 5-6, and briefly go through instructions with the students. Let them know that they will need this information to answer questions based on specific water bodies and fish in a few minutes.

Ask students if they have additional questions about using the advisory. Scroll through several pages to show them what the advisory charts look like. (The Michigan Advisory is 50 pages long.) Provide 2-3 example situations for students using the following format:

If I were fishing in the (watershed name), in the (name of river or lake), and I caught a (fish species name), are there any restrictions? What are the restrictions? Who are the restrictions for? Does the size of the fish matter?


Pass out different pages/charts of the Advisory to student-pairs; no groups should have the same one. (For those students who said they fished in specific water bodies or for specific fish species, try to give them a chart that applies to their fishing.) Ask each group to identify at least 3 restrictions found in their chart specifying: restriction for whom, species sizes of restriction, and contaminant types. Give students 5-10 minutes to use their advisory. The teacher will walk around the room to help groups along in using the advisory chart information. (This is actually not very ‘simple’.) The teacher will call on students to share what they found out from their advisory with each other. Explain 4: Regional or State fish consumption advisories The teacher display pages 4-5 in the Michigan advisory and will facilitate a discussion about the advisory information, the statewide mercury advisory, general safe fish consumption tips, and water quality using the following questions:

On the right side of the page, notice the statewide mercury advisory. What is telling you? (Ask for details)

Notice on the left side of the page that mercury cannot be cleaned or cooked away, it is stored in the meat. According to the “Choose” section, how can you limit your mercury exposure? (smaller, younger, less-predatory fish are less contaminated)

Why would smaller, younger, less-predatory fish have less mercury accumulations? (less time, less meat, less eating other contaminated fish to accumulate mercury)

Do you think this applies to all other contaminants as well? (Yes!) Why or why not?

What does the state advisory tell you about water quality?

What do you think about the CWA “fishable” goal?

Elaboration: The teacher will propose the following questions to facilitate class discussion:

Does the increasing number of water quality assessments and state advisories over the past 40 years reflect ‘more polluted’ water and fish than in 1972? Why or why not?

As a 3 minute writing exercise, ask students to write what they believe is the meaning of the following quote:


“Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife are in fact plans to protect man.” (Stewart Udall) Evaluate: Apply water quality “drinkable, swimmable, and fishable” understandings Using ‘Lesson 4 Evaluation Handout’ (titled: final project) and pre-stapled packets, students will be evaluated on their research, writing, participation in peer review, and presentation to the class. This will illustrate their understanding of water quality through the water – society relationships of drinking, swimming, and fishing; and they will discuss how these relationships affect water quality regulations, programs, and procedures. The teacher will go through the directions as outlined in the handout and provide examples as needed. Ask for questions before students begin their work. Students will complete the draft in the remainder of the class time and as homework. The teacher will propose the following question and facilitate discussion:

Now if the agencies were perfect and they had all the people and money they needed to conduct all the assessments on all the national water bodies each and every year, measuring for each and every pollutant type, assessing each and every fish, AND each and every community had access and knowledge of all that information, would that solve water quality problems? Why or why not?

How would having all that information affect local drinking, swimming, and fishing activity? How would having all that information affect local politics, economics, and the society?

-----------------------DAY 3---------------------------

Peer Review Activity The teacher will read directions and explain how the activity will take place. Students will need to be in pairs.

After Review, ask students to revise their drafts to create a final essay. Also ask them to create a note card for their presentations for the next day. (Their final packet will need to have the draft, peer review sheet, note card, and final essay all stapled together.) -----------------------DAY 4--------------------------- Lesson Closure: Student presentations: After each student presents their work, the teacher will comment on an interesting fact or detail that they have included in their presented material. Also, ask one of the following questions (or others that interest you) based on what they have presented. (For example, if the student focused their presentation on a pollution category, ask them about something concerning drinking water or something else.) This list of questions all comes from material covered in this Unit and/or what was required in their final essay. Each question will be asked more than once.

Tell me about one of your ideas about a potential solution.

If you and your family fished often, do you think that the advisory would be easy or difficult to follow all the time? Why do you think that?

Tell me about something that is competing with “drinkable, swimmable, fishable” qualities. How is it competing?

Tell me something that surprised you or was interesting about your drinking water?

How easy or difficult was it getting information about your drinking water supply? How was it easy or difficult?

Tell me something that you decided to do to support a healthy watershed.

Tell me something about how we can make waters more fishable. Do you have any ideas?

What type of pollutants are assessed for your home drinking water supply?


Anticipated student misconceptions, problems & challenges:

This lesson exposes several opportunities for debate: environmental, scientific, political, economic, and social. In a deliberate effort to connect water quality t to their individual lives, it still seems to me to be a sensitive subject.

Fear, pessimism, and vulnerability are not my primary objectives but instead, to show the difficulties surrounding water quality issues. Addressing water quality is extremely complex and this Unit (and Lesson) is meant to debunk simplistic debates about water quality.


Appendix A: Cuyahoga River Fire (From http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642)

Cleveland, OH was once known as a major industrial center within the United States. As the 1960’s came to an end, so did the country’s reliance on industrialized manufacturing. However, Cleveland continued production which when paired with a lack in sewer and waste disposal regulation maintained the littering of the Cuyahoga River. On June 22, 1969, around 12pm, floating pieces of oil slicked debris were ignited on the river by sparks caused by a passing train. Specifically, following an investigation, the cause was determined to be the oily debris trapped beneath two wooden trestles, rigid support frames, located around the Campbell Rd. hill in Southeast Cleveland. The fire was determined to have reached heights of over five stories and lasted between twenty and thirty minutes. There was reported to be around $50,000 of damages including: $45,000 from the destruction of the bridge owned by Norfolk & Western Railway Co. and $5,000 from the Newburgh & South Shore Railway trestle.

The Cuyahoga River was once one of the most polluted rivers in the United States as represented by the multitude of times it has caught fire, a recorded number of thirteen starting in 1868. The most potent blaze occurred in 1952 which caused over $1.3 million in damages however, the most fatal fire happened in 1912 with a documented five deaths. The 1969 fire, which did not incur maximum damages or fatally wound any citizen, was the most covered incident occuring on the river. This was in part because of the developing precedence that sanitation held over industrial actions; the United States was becoming more eco-‐aware. Also, due to the shift from industry to technology, waste dumping to recycling Time Magazine produced an article about the incident. This brought mass amount of attention to the Cleveland area and added pressure for hygienic regulation.

Inspired by the 1969 river fire, Congress was determined to resolve the issue of land pollution, not just in Cleveland, but throughout the United States.


Appendix B: "Burn On, Big River" (excerpt) from the Sail Away album by Randy Newman: ...There's an oil barge winding Down the Cuyahoga River Rolling into Cleveland to the lake Cleveland city of light city of magic Cleveland city of light you're calling me Cleveland, even now I can remember 'Cause the Cuyahoga River Goes smokin' through my dreams Burn on, big river, burn on Burn on, big river, burn on Now the Lord can make you tumble And the Lord can make you turn And the Lord can make you overflow But the Lord can't make you burn


Appendix C: MOST U.S. WATERS ARE POLLUTED AND GETTING DIRTIER

EPA Figures Show Grim Pollution Realities on 40th Anniversary of Clean Water Act

Posted on Nov 01, 2012 | Tags: EPA

Washington, DC — Hurricane Sandy has generated sewage overflows and storm-water run-off that is transforming many Eastern Seaboard waters into toxic soup, too hazardous to even touch. But many of these waters were already profoundly polluted, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) figures reposted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

The Clean Water Act was signed into law forty years ago on October 18, 1972. This year, EPA released a new database (called “How's My Waterway?”) displaying the conditions of streams, lakes, estuaries, wetlands and other water-bodies across the country. These overall figures are distressing:

• More than three-quarters (81%) of U.S. coastal waters are impaired, as are two-thirds (66%) of our bays and estuaries and more than half (51%) of near coastal ocean waters;

• More than two-thirds (69%) of our lakes, reservoirs and ponds are impaired as are virtually all of the Great Lakes shorelines (98%) and waters (100%); and

• More than four-fifths (84%) of the nation’s wetlands are also impaired.

The best results recorded by EPA were still pretty dismal: less than half (46%) of rivers and streams are in “good shape,” meaning they fully support their designated uses. However, these EPA numbers are likely dramatic underestimates because:

• The EPA figures are based on “assessed” waters but only 27% of rivers and streams, for example, have been assessed as have only 1% of wetlands;

• Reporting states often skew the methodology of assessments to mask problems; and

• Figures do not include many of the new, emerging chemicals, many of which are damaging to aquatic life but for which there are no pollution standards.

“After 40 years of the Clean Water Act, our rivers may look better and may be less likely to catch on fire but the true quality of our waters may be regressing,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, referring to Ohio’s Cuyahoga River catching on fire in 1969, an incident which helped spark enactment of national water pollution controls. “The Clean Water Act’s promise that our waters be drinkable, swimmable and fishable remains largely unfulfilled.”

In fact, the EPA figures show clean water progress has slowed during the Obama term. In 2008, there were 339 previously impaired waters which were restored to their intended uses but only 109 water-bodies were restored in 2012. Similarly, in 2008 agencies addressed 420 causes of water-body impairment but by 2012 that number had fallen to 255.

“Environmental issues have been largely absent from this presidential campaign but environmental events, from the BP Gulf spill to Super-storm Sandy, show how key the environment is to our economic as well as our public health,” Ruch added. “Water quality is a vital component of American infrastructure and we disinvest in it at our peril.”

Lesson 4 Drinkable, Swimmable, and Fishable Waters FINAL 4 Drinkabl… · Explain how the CWA goals (drinkable, swimmable, and fishable) affect the water –society relationships

Documents