Milwaukee: The Great Land

Milwaukee, Wisconsin has notoriously been known as one of the most segregated cities in the United States; however, it remains a community rich with racial and cultural diversity. Originally inhabited by Algonkian Indians before French settlers spread throughout the Midwest, Milwaukee was a port city, located approximately seventy miles north of Chicago and situated on the western banks of Lake Michigan. It quickly became industrialized as it was settled by immigrants from all sorts of backgrounds. Milwaukee still celebrates its diverse heritage by hosting festivals every weekend of the summer, commemorating the many national identities that influenced the development of this city.

The history of Milwaukee evolved not only from the heritage of its citizens of European ancestry, but also that of racial minorities. As of 2004, the United States Census Bureau listed Milwaukee to be inhabited by 26.1% Blacks or African-Americans, 10.7% Hispanics or Latinos, and 3.1% Asians, making Milwaukee’s racial make up 39.9% minorities and 62.5% white. (US Census) Throughout the cit, the minorities inhabit distinct areas. The racial and social class divisions between minorities and white neighborhoods are apparent to anyone who drives through the city. For the most part, people classified as a racial minority occupy the low income residential areas, which also usually yield the lowest property value. For students at Marquette University whose location separates poor African-American neighborhoods from poor Hispanic neighborhoods, the segregation is obvious.

In the year 1999, the average household size for an African-American family in Milwaukee was three people and the average income was $24,920. There were 72,794 African-Americans listed under the poverty level and the average property value for African-American owned homes was $56,800. On the other hand, with an average household size of two people, the average income for a white household was $42,504. Only 45,503 white Milwaukee residents were listed as under the poverty level. The average property value of white owner-occupants is $110,500. (US Census) According to the above numbers, an African-American resident would have to live off of approximately $8,306 per year while a white resident would have approximately $21,252 per year. The Civil Rights Act was instated in 1964. Why does there continue to be such racial disparity?

In his 1996 article The Heart of Racism, J.L.A. Garcia defines racism as “a vicious kind of racially based disregard for the welfare of certain people” (Garcia 6). He does not ask his readers to renounce the term “race,” as philosophers such as W.E.B. DuBois have done in the past. Instead, he asserts that even if race is not real, “what we call racism could still be real” (Garcia 7). Racism can affect both the individual and the institution. “Institutional racism begins when racism extends from the hearts of individual people to become institutionalized. What matters is that racist attitudes contaminate the operation of the institution; it is irrelevant what its original point may have been, what its designers meant it to do” (Garcia 10). Minorities nation-wide continue to feel the wrath of racism both by individuals and by institutions of all kinds.

john a. powell of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota discusses a type of racism which makes possible racial intentions of the past to continue, whether directly or indirectly. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and afterwards, although illegally), neighborhoods were segregated by race. This process was commonly known as “redlining.” For instance, minorities would not be given the same opportunities as whites in terms of real estate and banking. This forced minorities to purchase property in only specific areas, reinforcing segregation. “Racially neutral policies fail to correct for past racism. For example, explicitly racist governmental home mortgage policies of the past contribute to current disparities, such as in the amount of wealth held by people of color and whites” (powell). The neighborhood in which a property is located is a determining factor in its property value. County property taxes are the sole contributor to local community schools. Thus, the more an area property is valued, the more funding the local schools get from their district. This vicious cycle, powell contends, effects many metropolitan areas to this day. He titles this phenomenon “spatial racism.” (powell)

Another recent term, “environmental racism” is sometimes used in regard to spatial racism. It is called “environmental racism.” This term encompasses a number of instances including, but not limited to, the unequal distribution of natural resources which promote good health or the unequal distribution of environmental hazards. Although toxic waste and landfills have to be placed somewhere, they are often placed in areas with the lowest property value. This is so for a number of reasons, including corporate costs. It is problematic for minorities, as they make up a large percent of low-income neighborhoods. It is uncertain whether minorities were forced to live in areas with higher levels of environmental and health risks or if the causes of these risks were located in minority neighborhoods after the fact because it appeared to be the most cost efficient at the time. Regardless, the placement of new environmental hazards, such as landfills or incinerators, and the removal of those ongoing, such as toxin exposures and abandoned gas stations, cannot be unequally distributed through minority neighborhoods without the question arising as to whether environmental racism is at work. Major metropolitan areas throughout the United States include portions of depressed areas, the majority populated by minorities. There seems to be some sort of correlation.

In an attempt to end environmental racism, in February of 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive Order, stipulating the promotion of equal distribution by federal agencies. “Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations…” (Clinton). Even so, unequal distribution of resources and hazards continues throughout the country.

The purpose of this contributive report is to examine symptoms and causes of environmental injustice in the Milwaukee area. We will do so by comparing the distribution of environmental resources and hazards in relation to neighborhood demographics. We will touch upon E. coli levels in public beaches, community exposure to toxins, lead poisoning, asbestos outbreaks in public schools, toxin levels in fish, areas affected by noise pollution, and abandoned gas stations. We will also examine a case study from West Allis, Wisconsin, discuss the implications of a development plan in an attempt to end urban sprawl, and compare the county parks in relation to their location, followed by an appendix dealing with an ethical analysis of our findings. In doing so, we will establish whether or not we believe there is a case for saying that environmental racism exists in Milwaukee.

E coli and Milwaukee County Beaches:

A Case Study in Environmental Injustice

By Thomas Jensen

Background:

For decades now, Milwaukee County has been monitoring beach water quality for Escherichia coli also known as E coli. E coli monitoring is an effective tool in determining the risk for gastrointestinal disease in water recreational users in freshwater systems. EPA studies have determined that a level of 235 cfu/100ml of water (cfu: colony forming units), results in about eight cases of gastrointestinal illness per 1000 water recreational users.[1] The EPA’s recent funding through its program, Environmental Monitoring for Public Access for Community Tracking (EMPACT), has allowed the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to enhance these studies with full participation between state and local environmental and health agencies, which began in 2003.[2] Using this information, agencies will be able to warn beach goers through sign posting and website posting on the current health of the county beaches as well as beach closings. Agencies will also be able to work together in the event of enteric disease outbreaks to determine likely sources and act properly to ensure safety at beaches.

In 2005, the DNR reported disturbing news about Milwaukee County Beach Health in its Annual Report Beach Season 2005.[3] A graph indicates Milwaukee County Beaches continue to lead the way in number of beach closures across the state:

Although down compared to 2004, Milwaukee County beach closures were greater in 2005 than 2003 as indicated in this graph:[4]

Hence, it is important for the County to assess likely sources of the E coli and ways to prevent its entry and contamination of County beaches. Recent studies have been done, which attempt to identify these sources.

E coli Sources:

It is thought that there were four potential sources for E coli contamination of local beaches: water fowl, algae, sewage overflow, and rain runoff directly into the lake. Each source will now be examined.

Water Fowl:

It is thought that water fowl such as sea gulls contribute to levels of beach water E coli through fecal matter. It is known that sea gull fecal matter alone contains 368,000,00 cfu/1 gram. It is possible that beaches that contain large numbers of zebra mussels attract large numbers of water fowl that feed upon them.

Yet in a phone interview, Toni Glymph, Wisconsin Beach Program Manager, mentioned that EPA studies have found that a relatively small amount of water fowl bird E coli levels is pathologic to humans (few of 0 type 157 H type 7 strain). It only represents a low risk to beach goers. Also, water fowl are not as big an issue in Milwaukee County as compared to Door County. In summary, sea gulls and other water fowl contribute to levels of E coli, but they are not a major source or concern pathogenically speaking.

Algae:

The algae, Cladophora, has been indicated as a possible cause of high levels of E coli at beaches. A study done by Erika Jensen of the Great Lakes Water Institute and UW Milwaukee, found that E coli was found to be in high levels in Cladophora mats along Milwaukee County beaches.[5] This was only true though for decaying mats of the algae. Fresh algae contained little or no E coli when tested.

It was later determined that these decaying mats offered an ideal environment for E coli to grow and replicate while protecting E coli from harsh elements that would typically lead to death of the bacterium after a couple days. The algae essentially allows for E coli to survive and develop, but is not the source of E coli.

Cladophora is a naturally occurring in Lake Michigan and during the 60’s and 70’s saw large blooms due to high levels of phosphorous from fertilizers and other sources contaminating lake water. Restrictions had lead to decreases, but it has recently risen unexpectedly.

Sewage Overflow:

Sewage overflow during intense storms has lead to a great fear among residents about the relationship of sewage contamination and local beach E coli levels. Human pathogenic E coli is found in greater abundance in human sewage. Overflow occurs when the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District releases sewage into rivers and streams. According to Mike Richie of MMSD this is due to the structure of the current sewer system, which contains a common sewer/rain runoff system that is treated at Jones Island Waste Water Treatment Plant. During heavy storms, runoff from Milwaukee and Shorewood arrive in the Deep Tunnel (major tunnel), but only represents a small percentage from separate sewers that will have rain runoff arrive later on in the Deep Tunnel. Since it is known that water from Milwaukee and Shorewood is less pathogenic than the other sewer sources, the MMSD will allow sewage overflow of this water if the Deep Tunnel reaches greater than fifty percent capacity. This prevents overflow from more pathogenic sources.

Yet in an interview another member of MMSD, Chuck Bernie, stated that sewage overflow is not the predominant cause of high E coli levels at the beach. Essentially, sewage overflow goes out deep into the harbor, but is not found to wash up on shore. In fact, as one goes farther out, according to Mr. Bernie, ten meters from shore, all water samples will pass EPA standards.

Rain Runoff:

The other source thought to be contaminating local beaches is rain runoff during storms that directly flows into the Lake. It is thought that areas that have poor vegetation between streets by the beach and the beach itself are more likely to have water flow into the lake itself, carrying contagions from the street along with other pollutants and trash.

According to Chuck Bernie, this is thought to be the major source of E coli at the beaches according to research done by the Great Lakes WATER Institute at Bradford Beach. From this research, projects will be developed that will help divert or trap the flow of water to prevent it from entering Lake Michigan. These projects will be discussed later in this paper.

Milwaukee County Beaches:

In order to look at the possibility of environmental injustice in the case of E coli levels at local beaches, it is necessary to look at E coli readings for various beaches, the demographics of beach goers, and efforts being done to lower levels of E coli. First, we look at a thirty-day period during the beach season. The following data is for monitoring of local beaches during May 23^rd to June 21^st, 2005.

South Shore Rocky		South Shore	McKinley	Watercraft	Bradford N	Bradford S
Day	E coli (cfu's/100ml)
1	20	54	29	12	11	12
2	10	46	387	23	11	15
3	2	21	16	5	4	2
4	6	30	3	10	61	73
5 (.13)	15	21	9	50	19	60
6	120	68	119	15	29	39
7	127	117	82	291	40	29
8	186	79	54	517	410	517
9	14	86	30	461	64	157
10	12	110	27	120	40	365
11	71	67	1203	34	186	488
12	24	108	193	90	2419	980
13	27	1120	687	186	687	548
14 (.28)	2420	727	416	1046	2419	1733
15	156	410	71	17	23	23
16 (.93)	548	579	5	6	28	19
17	71	687	69	13	72	56
18	108	113	2	1	18	12
19	83	214	214	10	326	209
20	79	225	2420	23	88	77
21	388	1300	365	52	74	83
22	194	2420	81	5	74	30
23	140	140	201	816	39	73
24	64	93	147	7	12	26
25	190	727	36	119	39	10
26	69	488	17	7	66	48
27	123	89	411	17	158	178
28	49	55	39	7	156	291
29	248	187	179	7		2419
30	16	31	102	4	99	20

Other beaches such as Bay View and Grant were not included since data was taken infrequently and there were few beach closures due to levels of 235cfu/100ml or more. Bold numbers represent infractions and the red represent days in which there was more than .10 inch of rain (amount of rain in parenthesis). All six beaches had infractions on the day it rained .28 inches. This appears to support the claim that a major source of E coli, but that does not explain the reasons for other infractions nor the fact that there were only two infractions when it rained .93 inches. One issue also at work is the fact that, as Ms. Glymph stated, monitors can have faulty readings on warm days in stagnant water leading to high, but inaccurate readings. Days where multiple infractions might suggest more accurate readings, but again, the fact that these monitors can fail places some doubt on the readings at all. Unfortunately, one is not aware of when such readings are false and when they are true so it is best to act as if infractions are true. Here are graphs with the black line representing the level of E coli necessary to cause beach closures.

It appears that there is a strong correlation between the number of infractions (beach closures) and location near the Milwaukee Harbor and river. Bradford South and South Shore, beaches north and south of the harbor had nine and seven infractions respectively for the thirty month period. It is also of note that South Shore, the Beach with the most infractions is located just south of the Jones Island Treatment Facilities.

Demographics of Beach Goers:

Unfortunately up to this point, no scientific polling has occurred to track beach usage based upon racial demographics. A County Parks official said that no information has been gathered at this time by them or other independent organizations.

Nicole Richmond, Wisconsin Beach Program Coordinator of the DNR, took unscientific polling during the weekday in August at beaches across the state, but this information only contained data from one beach in Milwaukee County and only seven individuals had been interviewed for demographic information. She stated in an email dated April 24^th that she found no correlation between poor water quality, and social and racial backgrounds.

It will be difficult to examine potential cases of environmental racism due to the lack of this information. U.S Census data for residents along the coast is not indicative of who uses the beach and cannot be used for this study. Higher income Caucasian describes the majority of coastal residents.

From personal experience of this investigator, it is safe to assume that beaches near downtown and along south side of Milwaukee tend to have higher percentages of minorities patrons compared to beaches north of Bradford near Shorewood.

Current Projects:

Milwaukee County is attempting to mitigate beach contamination from two sources of E coli mentioned earlier in this report. MMSD is attempting to repair and expand current sewer systems in order to decrease the number of instances of sewage overflow. WDNR is also attempting to divert flow of direct rain runoff at two beaches, South Shore and Bradford, the two beaches with the highest number of infractions and beach closures.

Sewer Repair and Expansion:

MMSD is currently working to complete a $900 million dollar Watershed Project designed to increase sewer capacity and implement systems to better assess risk of exceeding capacity and limit the amount of sewage released into rivers that flow into Lake Michigan.

The Deep Tunnel has been one project with the target of creating additional storage for sewage and rain runoff into the sewer system. Projects in such areas as Port Washington, Wisconsin Ave and in the South Side will add an additional 115 million gallons to the Deep Tunnel’s storage volume.

Fourteen million dollars is being spent to create real time controls that will upgrade sensors and incorporate real time weather and storm information to reduce the risk of sewage overflow. Interceptor sewers, which carry sewage to the Deep Tunnel as far north as Capitol Drive, along I-43, and as far south as Cleveland Ave, will be prepared in order to create more capacity and better flow as well as fixing leaks that allowed water from storms from seeping in through the soil into the pipes.

Smaller projects include increasing tree canopy levels in Milwaukee from a dangerous level of only ten percent in some areas to a healthier level of forty percent. Trees act naturally to absorb rain water thereby decreasing flow into the sewer system. Also, MMSD has encouraged residents to purchase rain barrels to collect roof runoff and decrease stress placed on the systems current volume capacities. This water can be emptied at a later point or used for needs such as watering private gardens and lawns.

Finally, diversion systems will be created so that in the event that treatment plants are working at full capacity and the Deep Tunnel is full, large amounts of raw sewage can be stored for treatment at a later date.

Diversion Projects:

Wisconsin DNR is attempting to solve issues of direct rainwater runoff from flowing into the Lake. As mentioned earlier, Chuck Bernie of the DNR mentioned that this was the major source of E coli that lead to beach closures. South Side has a storm scepter filtration system by the beach launch parking lot designed to filter water before it drains into the lake.

Steve Keith of WDNR said that besides this project, not much progress has been made since studies from the Great Lakes WATER Institute found rain runoff as the major source. The DNR is in the process of hiring a consulting firm to look at different project options, but lack of money due to financial burdens placed on the County has prevented such projects from being undertaken at this time. There is hope that by Spring of 2007, these projects will be begin.

Soil permeability testing has been just completed to assess the ability to place underground infiltration trenches that will store water along Bradford Beach. It is also hoped to have mini treatment systems in place for this water to decrease the level of contagions and pollutants entering the Lake. Other beaches are not being considered at this time because of a lack of studies to find causes of the high level of E coli and the fact that Bradford beach is being given priority since it is a popular beach. Keith believes that this is just the starting point since E coli levels are a concern in many places along Lake Michigan Coastline.

Ethical Analysis:

As mentioned previously, it is difficult to assess the nature of environmental justice in regards to E coli levels along Milwaukee County beaches due to lack of demographic information. Downtown area beaches seem to be at greater risk for beach closures due to their close proximity to Milwaukee Harbor and sewage treatment centers and one might also assume that these beaches contain a higher level of minority patrons than beaches farther north.

It is difficult to tell, without demographic data, whether or not minorities or low income individuals are being placed at a higher and disproportionate risk for enteric disease due to high levels of E coli. Also, officials at the Department of Public Health have not reported any outbreaks of enteric disease due to beach water use. This does not necessarily mean that minorities are not suffering from a disproportionate number of enteric diseases since many minorities especially of low-income will not necessarily visit a physician or other health care worker until a condition is grave. It is unfair though, at this time to make assumptions in regards to whether or not minorities are having undue and disproportionate environmental burdens placed upon them without evidence at this time.

When addressing concerns of possible instances of environmental injustice, one does not have to prove that such instances are volitional acts with intention of targeting minorities or others. Under the Clinton Administration, the EPA created the Office of Environmental Equity, which is designed to “develop and implement environmental justice initiatives.”[6] Clinton also made environmental justice a national priority through an executive order.[7] Hence, it is the responsibility of the County to ensure that undue and disproportionate environmental burdens are not being placed on any particular group, but that such burdens are evenly distributed as much as possible among different groups until such burdens can be alleviated. The health and safety of residents must be the top priority of the County. Failure to do so without just reason would constitute environmental injustice.

It is understood that many factors including financial and manpower constraints can limit such work and that greater threats to health and safety must be solved before addressing smaller ones. At this time, although E coli levels are a concern at County beaches, the health problems seem to be minimal and may not be as great a danger at this time as dilapidating interchange infrastructure, which has diverted funds away from usage towards such projects mentioned earlier.

At this time, I cannot conclude that E coli levels at County Public beaches represent a case of environmental racism or injustice for two primary reasons. First, there is no known evidence at this time to suggest the County has unjust reasons for not fully addressing the issue of Beach Health Safety and committing money towards projects designed to relieve the burden. Second, the efforts that the County has made seem to be directed towards beaches visited most by minority residents and beaches that have the greatest need at this time.

Future Considerations:

To conclude, there are areas that this investigator feels that the County should better address to ensure Beach Health Safety for all.

1. The County must continue to fund and support studies such as the ones done by the Great Lakes WATER Institute to understand each the unique source and cause of E coli levels at County beaches.

2. The County then must implement projects that will address the unique situations of each beach and lower the level of E coli to safer levels.

3. The County must address the issue of recent increases of Cladophora blooms along the coast. Not only do these decaying blooms offer an apt environment for E coli to survive and multiply, but also are odorous and unattractive, which threatens beach use and businesses that rely on beach patrons.

4. Currently, the city if Milwaukee has signs posted warning them of the dangers of the water quality, but no information about the symptoms of enteric disease or places low income individuals can go if they are experiencing these symptoms like free health clinics. The city does have a system linking all emergency rooms to report diseases so that outbreaks can be monitored, but individuals with mild cases who resort to self treatment may never seek such avenues. Offering a little more information will assist beach goers to be more proactive before symptoms get worse.

5. The County must also ensure that monitoring units are up to date and accurately reflect the current health of the beach. It is imperative that the County has accurate numbers when addressing this issue. E coli levels may not be as bad as previously suggested and beach closures may be unnecessary at this time, but the opposite case of levels being much higher is more ominous.

Brownfields, Spills, and Environmental Justice in the Milwaukee Area

This was a collaborative project of the whole class. Much of the work was done by Owen Goldin and Lauren Tikusis, with special contributions also made by Ernest Hanson, Louis Thorson, and Christine Scherman

The class jointly undertook the project of seeing whether the risk of exposure to toxins from spills and contaminated soil and water was disproportionate for certain social or economic groups. The amount of data here is large and unwieldy, and there are many variables. What toxins were released? How much was released? How toxic are the pollutants? A more careful study would need to take account of these sorts of factors. What we undertook was a more preliminary study, a finger in the air, as it were, to determine whether there is some color of distributive injustice in who bears the burden of health dangers from industrial pollution in the Milwaukee area.

Our stategy was as follows. We looked at the data concerning some of the “brownfields” in the Milwaukee area. (Brownfields are areas that have been subject to toxic contamination, for which remediation is thought to be required, for the sake of redevelopment, the health of residents in the neighborhood, or both.) The two kinds of brownfields that we looked at especially were Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST sites) and sites eligible for the State of Wisconsin Environmental Repair Program (ERP). We did not consider Milwaukee County’s several Superfund sites, because there are so few of them, and because of the presumption that these sites are of an order of magnitude that would be hard to statistically relate to distribution of less serious sites. We also did not look at Emergency Response Spill Sites, under the presumption that “accidents will happen” (such spills are not the direct result of a policy of neglect) and that emergencies, which are dealt with immediately, do not pose the sort of danger from lingering pollution that one might encounter in the case of other brownfields.

Our main source of data was http://botw.dnr.state.wi.us/botw/Welcome.do, along with census data from http://factfinder.census.gov.

We broke the city of Milwaukee and its immediate environs into zip code. For each zip code we determined percentage of Latino population, percentage of African American population, and mean household income. We also came up with a crude, though potentially helpful index of risk, for this zip code. The idea was that there is a linear relation between risk and toxic releases/area. That is to say, if there are twice as many toxic releases in a given area, there is twice the risk of toxic exposure. This is needless to say a crude estimate of risk – sometimes the effect of toxics is not additive, but increases at a higher rate.

To determine the number of releases in a zip code, we simply counted the number of listed ERP and LUST sites. We then took this number, divided by the area, to be a measure of risk within a zip code. Here too we are presuming that the average severity of a release is constant from one zip code to another. Were one to discover that the average brownfield in one part of Milwaukee poses a greater danger than the average brownfield in another part of Milwaukee, the measure of risk would need to be adjusted accordingly.

We then plotted scatter graphs of percentage of African Americans vs. risk; percentage of Latino vs. risk; percentage of combined African American and Latino vs. risk, and mean income vs. risk.

The first graph we present plots our measure of risk in a neighborhood against the percentage of African Americans and Latinos in that same neighborhood. Although the trend line indicates some correlation, because the R² value is so low, this cannot be taken to be a statistically significant correlation.

Similarly inconclusive results were achieved when plotting risk against percentage of African Americans and Latinos alone.

However, we do have positive results when plotting risk vs. mean income:

The risk was calculated for each of the zip codes and the data was normalized by taking out two extreme data points on the low and high side of the median household income to get the average risk. The data that is represented in Table 1 shows the relationship of the environmental risk based on the median household income of the zip code. This plot shows an r-squared value of 0.8522 and can therefore be argued to be statistically significant with a probability of 85.22%. The formula for the plot, which is a third order polynomial, is as follows: y = -1E-09x³ + 0.0001x² - 5.083x + 58452.

Using this equation we would be able to determine the approximate risk of a particular zip code with a high degree of certainty based solely on the median household income of the zip code in question. The trend shows that as the median household income for a zip code increases, the environmental risk decreases until a median household income of approximately $25,500 to $27,750, before it rises again slightly.

We speculate that the correlation between risk and mean income results not from any conscious decision made by community planners or leaders, but from two factors: 1) people will choose to live farther away from commercial and industrial activity, if they can; and 2) higher income neighborhoods are often less densely populated; hence the zip codes of such neighborhoods will have fewer spills and abandoned toxins per square mile.

We also investigated whether there was inequity in the amount of time that it has taken the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to oversee the closure of remediation of cases. We restricted ourselves to LUST and ERP cases that have been closed. We found, to our pleasure, that there is no significant difference from one part of the Milkwaukee area to another in regard to the average number of days a case stays open before it is closed. Here, for example, is a chart that plots income against the average length of time a case stays open.

In conclusion, we have found no evidence that toxic spills and the contamination of soil from the industrial activity of the past has posed a disproportionate risk on minority groups. The risk is somewhat less for more affluent neighborhoods, but we doubt that this is a result of the deliberate targeting of the poor and disadvantaged.

Disproportionate Risk of Fish Dioxins among Minorities

By Laura Farrell

Using information collected from the Great Lakes region as well as research on minority populations throughout the US, one can extrapolate a great risk among minorities in Milwaukee in regards to fish toxins. The two most common risks in eating fish are exposure to PCB and mercury. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) pose a cancer risk, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immune system suppression, liver damage, skin irritation and endocrine disruption (www.fisheries.org). PCBs are synthetic substances used for industrial purposes. Great Lakes and rivers with heavy industrial use are more likely to have PCB contaminated fish. The amount of PCBs found in fish depends on the species, age, size, and fat content. Larger and older fish contain more contaminants as do fattier fish such as carp and catfish because PCB accumulates in the fat of fish. Cooking does not destroy PCBs, but allows some fat to melt off, which lowers PCB content. Thus, fish should be broiled, grilled or baked, trimmed of fat and skinned. Lakes and wetland areas are more likely to contain bacteria that change mercury into a form easily absorbed by fish and other organisms. Larger fish have higher mercury levels than smaller fish and cooking will not change mercury content because it accumulates in the muscle of the fish (www.dnr.state.wi.us).

Mercury exposure results in lower birth weights, delayed physical development and learning. It may affect reproductive function and immune system and has been associated with cancer risk. Fetuses and children under 15 are more sensitive to mercury than adults, in whom it poses short term health risks. It affects the human nervous system and can damage developing brains of children and may affect a child’s behavior and ability to learn. The body can eliminate mercury over time; by spacing meals over time, one can reduce the mercury content in his/her system (www.dnr.state.wi.us). Research around the country and in the Great Lakes region suggests that minority and low-income urban populations are at greater risk to toxins in fish.

Several minority populations were found to consume a higher amount of fish and were more likely to consume contaminated species of fish. In addition they were more likely to be unaware or irresponsive to fish consumption advisories. Fish is an essential component of diets of certain local minority populations. A study in Green Bay regarding Great Lakes Sport Fish (GLSF) consumption found that Native American anglers consumed greater quantities of fish than white anglers (Hutchinson and Kraft). US citizens in the Great Lakes region eat an average of 42 g of fish a day while a typical US citizen eats 17.5 g of fish. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Member Tribes, however, eat an average of 189.6 g of fish a day. The Methylmercury exposure to the average Native American woman is over than ten times the EPA’s reference dose (www.progressivereform.org). In addition, 58% of respondents in the Hmong community indicated that they or other members of the household participate in fishing; 17% reported fishing 2-3 times a week and 18% reported fishing 2-3 times a month. Hmong communities tended to consume more easily caught species that don’t require expensive tackle (more white bass than perch and trout), and 90% of the fish caught is reportedly consumed (Hutchinson and Kraft). In addition, the EPA reported the pregnant African American women were exposed to PCBs via fish consumption during most of their reproductive years. 75% of women under 26 years of age had been eating lake fish for over 15 years (www.epa.gov).

Because the toxic burdens for different fish species depend upon the feeding habits and size of fish, carp and catfish are more susceptible to accumulating toxic environment pollutants. Both species are commonly caught by Hmong and African American communities. In addition, fishing from the shore results in access to fish that have potentially high burdens of PCB (Hutchinson and Kraft). The CDC found that black and Mexican-American children had higher blood mercury levels than non-Hispanic, white counterparts (O’Neill). The poor nutritional status and poor prenatal care in low-income urban populations places the developing fetus in a high-risk situation. African Americans also have a compromised chlorinated hydrocarbon metabolism, which raises an exposure concern. The high consumption rate of fish among minorities is often a result of cultural implications.

White Bass, a species associated with a high risk of PCB contamination, was caught with twice the frequency as trout among Hmong fisherman; it is most analogous to a species common in Laos (Hutchinson and Kraft). Fish links the Hmong community with the past and eases the shock of entering a new culture; it provides a means to maintain ethnic identity (Hutchinson and Kraft). Native Americans often only have seasonal employment, therefore, off-season procurement of fish can help families economically. Fishing also offers important beneficial social functions, increasing social cohesion and cooperation (Hutchinson and Kraft). Fishing is a means of intergenerational transfer of knowledge. It provides economic assistance for those in isolated rural communities and poorer communities by augmenting family food supplies. To Native Americans, fishing has an important cultural meaning; it is linked to traditional religious and cosmological concepts (www.tera.org). Minority and low-income persons have statistically shown lower response or awareness of fish consumption advisories.

Among residents who had eaten Great Lakes fish, awareness of consumption advisories varied by gender and race and was lowest among women and black residents (Imm). Only 26% of African Americans reported following recommendations to trim the fat off of fish compared to the 49% of licensed anglers who complied. Only 33% of the general population followed the cooking guidelines with a lower percent of Native Americans and African Americans complying (www.epa.gov). Asian-Americans were unaware of advisories and consumed approximately three times the recommended quantities. In low-income urban areas, two-thirds of the population thought that their catch was totally safe, anglers believed that they were able to explain away the risk, or they had a misunderstanding or ignorance of local fish advisories (Hutchinson and Kraft).

In response to limited effectiveness of advisories in women, minority and low-income communities, the Wisconsin Division of Public Health posted warning signs at boat landings and long shores with large numbers of minority anglers. They also provided advice on the quantity that may be consumed providing daily tolerable intake does for adults, women of childbearing age and children (www.fisheries.org). In December 1998, a new poster targeted to women was placed in WIC clinics, pediatric clinics, health fairs, state fairs and fishing shows aiming to encourage women and minorities to follow state fishing advisories. 250 signs warning about PCB and mercury contaminated fish were posted in the 1999 fishing season. In addition, teachers were educated and encouraged to include advisory information in their curriculum. The fish advisory was mailed directly to physicians, WIC clinics and pre-natal clinics. The Department of Natural Resources and Hmong American Partnership of Fox Valley developed a 10-minute video regarding fish advisories and workshops among Hmong communities were being developed. The State fish advisories were published in multiple languages and contain information on the best way to select, clean and cook fish. They, however, are based on the assumption that safe cooking and cleaning has been followed (www.fisheries.org). In 2003, the PCB Risk Communication and Outreach Project provided a brochure published in English, Polish, Spanish and Korean and was distributed to Great Lakes fisherman (www.epa.gov).

The Bush administration’s current plan to control mercury levels gives power plants a reprieve and allows them to trade pollution credits. This cap-and-trade method argues for a regulatory approach over risk reduction methods (O’Neill). This method leaves tribal, minority and low-income communities to undertake avoidance measures. As shown, this method is often ineffective. The efforts to reduce mercury intake consist in warning those who rely on fish subsistence fishers and families to reduce intake or stop eating fish altogether. This shifts the burden to people who depend on fish from companies expelling the mercury.

Studies show that minority and low-income populations are at greater risk for exposure to PCB and Mercury in fish. However, the government has taken action to provide ample resources for those at risk. Advisories, however, do not erase the larger problem of contaminated waters and the reliance of subsistence fishermen on Great Lakes fish. Therefore, while this issue is not a blatant violation of environmental justice, it raises the question of providing alternative food source to subsistence fishermen and their families and/or taking preventative measures to reduce contamination.

Works Cited

"American Fisheries Society Forum on Contaminants in Fish." (2000). <www.fisheries.org/html/publications/eputis/contaminants/contaminants.pdf>.

Choose Wisely: a Health Guide for Eating Fish in Wisconsin. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Deparmtnet of Public Health, 2005.

"Human Health Effects Research Program." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (1994). 26 Apr. 2006 <www.atsdr.cdc.gov/grtlakes/research-findings.html>.

Hutchinson, Ray, and Kraft Clifford. "Hmong Fishing Activity and Fish Consumption." Journal of Great Lakes Research (1994).

Imm, Pamela, Knobeloch Lynda, and Anderson A. Henry. "Fish Consumption and Advisory Awareness in Great Lakes Basin." (2005). <www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_cOCYP/is_10_1B/ai_n15736900>.

Lo, Fungchatou T. The Promised Land: Socioeconomic Adjustment of the Hmong in Milwaukee. Diss. UMI, 2000. Ann Arbor, MI: Bell and Howell, 2001.

O'neill, Catherine A. "Mercuty, Risk and Justice." Center for Progressive Regulation (2004). <www.progressiveregulation.org/articles/Mercury_2004.pdf>.

"Public Health Implications of Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls." EPA\_Fish Advisory Program (2006). <www.epa.gov/OST/fish/pcb99.html>.

"Socio-Cultural Considerations of Fish Consumption." Toxicology Excellence for Rish Assessment (1999). <www.tera.org/pubs/CDR%20chapter5.pdf>.

Asbestos Remediation

By: Mark D. Forstner

Asbestos has been used in many public institutions as well as in our schools as various constructing materials. The dangers of asbestos are well known and feared among many people today. This section of the class report will indicate if asbestos has been abated fairly among schools in the Milwaukee county school district. I will describe the uses, health risks and legislation that have been passed to discontinue the use of asbestos our in school systems.

The Environmental Protection Agency has developed a list of products that were commonly produced with asbestos. Some of these included vinyl flooring tiles, caulking/putties, insulation and plaster. (http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ashome.html) By acknowledging all of the uses of asbestos, it becomes evident that it is in buildings people walk and live in everyday.

Asbestos does not become dangerous until the product becomes damaged or broken down. When asbestos becomes damaged, tiny fibers are released into the air and inhaled by individuals most commonly damaging the respiratory system.

Asbestos poses a range of health hazards that can harm those who have been exposed to it. When people think of respiratory damage from the exposure to asbestos many people simply think of lung cancer. Although lung cancer is one of the health effects of asbestos exposure, there are also two other serious health hazards. Asbestosis is caused directly through the inhalation of asbestos fibers and is a very serious lung disease. The other disease that asbestos commonly causes is mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is commonly mistaken for lung cancer, but affects the abdominal and chest cavities, therefore affecting the outside of the lungs instead of the inside of the lungs.

The health hazards of asbestos have been known for some time now, therefore in the last few decades precautions have been took to protect industrial workers, citizens and students from the health hazards caused by asbestos. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERAA) was enacted in 1986. The objective of the bill was to "provide for the establishment of Federal regulations which require inspection for asbestos-containing material and [which ensure] implementation of appropriate response actions...in the Nation's schools in a safe and complete manner." (Thomas)

The AHERAA bill requires schools must check the premise every six months for asbestos or the condition of the asbestos within the school. If asbestos needs to be removed then they must submit a form to the government regarding the action they are going to take to properly remove the asbestos in a timely fashion. Also, the schools can either maintain the asbestos and protect it form damage or completely remove it.

In 1989 asbestos was banned from all new uses in the United States. Therefore schools built past 1989 should by law, be safe from materials containing asbestos.

In 1990 the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act was passed then implemented in 1994. This law enforced the training that asbestos workers, inspectors, supervisors and abatement supervisors must take to become accredited by the state. This law makes sure that everybody dealing directly with or making decisions concerning asbestos abatement are properly trained.

When I attempted to find information on asbestos abatement in the Milwaukee School District, I did not find any substantial information that pointed to environmental injustice. All, I can speculate is that schools with a larger budget may be more likely to completely remove asbestos rather than maintaining it. If this is the case then their might be an argument for environmental injustice within the school district. It seems most of the funding comes from the state therefore allowing schools to deal with asbestos when it poses a risk to students. Milwaukee seems to be handling the issue of asbestos abatement in schools fairly and in an orderly fashion.

Works Cited

Thomas, Lee. 1986. “Signing of Hazard Emergency Response Act” http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/tsca/05.htm. ( accessed April 29,2006)

Asbestos EPA Page

http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/ (accessed April 12, 2005)

Lead Poisoning and Abatement

by Katherine Keefe

The prevalence of childhood lead poisoning in Milwaukee is over six times the national average (9.8% as compared to 1.6%). Approximately 5.3% of housing units within Milwaukee County, or 20,000, have high risk for lead hazards. Of these at risk housing units, the majority are concentrated on the north and south side, areas of the city with high concentrations of minorities. Living in one zip code alone (53206), where 39% of the people are living at or below the poverty level, are 18% of the city’s total lead poisoning cases. Milwaukee Country ranks in the 90^th percentile among states with children with high blood lead levels. The threats of increased exposure to lead include - lowered IQ, susceptibility to learning disabilities and ADHD, impaired reading comprehension and an increased incidence of juvenile delinquency. It is quite obvious that lead poisoning is a serious issue within the Milwaukee community and poses a threat to its citizens.

The existence of lead poisoning is a very real problem within the City of Milwaukee. While lead paint was made illegal in 1978 and the industry voluntarily remove the lead paint products from the shelves in the mid-1950’s, many housing units still exist today with lead contamination. Many of the nearly 150,000 of the total 600,000 housing units built prior to 1950 are located in the inner-city (South of highway 45N, North and East of I-43, and North to Capitol Drive). Because these areas are primarily inhabited by minorities and lower socioeconomic groups, the dangers of lead paint disproportionately burdens these subpopulations of the city. The areas of Whitefish Bay and Shorewood are excluded from consideration of the lead poisoning problem because of their high median income and access to lead abatement services. Currently, a landlord can be forced to clean the property only if a child living there tests with blood lead levels >10 μg/dl, using the children as a measuring tool for safety of their home environment.

The City of Milwaukee has been actively responding to this problem. For nearly a decade the city has tracked the number of children with elevate blood lead levels (BLL), witnessing a 70% drop in cases from 1996 – 2004. This coincides with the trend that saw a 77% decrease nationally in elevated BLL among children. This success is partly due to initiatives and programs developed by the city to help correct the problem. Funded by HUD, Milwaukee officials determined that the most effective way to control lead hazards and ensure a safe environment is by making the windows in homes lead-free, at a cost $135 per window. Also, the ‘Team Intervention Model’ developed in 2003 is designed to involve the Public Health Department Nurses and Risk Assessors. Concentrating on inner-city clinics, the program aims to monitor children’s blood lead levels and to work with the families in securing safe, lead-free environments. The ‘Wisconsin Childhood Lead Poisoning Elimination Plan 2010’ focuses on four components in a statewide effort: education, correcting lead hazards in housing, targeting high risk populations for testing, and obtaining resources and funding.

Even though both of these programs have met success in seeing the numbers of children with elevated blood lead levels decline in the past several years, lawsuits against the paint manufacturers have kept this issue in the public eye. Beginning with the City of Milwaukee in January 2005, individuals have sought to hold paint companies liable for damaged incurred as a result of exposure to lead. Currently, 14-year-old Steven Thomas is the plaintiff in a case seeking a total of $3.5 million for damages, including brain damage and learning disabilities, as a result of lead poisoning against several defendants such as American Cyanamid Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams Co. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has upheld his case citing the “Risk-Contribution” Theory. Essentially, this theory claims that any company which produced or sold lead pain in the Milwaukee area during the time that a housing unit was painted can be held responsible for damages sustained by an individual as a result. Countering this ruling, the state Legislature passed a bill that would have made it necessary to prove a direct link between a specific company’s product and the product that caused the alleged harm. However, in January 2006 Governor Jim Doyle vetoed this bill allowing for the suit to continue. In a similar case, the State of Rhode Island found success in suing three paint companies for creating a public nuisance with lead paint and charging them with clean-up costs and possible punitive damages.

On the opposing site, the paint industry must respond to the litigation. Asserting that they are not responsible for paying damages as a result of lead poisoning, their claim rests on several basic points. First, once the research indicated the possible dangers of lead, the industry voluntarily removed the lead-based paint from the shelves in the 1950’s, twenty years before it was legally banned. Second, the management and owners making decisions in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s are not those in power now. Third, the doctrine of “public services” states that Wisconsin municipalities are not allowed to sue other parties in order to recover the costs of services that are deemed worthy for the public good. It follows that since lead abatement and public health are services necessary for the public good, the City of Milwaukee should not sue the paint manufacturers to cover these costs. Also, litigations will be timely and extremely costly. Finally, the industry claims that lead paint is much like any other household chemical or toxic material. It is only toxic if allowed to chip and peel, much like other materials that are hazardous only if they are left open and exposed. It is the homeowners and parents responsibility to ensure that the living environment is safe and the hazards are minimized, especially in the presence of children.

In conclusion, lead poising is a serious problem for the City of Milwaukee. As mentioned above, successful programs and projects have decreased the prevalence of lead poisoning among Milwaukee’s children. However, it is still necessary to continue the work already begun. Programs established by the City of Milwaukee and State of Wisconsin are modeled by other cities due to their successes. The minority communities are targeted in these programs as they are the groups most likely to be living in homes built prior to 1950, renting their property, unable to afford the necessary home improvements and less likely to access medical care to screen for blood lead levels. Landlords and homeowners should be held responsible for maintaining a safe and healthy environment within the home. If a greater awareness is raised about the possible dangers of lead paint and people are educated on how to correct the problems within their homes before a problem occurs, more children will be spared the unfortunate consequences. Risk prevention and education, focusing on the minority communities, should remain top priorities in hopes of fully eradicating this problem.

Works Cited

Scorecard – The Pollution Information Site

http://scorecard.org/env-releases/lead/county.tcl?fips_county_code=55079#rank

Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol9no2/Hruz9.2.pdf

Milwaukee Health Department – Childhood Lead Prevention Program

http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=2828

Verdict Raises Hope for Lead Paint Cases (February 23^rd 2006)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=403481

Doyle Wields Veto of Lead Paint Bill (January 7^th 2006)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=383401

Lead still lurks - The problem has eased, but Milwaukee might not eradicate the peril before the federal deadline (December 3^rd 2005)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=375206

Wisconsin Childhood Lead Poisoning Elimination Plan 2010

http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/lead/EP/index.HTM

Interview with Milwaukee Health Department

Abandoned Gas Stations

by Noelle Gilbreath

The EPA and many state and local leaders are committed to sustainable development and preserving green space by cleaning up and making available for reuse these petroleum brownfields, which are often located on corner lots and in other prime locations.

The EPA in 2000 and 2001, awarded USTfields pilot grants of up to $100,000 each to 50 states and tribes - totaling almost $5 million - to assess and cleanup the approximately 200,000 petroleum brownfields.[8] These grants are spurring partnerships among state and local governments, community groups, and investors and developers to get sites cleaned up and ready for community use, thereby eliminating the liability to communities and the continuing threat to public health and the environment. The USTfields initiative was an important building block which has spawned additional partnerships to reuse abandoned gas stations.

The 2002 Brownfields law authorizes EPA to give grant money to states and communities so they can inventory, assess, and clean up petroleum-contaminated brownfields.[9] The money, which is earmarked for low-risk petroleum sites, complements the USTfields initiative. In 2003, EPA provided almost $23 million to states and local governments to assist them in assessing, cleaning up, and reusing petroleum brownfields.

EPA has worked to reuse abandoned gas stations in an effort to preserve green space, reduce urban sprawl, and reduce the distance people have to travel, thus reducing air pollution. EPA has joined forces with states, local communities, and the private sector to collect the benefits of cleaning up abandoned gas stations and, in their place, create new homes, new businesses, new parks, and wetlands, community centers and public health clinics. An example of how the EPA has joined forces with Milwaukee, WI to put new businesses in the place of abandoned gas stations is the creation of the Sherman Perk Coffee Shop. It was built in 1939 and operated for two generations as a gas station. The site was vacant for almost a decade. Because of its historical significance, the building was restored. It is now the Sherman Perk Coffee Shop in one of Milwaukee’s most culturally and religiously diverse neighborhoods

EPA has defined environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution can influence the regulatory agency’s decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.[10] The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has expressed interest in working with Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) on these environmental justice efforts.

Region 5 of the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, WDNR, entered into an Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement that commits them to work as partners with the public to improve Wisconsin’s environmental quality, strengthen the relationship between agencies, and account for progress toward meeting environmental goals.[11] WDNR also has a loan and grant program that helps local governments clean up environmental contamination at brownfields called Ready for Reuse. There is $4 million available for the total Ready for Reuse program. Funds can be used for cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances or hazardous substances commingled with petroleum and cleanup of petroleum contamination that is not eligible for Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Act reimbursement. 60% of the total funds are available for loans. All loans are zero-interest and are for long-term projects. 40% of the total funds are available for grants. The maximum grant amount is $200,000 per property, and will be given to projects that can be completed in 2 years.[12]

On February 27, 2006, Governor Doyle announced grants totaling $1.7 million to start the clean-up process of contaminated, abandoned, or underused properties in the state.[13] The Brownfields Site Assessment Grants (SAG) provided through the Department of Natural Resources, give local governments seed money for demolition, environmental assessments, and removal of abandoned tanks and containers.

List of round 7 grants awarded to Milwaukee:

City of Milwaukee

Milwaukee 2001 W. Fond du Lac Ave. $13,000

Milwaukee 2235 W. North Ave. $14,999

Milwaukee 2019 W. Fond du Lac Ave. $15,000

Milwaukee 2239 N. 21st St. $15,000

Milwaukee 2041 W. Fond du Lac Ave. $15,000

Milwaukee 104 E. Nash St. – Advanced Plating $23,000

Milwaukee 3048 W. Galena St. $29,990

Milwaukee 2216 N. Teutonia Ave. $29,991

Redevelopment Authorities

RDA City of Milwaukee Wisconsin Color Press $2,141*

RDA City of Milwaukee 1630 N. 31st St. $16,999

RDA City of Milwaukee 1624 N. 31st St. $17,000

RDA City of Milwaukee 2925 W. Lisbon Ave. $29,990

RDA City of Milwaukee Soccer Field, Tandem Transport $29,992

RDA City of Milwaukee 502-04 W. Cherry St. $29,995

*Indicates partial funding

In round 7 of grants awarded, the total amount of grants Milwaukee has received is $282,097.[14]

From my research, I believe the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency are doing an acceptable job of cleaning up abandoned gas stations and petroleum brownfields to then redevelop them into new business, new homes, etc. I do not see any signs of environmental injustice or racism in Milwaukee in the cleanup of these areas.

Noise Pollution in Milwaukee County

By Christine Scherman

Introduction:

In this paper the effects of noise pollution will be examined by first defining noise pollution. The next section will then consider the two major causes of noise pollution, air traffic and highway traffic. Section three will deal with current steps being taken to control noise in Milwaukee County. A final analysis will attempt to decide whether or not noise pollution disproportionately affects minorities and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Section One: Defining Noise Pollution

The Oxford English Dictionary defines noise pollution as “harmful or annoying noise in the environment.” While this is certainly true, a more specific definition is needed to be able to fully decide what noise constitutes as noise pollution because different people could have varying opinions about what noise is “annoying.”

The decibel (dB) system measures the loudness of noise. Frequency also plays a role in how loud something sounds (the higher the frequency, the louder it sounds) so noise is often weighted to reflect frequency (dBA). Also, in the case of highway noise, it is important to realize that noise is not constant. For this reason, noise is often averaged and given a rating that reflects the percentage of time a certain noise level is exceeded. For example, 55 dBA-L₁₀would indicate that the decibel level exceeds 55 dBA 10% of the time. The decibel scale is logarithmic, so each 10 decibel increase represents a tenfold increase in intensity and sounds twice as loud. For example, 50 dB is 10,000 times more intense than 10 dB and sounds 16 times as loud.[15]

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a desirable level of outdoor noise is below 65 dBA-L₃₃. Therefore, the working definition of noise pollution in this analysis will be as follows: human-created, harmful noise that exceeds the level of 65 dBA-L₃₃at a distance of 100 feet.[16]

Air traffic noise is generally measured in Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL). DNL is the 24-hour average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all events throughout the day.[17] DNL follows the same decibel scale explained above, so the same definition applies to air traffic noise as well.

Section Two: Sources of Noise Pollution in Milwaukee County

1) General Mitchell International Airport

General Mitchell currently runs about 250 flights per day; it is the fiftieth busiest airport in the United States. Because the airport is so active, it produces a lot of noise in the surrounding communities. For example, a flight takeoff is about 120 dBA. Of course flight takeoffs and landings are not the only noise that comes from the airport. Maintenance work must also be done on the aircrafts, which often requires the engine to be run for extended periods of time and causes the same amount of noise as a takeoff (120 dBA). According the Airport Neighbors Association, aircraft noise is linked to many ailments such as stress, hypertension, sleep disturbance, work-related performance, and academic performance. These of course are in addition to hearing loss and disruption of communication.

2) Milwaukee County Highway System (including I-94, I-794, I-43, I-894, hwy 45, hwy 41)

Highway noise depends on (1) volume of traffic (2) speed of traffic and (3) number of trucks in the traffic mix.[18] Obviously, the more traffic on the road, the louder the noise will be. Also, traffic that is moving faster will sound louder than slowly moving traffic. Finally trucks and motorcycles create more noise than regular cars. Medium sized trucks and motorcycles generate 80 and 90 dBA respectively, while cars generally do not exceed 70 dBA. Milwaukee is subject to the most noise from highways, but the cities of West Allis, New Berlin, Greenfield, Cudahy, Wauwatosa, and Brookfield are also affected by the roadways listed above and all will be examined later in this analysis.

Section Three: Current Noise Mitigation Efforts

Highway Noise Mitigation

Recently two sound barrier projects were completed in Milwaukee County. The first was in 1995 when the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) constructed a “living noise barrier” near General Mitchell International Airport on I-94. A living noise barrier uses vegetation and plastic casing to act as a sound absorber. The barrier was studied for two years from 1995-1997. Ultimately, the barrier was a failure because (1) it did not reduce noise levels enough to be cost-efficient and (2) part of the barrier actually broke off in 1996. Developers were unimpressed both with the quality of the barrier and its effectiveness.

The second noise barrier project was in the city of Greenfield, where two Durisol noise barriers were constructed along I-94. Durisol is a hard, durable material made from wood shavings and cement. After the testing period, Durisol barriers were found to reduce noise effectively and maintain durability, but no other Dursol barriers have been proposed for construction.

There are several areas along the highway that already have noise barriers. These barriers generally lie to the south, near General Mitchell International Airport; a few barriers are located north of Milwaukee; some barriers have also been built around the hwy 45/I-94 JCT. For the most part, however, there seem to be very few barriers constructed in Milwaukee, the city most affected by highway noise. See Fig. 1

General Mitchell International Airport (MKE) Noise Mitigation

Since 1999, the Noise Programs Office at MKE has handled noise complaints, collected data on flight patterns and noise levels, and assigned the takeoff and landing flight patterns according to this noise data.
Five different runways are used at General Mitchell to help decrease the noise experienced by each individual community surrounding the airport; however, wind is a big factor in which runways get used and it is not always possible to use all five runways. Two run north/south, two run southwest/northeast, and one runs northwest/southwest. When possible, runways 19R and 1L (see Fig.2) should be used for takeoffs and landings because they produce the least affect the surrounding communities; however, wind patterns and safety take precedence over noise mitigation. See Fig. 3-5 for takeoff patterns.
General Mitchell also uses a special enclosure when doing maintenance on the aircrafts called a ground run-up enclosure (GRE). Since most noise complaints are because of ground engine run-ups, this enclosure helps to significantly reduce the noise level during routine maintenance.
The Noise Programs Office at MKE also operates a 24 hour/day hotline to register noise complaints. Once a noise complaint is registered, each is investigated to figure out the cause of the complaint (takeoffs, maintenance, landings, etc). Noise complaints have gone down since 1999. In 1999 there were 458 complaints; in 2000, 433; in 2001, 386; and in 2002, 369. Most of the noise complaints in 2002 came from the north and west, while the southwest had the fewest complaints and the east, south, and southeast all registered relatively fewer complaints than the north and west. Interestingly enough, of the 386 complaints in 2002, only 143 individual callers registered complaints. Some 60% of the complaints are registered during the night (10 P.M. to 7 A.M.) 52% of the complaints were linked to ground noise (engine run-ups, taxiing, etc). 14% were linked to loud aircrafts overhead, and 17% were linked to low-flying or off-track aircrafts. 37% of the complaints are registered June-August (presumably because windows are open more often).

Milwaukee County Homeowners Protection Program (HOPP):

HOPP is a program designed to assist homeowners in the communities surrounding MKE deal with airport noise. Phase 1 began in 1995. Homeowners who experienced 68.5 DNL were eligible for insulation improvements, avigation easement, or sales assistance. Homeowners experiencing 75 DNL were eligible for property acquisition. By July 2003, over 1,000 homes to the north and west of MKE had received insulation improvements. 150 elected to receive avigation easement, and one homeowner chose sales assistance.[19] Additionally, in 2004, Governor Doyle approved a $6.3 million project to continue mitigation efforts at MKE and contributed $625,000 in state funds to help complete the project. The project aimed to insulate 225 multi-family dwellings (apartments and condominiums) to the north and west of MKE.[20]

Section Four: Are Minority and Low Income Neighborhoods Affected Disproportionately by Noise? (Note: see excel spreadsheets for detailed census tract data)

Highway Noise

Noise Barriers

The noise barriers that have been constructed are in areas that have considerably less families below poverty, more real income, higher real property values, and less minority residents than the average for all census tracts affected by highway noise (2000 data). In fact, 100% of census tracts with noise barriers have less than the average families below poverty. The average for all census tracts is 15.6%, but the average for census tracts with noise barriers is 4.2%! The real incomes follow a similar pattern with only two tracts (with noise barriers) falling below the average incomes in all areas affected. The average real income in noise barrier tracts (NBT) is $51,437, while the average for all tracts (AT) is $40,643. The average real property values in NBT is $125,240; the average in AT is $101,667, again with only two NBT falling below the AT average. Finally, minority populations are significantly underrepresented in NBT. Average % White, Black, and Hispanic in NBT is 88.9%, 1.6%, and 4.9% respectively; the average in AT is 61.2%, 24.0%, and 9.9%. This data suggests that there is a strong correlation between income/property values/demographics and the placement of noise barriers.

Property Values and Highway Construction

This section was an attempt to correlate highway construction with declining property values over the next decade. Data was ultimately inconclusive, as many of the census tracts affected by highway construction did not have data on property values for the necessary years. Also, many times the property values dropped one decade, skyrocketed the next, only to drop substantially the next decade. This seemed to be a result of the volatile housing market and not of highway noise. This is especially true from 1980-2000. Between 1980 and 1990 housing values fell dramatically in both minority and white neighborhoods. Then, between 1990 and 2000 there was a housing boom, and prices skyrocketed, as can be seem in a majority of the census tracts, both minority and white. One notable exception may be census tract 1009 (a highway was constructed in this tract during the 90’s). Deviating from the trend, property values dropped over $20,000. Since this is the only tract to do that (there were many other tracts affected by the highway that was built in the 90’s), no definite conclusions can be drawn. Further, without actually visiting these census tracts and measuring the noise levels, it is impossible to gauge which tracts experience the loudest highway noise. Similarly, it is impossible to tell which tracts have houses right next to the highway and which have houses at a substantial distance from the highway. Further investigation is needed to make an accurate evaluation.

General Mitchell International Airport

The area that is most affected by airport noise (census tract 210) is to the northwest of the airport. Surprisingly, the area is composed of mostly Whites, with minorities making up a very small portion of the residents (less than 10%). Also, the median family income has historically been either higher or relatively equal to the average family income for Milwaukee County as a whole. Similarly, the median property value of census tract 210 has consistently been only slightly lower than the Milwaukee County average. This indicates that airport noise has not significantly affected the property values of homes in the area. Also, it seems clear that minority persons have not been affected disproportionately by airport noise.

Also, HOPP was designed to specifically target homes and apartment complexes in the 210 census tract for insulation and noise abatement improvements. So, even if airport noise is a problem for people living in this area, MKE seems to be doing a good job at helping deal with and inconveniences.

Conclusions:

o Milwaukee County is exposed to considerable noise pollution both from highways and air traffic.

o General Mitchell International Airport is taking substantial steps to mitigate the effects of noise pollution on the surrounding community through the HOPP program, by using several runways at different ends of the airport, by keeping track of and analyzing noise complaints, and by performing maintenance work in special enclosures.

o Highway noise could be better managed with more noise barriers.

o There seems to be a correlation between minority population, income, poverty levels and the placement of noise barriers. Areas with more white residents, higher income, and less poverty have a large number of noise barriers while minority, low-income, and poverty-stricken areas have few.

o No conclusions could be drawn about the relationship between highway construction and the subsequent effect on property values.

o Minority and low-income neighborhoods are not disproportionately subjected to airport noise.

Note: All websites referenced in this report were accessed during March/April 2006
Fig.1[21]

Fig.2[22]

Fig.3 East to West Air Traffic[23] Fig.4 West to East Air Traffic[24]

Fig.5 North to South Air Traffic[25]
Distribution of Park Amenities and Recreational Opportunities in Milwaukee County

by Drew Albright

Milwaukee County is home to one of the best park systems in the country. The amount of land attained in such a densely populated area is astonishing; 15,000 acres spread across over 140 parks. There is an immense amount of recreational opportunities available to all residents. The parks also offer some unique opportunities such as water parks or the beautiful botanical garden. Several parks are sites of farmer’s markets throughout the summer, providing nutritious food to residents and supporting local farmers. The park system provides valuable services to the community and helps make Milwaukee a beautiful city. However, some injustices do exist in the distribution of recreational opportunities.

Acquiring park space is difficult in a developed city. That is why Milwaukee’s park system is so impressive. As the city became more developed, available park space moved further from the city. Consequently, most of the larger parks are located in suburbs of the city. These areas are higher-income communities with a white majority. The more densely populated areas have smaller parks scattered throughout. These areas are where the lower-income and minority communities are located. The larger parks offer a wide range of activities while smaller parks may only offer a few. That is not to say the opportunities are not there for low-income residents. There are some very nice parks in these areas that offer a broad range of amenities, but only those who live near the parks can access them with ease. Some areas are miles away from a park that offers a full range of activities. The case is not the same for the higher-income suburban areas.

On the east side of the county, an area predominately white, upper-middle class, parks space stretches continually from north to south. In these areas, the larger parks are more frequent and easier to access. When looking at a map of the county, one will notice the majority of park acreage is located in the east and south sides of the county. These areas also happen to be wealthier white communities. It is safe to say that a person in a high-income community, near a large park, like Whitnall Park in Hales Corners, has better access to various recreational opportunities than a person in a densely populated low-income area.

A study done in 2005 by several members of the Marquette University College of Nursing found that members of low-income or minority groups were subject to increased health risk. This is due to higher intake of dietary fat and a lack of physical activity beginning in adolescence and continuing into adulthood. Twenty-one percent of black girls ages 12-21 reported a lack of vigorous activity, compared to 12% of white girls. A variety of factors can be attributed to this. The study attributed the difference to a lack of peer encouragement. I would like to speculate that a lack of easily accessible park space might also play a role. A child that grows up near a nice park and is able to exercise there frequently will be more likely to continue those habits through adolescence and into adulthood. On the other hand, a child growing up in a densely populated urban setting will not have such easy access to exercise opportunities offered by the parks. Furthermore, the park system has several fitness trails throughout the county. These trails are divided into stations that provide exercise techniques designed to work a wide range of muscle groups. These fitness trails offer a great way to get a complete workout. The park system has seven fitness trails; only two are located in a low-income or minority community. Perhaps more fitness trails in these areas would promote better health among lower income groups.

The parks also offer a variety of day camps for children in the summer. The camps range from one to four days long, and range in price from $15 to $175. These camps offer valuable environmental education and outdoor recreation. A variety of programs includes fishing, plant and animal identification, geology lessons, hiking and habitat exploration. Such experiences can greatly enhance the lives of children, especially in such an urbanized environment. They acquire intimate interaction with nature that they may never experience otherwise. Learning and having fun in nature is far better for a child than staying at home or wandering the streets. These hands-on leaning experiences are best for kids and can instill values of a clean healthy environment for all creatures and spark future interest in environmental issues.

There are a total of 16 programs, only one of which is in a low-income minority area. That one program is a 2.5-hour fishing lesson. It is restricted to children of ages 3-5, and a parent must accompany them. The program does accommodate for low-income families because a fishing license is not required and equipment is provided. However, the rest of these educational opportunities are located outside of low-income, minority neighborhoods. These programs include opportunities for younger kids (ages 3-5). They learn about native animal and insect species through educational puppet shows. They also play games that teach about interactions between different organisms and their ecosystem. Older children get some more advanced educational opportunities. They go out into the forests and riverbeds to explore habitats of a variety of creatures. Sessions include lessons on the geology of the area, how to read a map and navigate with a compass and survival skills, such as building shelter and finding safe food and water. These real hands-on learning experiences have the potential to make a lasting impact on children’s lives. Going out into nature and exploring questions for themselves stimulates their curiosity and makes the learning experience more valuable and retainable.

I have experienced this phenomenon first hand working with the Urban Ecology Center in Riverside Park. Every weekend they conduct animal feedings for children. The feeding session includes lessons on habitats and breeding patterns of many native species. It is easy to notice that the ability to see the animals and hold them really sparks the children’s curiosity. Questions come much easier to the kids when they can base them off a visual aid. They are so excited to learn more, the questions keep coming. The Center offers several day camps as well, and is an exception to the lack of educational opportunities for low-income minority children. They offer need-based financial aid, but additional qualifications must also be met. In addition, these camps are much smaller in number, and transportation poses a real problem. The fact remains, these experiences have an enormous impact on numerous aspects of a child’s life.

A study performed by Readdick and Schaller of Florida State University investigated the positive influences gained by inner-city children from day camp experiences. The study found that interaction with nature and with a positive role model (i.e. the camp counselor) attributed to an increase in self-esteem. Sixty-eight African American, Hispanic or Asian children were tested before and after the camp. Results show they scored “significantly higher” on self-esteem examinations after the camp. The positive influence of the camps for inner-city children extends far beyond interaction with nature. Their stimulated curiosity sparks their desire to learn and their self-esteem increases. The experiences also can instill a permanent value and interest in nature, which is a source of interest that can keep kids out of trouble. This is especially valuable in inner cities where trouble is not hard for kids to find. Unfortunately, those are the areas particularly devoid of these opportunities.

With the majority of these educational programs in the southern part of the county, many children are excluded. Transportation from one side of the county to the other is difficult without a car. Low-income families on the north side of the county have a very hard time getting their kids down to the camp daily, making the opportunity virtually absent. There are parks that would be great sites for educational programs all over the county, but for some reason the majority of the programs are in the southern part. Additionally, the multiple day programs exclude the majority of low-income families because they simply cannot afford them. As valuable as these experiences can be, such exclusions are unjust. Just a little extra funding could lower the cost of the camps and disperse them evenly throughout the county.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my appreciation for Milwaukee’s extensive park system. The services the park system offers its residents are incredible. They have done wonders with the land they have acquired. Densely populated, over developed areas will rarely have land available for park space, nevertheless; Milwaukee managed to squeeze numerous beautiful parks throughout these areas. I do not believe the injustices mentioned here came about intentionally. This does not mean that the injustices can be ignored. The recreational and educational opportunities have been shown to promote physical and mental well-being, and a discrepancy in their distribution can have devastating impacts on a community.

Resources:

Frenn, M; Malin, S; Villarruel, AM; Slaikeu, K; McCarthy, S; Freeman, J; Nee, E. “Determinants of Physical Activity and Low-Fat Diet Among Low Income African American and Hispanic Middle School Students”. Public Health Nusing. Mar. 2005; pg 89-97.

http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=7720 Accesses 2/15-5/10 2006

http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp Accessed 2/15-2/27 2006.

http://www.urbanecologycenter.org/ Accessed 5/2/06

Readdick, CA; Schaller, GR. “Summer Camp and Self Esteem of School-Aged Inner-City Children”. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Aug. 2005: pg 121-30.

Interview with Sue Black, Milwaukee County Parks Director.

Statistical Analysis of Park Distribution

by Ernest Hanson

The Milwaukee County Parks System boasts 136 parks. These parks serve the residents of the county, which number 945,480 according to the 2000 census.¹ The county itself encompasses 236.2 square miles and the square mileage of each zip code was determined.²Based on these numbers, it was determined that an equitable allocation of funds should yield 1 park for each 6952 residents and 1 park for every 1.74 miles of a particular zip code. The data for each zip code was computed into an average for both of these values and they are listed below in the last 2 columns of Table 1. These scores were given a color code based on whether or not the score was above or below the average, as determined earlier. Based on this determination, there were 14 zip codes that received a score of excellent, being above average in both categories, and 10 zip codes that received a score of below average, being below average in both categories. The two score system was used in order to compensate for variations in population density. While some zip codes had few parks for the square mileage of the zip code, this was often offset by a low population. Sometimes the opposite was the case; where the population was high, but the square mileage of the zip code was relatively small. This was the case in 10 of the zip codes in Milwaukee County. Table 1 shows the data that was compiled to make the determination of which zip codes received which ranking.

Table1: Raw Data for All Zip Codes in Milwaukee County

Zip Code	Median Household Income	Per Capita Income	% of Families Below Poverty Line	% of Black Population	% of White Pop.	% of Latino Pop.	Total Pop.	Sq. Miles	Parks	People Per Park	Parks Per Sq. Mile
53129	55,455	28,762	3.0	0.3	93.8	2.4	14163	5.6	0	0	0.00
53130	54,046	25,055	0.3	0.2	95.0	2.1	7535	3.2	1	7535	3.20
53132	64,822	27,238	1.4	5.2	88.2	2.6	53169	34.7	5	10634	6.94
53154	53,870	23,474	1.5	1.8	87.6	4.4	28659	28.3	5	5732	5.66
53172	44,310	21,012	4.1	1.1	90.6	4.1	20939	5.0	0	0	0.00
53202	30,658	31,596	7.1	8.8	81.8	3.4	20967	2.2	10	2097	0.22
53203	50,875	47,989	0.0	14.6	75.5	2.1	335	0.5	2	168	0.25
53204	24,631	9,431	29.7	8.2	21.1	64.8	42382	3.3	2	21191	1.65
53205	14,660	8,227	42.5	86.7	3.1	4.0	10875	1.4	4	2719	0.35
53206	20,787	9,950	35.0	96.1	1.3	1.3	32868	2.7	3	10956	0.90
53207	39,614	20,381	6.8	1.3	85.1	10.2	36443	9.7	10	3644	0.97
53208	26,436	13,018	29.5	50.8	31.9	5.6	35150	3.9	5	7030	0.78
53209	32,980	17,177	15.8	62.8	32.0	2.3	49019	10.7	7	7003	1.53
53210	32,340	13,908	22.3	70.4	22.7	2.9	30509	2.5	2	15254	1.25
53211	43,109	30,766	3.6	2.5	89.5	2.5	35225	3.9	5	7045	0.78
53212	23,523	12,621	32.3	63.0	24.2	10.3	30801	4.1	4	7700	1.03
53213	51,951	28,061	2.4	1.8	92.7	2.3	26141	3.9	2	13071	1.95
53214	38,162	20,415	4.7	2.1	89.8	4.8	35584	7.6	2	17792	3.80
53215	32,649	14,165	16.1	3.9	50.1	38.4	54950	5.6	5	10990	1.12
53216	32,126	15,273	17.0	75.7	19.0	2.2	33871	4.6	2	16936	2.30
53217	74,572	43,955	2.5	2.6	91.9	1.6	29479	13.7	3	9826	4.57
53218	32,968	14,249	17.2	58.9	29.6	3.1	40513	6.3	3	13504	2.10
53219	40,598	21,151	3.7	1.0	91.9	4.6	33714	5.0	4	8429	1.25
53220	42,586	22,569	3.8	0.9	90.8	4.8	25276	5.5	5	5055	1.10
53221	41,032	20,906	5.1	2.1	84.5	8.0	35422	8.9	8	4428	1.13
53222	42,189	22,651	3.8	8.6	85.0	2.8	24889	5.4	3	8296	1.80
53223	42,970	21,532	6.3	32.0	60.1	2.9	29822	10.1	7	4260	1.44
53224	42,500	18,086	16.8	44.7	46.0	3.8	19523	10.0	5	3905	2.00
53225	38,029	17,665	11.3	37.8	54.2	3.2	25991	6.7	4	6498	1.68
53226	53,048	30,178	2.3	1.8	92.9	1.5	18835	7.0	6	3139	1.17
53227	40,258	21,937	5.0	2.1	90.9	3.2	23949	5.2	1	23949	5.20
53228	52,626	24,547	2.6	0.6	93.7	2.9	14172	4.9	5	2834	0.98
53233	13,140	9,000	39.6	34.4	52.1	5.2	15485	1.8	1	15485	1.80
53235	37,035	21,771	2.9	1.0	91.2	4.6	8825	2.3	5	1765	0.46

Ave.	40,016	21,433	11.7			Total	945,480	236.2	136

Table 1 shows the raw data for the various zip codes that make up Milwaukee County. It was determined based on the total population and the total square mileage of the county that there should be 1 park for every 6952 people and/or 1.74 square miles. A variance of approximately 3.5% was allowed for these averages, this allowed for 1 park for every 7200 people and/or 1.80 square miles. The last two columns of Table 1 show how each zip code faired in comparison to these averages. A red entry shows a below average result and a blue entry shows an above average result. A green entry shows that both columns produced an above average result; these zip codes received a score of excellent. One blue and one red entry received a score of acceptable, while two red entries receive a score of below average.

In order to determine whether there is any disparity in the allocation of resources by the Milwaukee County Parks System based on income and/or race, a more in-depth look at the data is required. An analysis of the 10 zip codes that made up the below average scores show some interesting results. These zip codes had an average of 1 park for every 15,018 residents and 1 park for every 4.72 square miles. The side-by-side comparison of these zip codes is shown below in Table 2. Of these zip codes, 8 of the 10 had a predominately white population and 8 of 10 had a below average percentage of families that lived below the poverty line. The median household income for this group is $48,867, which is 22% above average. Based on the comparison of these zip codes, it seems very unlikely that low income or a high percentage of minority population has any correlation with the zip code having a below average score for park allocation.

Table 2: The Below Average Zip Codes

Zip Code	Median Household Income	Per Capita Income	% of Families Below Poverty Line	% of Black Population	% of White Pop.	% of Latino Pop.	Total Pop.	Sq. Miles	Parks	People Per Park	Parks Per Sq. Mile
53129	55,455	28,762	3.0	0.3	93.8	2.4	14163	5.6	0	0	0.00
53130	54,046	25,055	0.3	0.2	95.0	2.1	7535	3.2	1	7535	3.20
53132	64,822	27,238	1.4	5.2	88.2	2.6	53169	34.7	5	10634	6.94
53172	44,310	21,012	4.1	1.1	90.6	4.1	20939	5.0	0	0	0.00
53213	51,951	28,061	2.4	1.8	92.7	2.3	26141	3.9	2	13071	1.95
53214	38,162	20,415	4.7	2.1	89.8	4.8	35584	7.6	2	17792	3.80
53216	32,126	15,273	17.0	75.7	19.0	2.2	33871	4.6	2	16936	2.30
53217	74,572	43,955	2.5	2.6	91.9	1.6	29479	13.7	3	9826	4.57
53218	32,968	14,249	17.2	58.9	29.6	3.1	40513	6.3	3	13504	2.10
53227	40,258	21,937	5.0	2.1	90.9	3.2	23949	5.2	1	23949	5.20

Table 2 shows all of the zip codes that received a below average rating.

The areas that comprised the 14 zip codes that received an excellent rating had an average of 1 park for every 4,276 people and 1 park for every 0.96 square miles. The median household income for this group is $38,976, which is slightly below average. The side-by-side comparison of these zip codes is shown below in Table 3.

Table 3: The Excellent Zip Codes

Zip Code	Median Household Income	Per Capita Income	% of Families Below Poverty Line	% of Black Population	% of White Pop.	% of Latino Pop.	Total Pop.	Sq. Miles	Parks	People Per Park	Parks Per Sq. Mile
53202	30,658	31,596	7.1	8.8	81.8	3.4	20967	2.2	10	2097	0.22
53203	50,875	47,989	0	14.6	75.5	2.1	335	0.5	2	168	0.25
53205	14,660	8,227	42.5	86.7	3.1	4	10875	1.4	4	2719	0.35
53207	39,614	20,381	6.8	1.3	85.1	10.2	36443	9.7	10	3644	0.97
53208	26,436	13,018	29.5	50.8	31.9	5.6	35150	3.9	5	7030	0.78
53209	32,980	17,177	15.8	62.8	32	2.3	49019	10.7	7	7003	1.53
53211	43,109	30,766	3.6	2.5	89.5	2.5	35225	3.9	5	7045	0.78
53220	42,586	22,569	3.8	0.9	90.8	4.8	25276	5.5	5	5055	1.1
53221	41,032	20,906	5.1	2.1	84.5	8	35422	8.9	8	4428	1.125
53223	42,970	21,532	6.3	32	60.1	2.9	29822	10.1	7	4260	1.44
53225	38,029	17,665	11.3	37.8	54.2	3.2	25991	6.7	4	6498	1.675
53226	53,048	30,178	2.3	1.8	92.9	1.5	18835	7	6	3139	1.167
53228	52,626	24,547	2.6	0.6	93.7	2.9	14172	4.9	5	2834	0.98
53235	37,035	21,771	2.9	1	91.2	4.6	8825	2.3	5	1765	0.46

Table 3 shows a comparison of all of the zip codes that received an excellent rating.

Based on the median household income, the two richest zip codes in Milwaukee County received a below average rating for both parks per population and parks per square mileage. Of the two poorest zip codes, one received a rating of excellent, while the other received a rating of acceptable. This comparison is shown below in Table 4.

Table 4: Poorest vs. Richest Zip Codes

Zip Code	Median Household Income	Per Capita Income	% of Families Below Poverty Line	% of Black Population	% of White Pop.	% of Latino Pop.	Total Pop.	Sq. Miles	Parks	People Per Park	Parks Per Sq. Mile
Poorest
53233	13,140	9,000	39.6	34.4	52.1	5.2	15485	1.8	1	15485	1.80
53205	14,660	8,227	42.5	86.7	3.1	4.0	10875	1.4	4	2719	0.35

Richest
53217	74,572	43,955	2.5	2.6	91.9	1.6	29479	13.7	3	9826	4.57
53132	64,822	27,238	1.4	5.2	88.2	2.6	53169	34.7	5	10634	6.94

Table 4 shows a side-by-side comparison of the two richest zip codes and the two poorest zip codes in Milwaukee County based upon median household income.

This comparison is further corroborated by the fact that, of the 18 zip codes that have a median household income of over $40,016, the average for Milwaukee County, 7 of them received a ranking of below average. At the same time, the 16 zip codes with below average median household income had only 4 such rankings. The results are similar when per capita income is used as the criteria, but when the criteria is percentage of families below the poverty level the data is even more compelling. Of the 10 zip codes with a below average ranking, 80% of them had lower than average percentage of families living below the poverty level. At the same time, of the 12 zip codes that had a higher than average percentage of families living below the poverty level, 83% of them had a rating of acceptable or excellent.

Based on data from the 2000 census report, the two zip codes in Milwaukee County that had the lowest percentage of minorities received a below average rating for both parks per population and parks per square mileage. Of the zip codes with the highest percentage of minority population, one received a rating of excellent, while the other received a rating of acceptable. This comparison is shown below in Table 5.

Table 5: Minority Population by Zip Code

Zip Code	Median Household Income	Per Capita Income	% of Families Below Poverty Line	% of Black Population	% of White Pop.	% of Latino Pop.	Total Pop.	Sq. Miles	Parks	People Per Park	Parks Per Sq. Mile
Highest
53206	20,787	9,950	35	96.1	1.3	1.3	32868	2.7	3	10956	0.9
53205	14,660	8,227	42.5	86.7	3.1	4	10875	1.4	4	2719	0.35

Lowest
53130	54,046	25,055	0.3	0.2	95	2.1	7535	3.2	1	7535	3.2
53129	55,455	28,762	3	0.3	93.8	2.4	14,163	5.6	0	0	0

Table 5 shows a side-by-side comparison of the zip codes with the highest and lowest minority population.

This comparison is also corroborated by other comparisons. Of the 9 zip codes that have a predominately minority population, 12% had a rating of below average. This means that 88% of these zip codes had an acceptable or excellent rating. On the other hand, of zip codes that were predominately white, 36% had a below average rating. Of the 5 zip codes that had 0 or1 Park, 4 out of 5 of these areas had a population that was more than 90% white and the other zip code was predominately white as well.

An initial look at a map of the Milwaukee County Parks system may give one the impression of inequity based on the size of the parks in question. This is another factor, which can be considered to make sure that park allocation is indeed equitable. The square mileage of each zip code was converted to acres (640 acres per square mile), and the total number of acres for each park was summed for each zip code.³ However, there is some question of fairness in doing this. Some zip codes contain large county run golf courses. These courses are not available to the general public in any capacity other than for the recreation of golfing. A golf course, even a small one, must necessarily be rather large and located in an area that can accommodate its large size. It is extremely uncommon for a large city, especially one of Milwaukee’s age, to have a large county owned golf course that is located in the inner city region. This is for no other reason other than lack of feasibility. In theory, these golf courses are located on the outskirts of the city proper and in the more rural areas of the county, and the intention is that the entire county uses them. The data below shows the area of the zip codes and the area of the county run parks for each. The data shows the percentage of the land area that is county parks versus the land area of the zip code. This was done with and without county golf courses taken into consideration and is shown below in Table 6.

Table 6: Land Area of Parks for Each Zip Code

Zip Code	Sq. Miles	Acres	Park Acreage	Golf Acreage	Total Acreage	% Park And Golf Acreage	% Park Acreage	Median Household Income	% of Families Below Poverty Line	% of White Pop.
Lowest
53129	5.6	3584	0	0	0	0	0	55455	3	93.8
53172	5.0	3200	0	0	0	0	0	44310	4.1	90.6
53227	5.2	3328	0	282.31	282.31	8.5	0	40258	5	90.9
53233	1.8	1152	1.03	0	1.03	0.09	0.09	13140	39.6	52.1
53204	3.3	2112	4.18	0	4.18	0.2	0.2	24631	29.7	21.1
53206	2.7	1728	8.08	0	8.08	0.47	0.47	20787	35	1.3
53222	5.4	3456	16.61	195.75	212.36	6.1	0.48	42189	3.8	85
53225	6.7	4288	29.71	59.1	88.81	2.1	0.7	38029	11.3	54.2
53217	13.7	8768	63.46	362.97	426.43	4.9	0.72	74572	2.5	91.9
53214	7.6	4864	44.3	0	44.3	0.91	0.91	38162	4.7	89.8
53203	0.5	320	3.09	0	3.09	0.97	0.97	50875	0	75.5
							Ave.	40218	12.6	67.8
Middle
53213	3.9	2496	30.08	0	30.08	1.2	1.2	51951	2.4	92.7
53226	7.0	4480	56.79	438.04	494.83	11	1.3	53048	2.3	92.9
53132	34.7	22208	311.58	277.39	588.97	2.7	1.4	64822	1.4	88.2
53224	10.0	6400	89.09	326.37	415.46	6.5	1.4	42500	16.8	46
53130	3.2	2048	33.08	0	33.08	1.6	1.6	54046	0.3	95
53211	3.9	2496	47.47	137.76	185.23	7.4	1.9	43109	3.6	89.5
53218	6.3	4032	83.9	0	83.9	2.1	2.1	32968	17.2	29.6
53210	2.5	1600	38.27	0	38.27	2.4	2.4	32340	22.3	22.7
53228	4.9	3136	74.74	625.36	700.1	22.3	2.4	52626	2.6	93.7
53216	4.6	2944	73.84	0	73.84	2.5	2.5	32126	17	19
53219	5.0	3200	89.28	0	89.28	2.8	2.8	40598	3.7	91.9
53220	5.5	3520	109.21	0	109.21	3.1	3.1	42586	3.8	90.8
							Ave.	452310	7.8	71
Highest
53209	10.7	6848	215.12	312.29	527.41	7.7	3.1	32980	15.8	32
53154	28.3	18112	578.27	0	578.27	3.2	3.2	53870	1.5	87.6
53207	9.7	6208	243.43	0	243.43	3.9	3.9	39614	6.8	85.1
53208	3.9	2496	149.3	35.41	184.71	7.4	6	26436	29.5	31.9
53221	8.9	5696	352.75	44.97	397.72	7	6.2	41032	5.1	84.5
53223	10.1	6464	401.77	71.65	473.42	7.3	6.2	42970	6.3	60.1
53215	5.6	3584	253.39	0	253.39	7.1	7.1	32649	16.1	50.1
53212	4.1	2624	189.13	0	189.13	7.2	7.2	23523	32.3	24.2
53205	1.4	896	72.13	0	72.13	8.1	8.1	14660	42.5	3.1
53235	2.3	1472	222.38	248.54	470.92	32	15.1	37035	2.9	91.2
53202	2.2	1408	291.04	0	291.04	20.7	20.7	30658	7.1	81.8
							Ave.	34130	15.1	57.4

Table 6 shows the zip code with the square mileage converted into acres (1 sq. mile = 640 acres) and the sum acreage of the parks in the zip code with and without golf courses. Theses were converted into percentages and the 34 zip codes were divided into 3 tiers (lowest, middle, and highest) based upon the percentage without golf taken into consideration. Averages for each tier were calculated and highlighted in orange for ease of use.

The data from Table 6 shows that there were golf courses within each of the 3 tiers, and taking out the golf courses affected each tier to a relatively equal extent. The averages provided for each tier shows that this manner of investigation yields similar results to those that were generated earlier. The tier, which had the highest percentage of acreage devoted to county parks, had, on average, the lowest median household income, the highest percentage of families living below the poverty level, and the highest percentage of minority population.

Based on the preponderance of the results, the Milwaukee County Parks system has allocated its parks in a fair and equitable way when it comes to matters of race and economics. Communities that have high levels of minorities and/or low levels of income are not discriminated against when it comes to the location of parks as supported by the Milwaukee County Parks system. Neighborhoods that are in the upper echelon of income can support their own parks and as such, have very few county supported parks. Many of the zip codes that make up Milwaukee County have parks that are not supported by the Milwaukee County Parks System. Oak Creek (53154), for example, claims 25 parks within its borders, but the county funds only 5 of them. Neighborhoods that have lower income levels receive more county supported parks per population and square mileage. Overall, one would have to conclude that the Milwaukee County Parks System is doing an excellent job in the allocation of parks to communities in a fair and ethical nature.

Notes:

1. www.census.gov

2. Population and the square mileage for each zip code were determined by the data given by http://www.brainyzip.com/zipcodes.

3. A listing of all of the Milwaukee County parks and their acreage is available at http://www.county.milwaukee.gov/display/router.asp?docid=10627

The Menomonee Valley Redevelopment Plan:

A Detailed Look at the History, Decline, and Rehabilitation of the Menomonee River Valley, and Their Implications Regarding Environmental Racism

by Louis Thorson

I. History

A. Beginnings

Ø Throughout its history, the Menomonee River Valley has been at the center of Milwaukee, both economically and geographically. Though it had humble beginnings as a wildlife-filled marshland, it was systematically claimed and developed by Milwaukee’s first businessmen, including Solomon Juneau and Byron Kilbourn. Kilbourn had perhaps the largest influence on the area, as he was the first to bridge the Menomonee River, and ultimately envisioned the service the river could provide in making Milwaukee the leading port city in the relatively new state of Wisconsin.

Ø It was Kilbourn who founded the first railroad company in Milwaukee in 1847, named the Milwaukee & Waukesha Railroad. Their first tracks traveled from the northern edge of the valley out to Wauwatosa, and eventually sparked a boom in the Wisconsin railroad industry. These new routes brought crops to Milwaukee from the surrounding farmlands to be shipped back east, and carried imported finished goods back to the farmers. Soon, enormous grain elevators were built along the valley, and by 1862 Milwaukee was by far the largest shipper of grain in the budding United States.

B. Further Development

Ø Eventually, Milwaukee businessmen realized the economic opportunity presented by developing the crops transported in from the heartland, and industry boomed around downtown Milwaukee. Guido Pfister and Frederick Vogel opened a tannery that would soon rival any in the United States, breweries (of course) abounded, and flour mills, meat factories, and brickyards popped up in and around the Menomonee Valley.

Ø Prior to 1869, however, much of this development was occurring on the fringes of the valley, with the central portion remaining untouched wetlands. That changed when a group of local businessmen created the Menomonee Improvements program and began to develop the area in earnest. They worked primarily in the east end of the Valley, creating canals, boat slips, and rail sidings that would make the area one of the premier transportation centers of Milwaukee. After an extensive landfill project, industries soon followed, and the valley boomed. Although various industries thrived there, the meat packing experienced particular success, and the valley soon became the undisputed center of the industry.

C. Manufacturing and Industrial Giants

Ø Throughout the rest of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, development continued in the valley as manufacturing plants took center stage. Machining companies such as Nordberg, Chain Belt, and the Harnischfeger Company built extensive plants, along with companies such as Milwaukee Road and Cutler-Hammer. When all was said and done, by the mid-twentieth century the valley was recognized clearly as the largest concentration of industrial employment in the state.

Ø The Milwaukee Road, Harnischfeger, Falk, and Cutler-Hammer companies became the giants of the Menomonee Valley, providing thousands of jobs to local residents, and contributing massive amounts of business to the Milwaukee economy. These companies, as well as several others that did business in the valley, are still around today, many of them operating on the outskirts of the valley.

D. Decline

Ø Ultimately, the ugliness and pollution caused by such rapid development caught up with the valley, and this combined with the boom of rubber tire transportation worked to undermine the importance of the valley as an important economic center of the city. Post-World War II economic conditions drove many of the manufacturing companies out of business, and emerging technologies worked to force many more out as well.

Ø Eventually the government decided to take action to alleviate the struggles of the valley area, buying land in the late 1970s and vowing to create new opportunities for jobs. Unfortunately little progress was made until Mayor John Norquist entered office in 1988, following which both public and private initiatives accelerated. Marquette University opened its Valley Fields complex in the early 1990s, and the Potawatomi Bingo and Casino complex opened in 1991. Despite these successes however, the area remained an eyesore, full of old rail yard materials and abandoned manufacturing plants. The rest of this section of the capstone report will detail the environmental concerns about the area, the cleanup efforts of the late 1990s, the initiatives that have been created to redevelop the valley as an area of employment opportunities and recreational beauty, as well as my conclusions regarding the question of to what extent has there been or continues to be environmental injustice or racism involved in governmental and societal attitudes towards the valley and its neighbors.

Ø All information regarding the history of the Menomonee River Valley was taken from John Gurda’s “The Menomonee Valley: A Historical Overview,” which can be found at http://www.renewthevalley.org/files/pdf/GurdaDetailedNarrative.pdf.

II. Environmental Concerns

A. Demographics

Ø In order to examine the hypotheses that the current conditions in the Menomonee Valley constitute environmental injustice, we must determine whether those most affected by the pollution and ugliness of the area are mostly minorities or members of other socio-economic groups. Further, to determine whether current or past governmental and societal attitudes were instances of environmental racism, we must determine whether any disproportionate burdens that exist result from policies intended to have this result, or from culpable negligence. The first set of data that must be examined then, is the demographic makeup surrounding the valley, as these neighborhoods are the most likely to be affected by the valley's problems.

Ø The map below shows all of the census tracts surrounding the Menomonee Valley, and the table following it provides all of the necessary demographic date pertaining to these tracts.

http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/pdfs/vital_signs.pdf.

Demographic Category	Relevant Data
Average Racial Makeup- 2000 Census	White- 41.44%	African-American- 18.46%	Hispanic or Latino- 31.43%	Other- 8.67%
Average Household Median Income in 1999	$25,862
Average Percentage Households Earning Less then $25,000	50.45%
Average Median Assessed Housing Value	$154,856

Ø These facts clearly show that the vast majority of neighborhoods and zip codes in and around the valley are inhabited primarily by minorities. On average, nearly sixty percent of them are composed of African-Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, and other minority groups. As was stated before, the census tracts shown on the map above represent the most heavily affected areas of the Menomonee Valley, and so it appears the first fact needed to fulfill the burden of proof of environmental racism holds true.

Ø The map and date chart above were taken from the Menomonee Valley Benchmark Initiative’s 2005 State of the Valley Report, which can be found in its entirety at http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/05_report.htm. The map and data sheets can also be found at http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/pdfs/vital_signs.pdf.

B. Environmental Issues

Ø At this point it would beneficial to examine in slightly more detail the environmental problems that have plagued the Menomonee Valley in its recent history.

ü Pollution- one of the most unfortunate consequences of the industrial revolution that occurred in the Menomonee Valley was an exorbitant amount of air pollution. The primary threats from this pollution come in the form of airborne fine particulate matter, toxic air pollutants, and ground-level ozone, all of which are explained further and measured later in this section.

ü Decreased Water Quality- runoff from manufacturing plants, dumping, and lack of proper care have all contributed to excessive water pollution in the Menomonee River and the connected water routes. As measured by the Index of Biotic Integrity, a composite score composed of ten different measures of water quality, the environmental quality of the river has remained constantly poor or even decreased in recent years.

ü Increasing Amount of Impervious Surfaces (Related to Urban Sprawl)- an impervious surface is defined as an area that has little or no ability to soak up rainwater, and often refers to streets, sidewalks, and parking lots, etc. The larger percentage of impervious surfaces, the less rainwater the area around the river can soak up, meaning more polluted stormwater enters the river, polluting it further.

ü Various Brownfields and Similar Environmental Hazards- as taken from the data provided in Dr. Goldin’s section of the capstone report, there were 152 open brownfields in the zip codes contained (full or in part) within the Menomonee River Valley. These consist of environmental hazard sites deemed in need of cleanup by the Environmental Restoration Program (ERP), as well as leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), which can come from a variety of sources. On average, these 152 cases have been open for 9.31 years, and some for much longer, even as much as 26 years.

Ø All information used in the Environmental Issues section was taken from the Menomonee Valley Benchmark Initiative’s 2005 State of the Valley Report, which can be found in its entirety at http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/05_report.htm. The environmental indicators section can also be found at http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/pdfs/environmental_ind.pdf.

Ø It is clear from the problems described above that the Menomonee River Valley has experienced a significant amount of environmental damage, as well as a considerable quantity of health hazards for surrounding inhabitants. At this point in my section of the capstone report then, I will move to discussion of the cleanup efforts directed at this area, which I am happy to report have been officially labeled “complete” by Mayor Tom Barrett as of November 2004.

III. Cleanup Efforts

A. Background

Ø In a release from the City of Milwaukee’s Department of City Development (found at http://www.mkedcd.org/news/2004/MRVcleanup.html), the Menomonee Valley cleanup was labeled as “the city’s largest environmental clean up project,” costing 20 million dollars to complete, which was partially funded by 23 federal and state brownfield grants.

Ø This money was used primarily to address issues such as contaminated soil, old foundations and miles of relic brick sewers, asbestos removal, and soil capping to protect human health and the environment. Much of this money was also used to address the issues mentioned earlier in the section, namely pollution, water quality, and increasing impervious surfaces. The next section details the measurements and status of these issues, and provides an update on their current status.

Ø All of the following graphs and explanations were taken from the Menomonee Valley Benchmark Initiative’s 2005 State of the Valley Report, which can be found in its entirety at http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/05_report.htm. The environmental indicators section can also be found at http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/pdfs/environmental_ind.pdf.

B. Environmental Indicators and Their Progress

Ø Pollution- Airborne Fine Particulate Matter

Ø Pollution- Toxic Air Pollutants

Text Box: http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/pdfs/environmental_ind.pdf.

Ø Pollution- Ground Level Ozone

Text Box: http://epic.cuir.uwm.edu/mvbi/pdfs/environmental_ind.pdf.

Ø Decreased Water Quality

Ø Increasing Amounts of Impervious Surfaces

[6] Gaylord, Clarice and Bell, Elizabeth. “Environmental Justice: A National Priority.” Faces of Environmental Racism. Ed. Laura Westra and bill E. Lawson. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2001. 32

[10] http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/actionplans/ej/r05-ej-actionplan-2004.pdf

[11] http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/actionplans/ej/r05-ej-actionplan-2004.pdf

[12] http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/archives/pubs/RR754.pdf

[13] http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/archives/pubs/RR754.pdf

[14] http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/rr/archives/pubs/RR754.pdf

[15] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm

[16] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/audible/al7.htm

[17] http://mke.airportnetwork.com/part150.htm

[18] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/htnoise.htm

[19] http://mke.airportnetwork.com/mke_inventory.pdf

[20] http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/air/genmitchell.htm

[22] http://www.home.earthlink.net/~airportneighbors/index.html

[23] http://mke.airportnetwork.com/GRAPHICS/figureA6.jpg

[24] http://mke.airportnetwork.com/GRAPHICS/figureA7.jpg

[25] http://mke.airportnetwork.com/GRAPHICS/figureA10.jpg

Lead still lurks - The problem has eased, but Milwaukee might not eradicate the peril before the federal deadline (December 3rd 2005)

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=375206

Justice as Fairness

Lead still lurks - The problem has eased, but Milwaukee might not eradicate the peril before the federal deadline (December 3^rd 2005)