Check out this CNN video report, about some angry naked bike riding people in Boulder, CO. The bare naked ladies (and men) were riding raw to raise awareness of the bicycle as a reasonable alternative to the automobile ...
I particularly liked the guy who says he put extra glitter on his "package," the other guy who says he only noticed that the treads on the bikes were good, and the little girl holding her hands over her eyes.
Showing posts with label conservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservation. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Guest post on Clean Water Act (expansion on a comment)
Why EPA failed to implement the Clean Water Act.
As long as EPA does not consider nitrogenous waste (urine and protein) pollution, we will never implement the Clean Water Act, as it was intended. This waste not only, like fecal waste, exerts an oxygen demand, but also is a fertilizer for algae and aquatic plant growth, causing eutrophication and eventually dead zones.
The reason EPA ignored this pollution is caused by a worldwide incorrect applied pollution test, EPA used to implement the Clean Water Act and although EPA in 1984 acknowledged this incorrect use, instead of correcting the test, it allowed an alternative test and thereby officially ignored this type of pollution and by doing so lowered the goal of the CWA from 100% treatment (elimination of all pollution by 1985) to a measly 35% treatment, without even notifying Congress.
Other problems caused by this incorrect applied test are that we do not know the real performance of a sewage treatment plants and have no idea what the effluent waste loading is on receiving water bodies, besides also the possibility that such plants are designed to treat the wrong waste in sewage.
In an attempt to correct its mistake, EPA initiated watershed programs, where all contributing pollution from different runoff sources is established, among others the effluents of sewage treatment plants or also called point-source pollution. Through this program, EPA hoped that much better treatment would be required for what it determined to be secondary treatment.
This program, however, violates the intend of the CWA as Congress demanded the Act to be implemented with a ‘technology-based’ program, demanding ‘best available technology’ and not a ‘water quality-based’ program, whereby effluent standards of sewage treatment plant could be set based on the water quality of receiving water bodies. Such a program, Congress felt, could be easily manipulated by local politicians and would defeat the original intend of the act to set uniform nationwide standards to treat sewage.
Salt Lake County recently published a draft report of such a watershed TMDL study and while it, besides the actual flow rates, monitors ten different chemical analyzes for the non-point sources, it only has two water quality analyses of the effluents of the point sources, while these flows clearly dominate the water quality of the river. Furthermore, since there is no actual flow data for non-point sources, one wonders who one can calculate the TMDL on a river.
If interested in my comments on the study contact me at pmaier@erda.net or if you'd like know about incorrect tests that caused the failure of the CWA, visit my website and read the description of this test (BOD) in the Technical PDF section.
Peter Maier, PhD, PE
As long as EPA does not consider nitrogenous waste (urine and protein) pollution, we will never implement the Clean Water Act, as it was intended. This waste not only, like fecal waste, exerts an oxygen demand, but also is a fertilizer for algae and aquatic plant growth, causing eutrophication and eventually dead zones.
The reason EPA ignored this pollution is caused by a worldwide incorrect applied pollution test, EPA used to implement the Clean Water Act and although EPA in 1984 acknowledged this incorrect use, instead of correcting the test, it allowed an alternative test and thereby officially ignored this type of pollution and by doing so lowered the goal of the CWA from 100% treatment (elimination of all pollution by 1985) to a measly 35% treatment, without even notifying Congress.
Other problems caused by this incorrect applied test are that we do not know the real performance of a sewage treatment plants and have no idea what the effluent waste loading is on receiving water bodies, besides also the possibility that such plants are designed to treat the wrong waste in sewage.
In an attempt to correct its mistake, EPA initiated watershed programs, where all contributing pollution from different runoff sources is established, among others the effluents of sewage treatment plants or also called point-source pollution. Through this program, EPA hoped that much better treatment would be required for what it determined to be secondary treatment.
This program, however, violates the intend of the CWA as Congress demanded the Act to be implemented with a ‘technology-based’ program, demanding ‘best available technology’ and not a ‘water quality-based’ program, whereby effluent standards of sewage treatment plant could be set based on the water quality of receiving water bodies. Such a program, Congress felt, could be easily manipulated by local politicians and would defeat the original intend of the act to set uniform nationwide standards to treat sewage.
Salt Lake County recently published a draft report of such a watershed TMDL study and while it, besides the actual flow rates, monitors ten different chemical analyzes for the non-point sources, it only has two water quality analyses of the effluents of the point sources, while these flows clearly dominate the water quality of the river. Furthermore, since there is no actual flow data for non-point sources, one wonders who one can calculate the TMDL on a river.
If interested in my comments on the study contact me at pmaier@erda.net or if you'd like know about incorrect tests that caused the failure of the CWA, visit my website and read the description of this test (BOD) in the Technical PDF section.
Peter Maier, PhD, PE
Hooray for Newbury! (seriously)
So Newbury has received approval to sell that land they have just lurking around, unused, on Plum Island. Well, part of it, at any rate. There are still a few lots here and there that I assume they can sell for development, or whatever.
What's great is that voters will only allow sale to "governmental entities and non-profit land conservation organizations." Not sure how many non-profit organizations have $5 mil lying around in their coffers, though.
This is from our daily (I just copied the whole piece, since it's short):
NEWBURY — Selectmen can sell a large tract of town-owned Plum Island land, but only under several restrictions, Town Meeting voters decided last week.
By a 77-15 tally, voters approved an article last Tuesday night that would allow the Board of Selectmen to offer a 5.4-acre parcel on Temple Boulevard for sale to "governmental entities and non-profit land conservation organizations." Selectmen Chairman Vincent Russo has estimated the value of the property at more than $5 million.
But voters also approved an amendment proposed by island resident Scott Ackerly that would require Town Meeting authorization before any sale could actually be executed and would also prohibit the town from selling the beachfront and primary dune portions of the land.
Ackerly said he wanted to preserve public access in an area where much of the beachfront is privately owned.
"This is the only piece of property that the town of Newbury owns that guarantees that the people of Newbury can use this beach," he said.
Russo later disputed that statement, contending the town owns the beach from the Newburyport-Newbury line to the border of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.
The parcel town officials want to sell is on the northerly border of the refuge.
Finance Committee Chairman Frank Remley said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an appraisal with an eye toward adding the land to the wildlife sanctuary.
Does this exclude a waste treatment plant? Because that's all we need out here.
Hmmmm ... shall I be picky, or no? OK, you talked me into it.
Is Russo an appraiser? I thought he was a doctor! And what's the deal with reporting something that happened nearly a week ago? Which, of course, has not stopped me from commenting on it.
Anyway, I'm not sure what that Ackerly guy is on about. As I understand it, none of the beach is privately owned. I'm always rampaging all over it and no one yet has told me to cease and desist.
Seriously, though, I'm all for adding onto the refuge. I'm not sure all our plover-tastes-like-chicken friends will agree, though.
What's great is that voters will only allow sale to "governmental entities and non-profit land conservation organizations." Not sure how many non-profit organizations have $5 mil lying around in their coffers, though.
This is from our daily (I just copied the whole piece, since it's short):
NEWBURY — Selectmen can sell a large tract of town-owned Plum Island land, but only under several restrictions, Town Meeting voters decided last week.
By a 77-15 tally, voters approved an article last Tuesday night that would allow the Board of Selectmen to offer a 5.4-acre parcel on Temple Boulevard for sale to "governmental entities and non-profit land conservation organizations." Selectmen Chairman Vincent Russo has estimated the value of the property at more than $5 million.
But voters also approved an amendment proposed by island resident Scott Ackerly that would require Town Meeting authorization before any sale could actually be executed and would also prohibit the town from selling the beachfront and primary dune portions of the land.
Ackerly said he wanted to preserve public access in an area where much of the beachfront is privately owned.
"This is the only piece of property that the town of Newbury owns that guarantees that the people of Newbury can use this beach," he said.
Russo later disputed that statement, contending the town owns the beach from the Newburyport-Newbury line to the border of the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge.
The parcel town officials want to sell is on the northerly border of the refuge.
Finance Committee Chairman Frank Remley said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an appraisal with an eye toward adding the land to the wildlife sanctuary.
Does this exclude a waste treatment plant? Because that's all we need out here.
Hmmmm ... shall I be picky, or no? OK, you talked me into it.
Is Russo an appraiser? I thought he was a doctor! And what's the deal with reporting something that happened nearly a week ago? Which, of course, has not stopped me from commenting on it.
Anyway, I'm not sure what that Ackerly guy is on about. As I understand it, none of the beach is privately owned. I'm always rampaging all over it and no one yet has told me to cease and desist.
Seriously, though, I'm all for adding onto the refuge. I'm not sure all our plover-tastes-like-chicken friends will agree, though.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Wetlands by-law repealed in Salisbury
So according to the Daily News, Salisbury last night voted to repeal its wetlands by-law.
Proponents of the bylaw, including Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Hughes, said the removal of the bylaw would leave property owners at the mercy of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which will oversee wetlands development issues without the buffer the local Conservation Commission could provide.
I'm not clear on what the citizens think will happen (but I'm also not up on rulings by the town's Conservation Commission), but Town Manager had this to say in an earlier story in the DN:
"Eliminating Salisbury's bylaw means that everything at the beach would have to conform to the state's standards," Harrington said. "In the case of paving at the beach, for example — which is a big bone of contention with some people at the beach — if Salisbury's bylaw is eliminated and the Conservation Commission's authority is effaced, paving issues at the beach would go straight to the DEP. And its standards on paving at the beach are more stringent than Salisbury's."
Well, I think folks in Newbury would agree with Harrington's view. The town tussled with the DEP over paving side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project. It seems that this is the central issue: paving at the beach.
Either way, it's kind of disheartening how put-upon local conservation commissions are. My guess is that once residents realize that the DEP is not going to cave, they'll be sorry. And I would think the state will not be happy to have these matters thrown back on the DEP.
But I could be wrong.
Proponents of the bylaw, including Conservation Commission Chairman Tom Hughes, said the removal of the bylaw would leave property owners at the mercy of the state Department of Environmental Protection, which will oversee wetlands development issues without the buffer the local Conservation Commission could provide.
I'm not clear on what the citizens think will happen (but I'm also not up on rulings by the town's Conservation Commission), but Town Manager had this to say in an earlier story in the DN:
"Eliminating Salisbury's bylaw means that everything at the beach would have to conform to the state's standards," Harrington said. "In the case of paving at the beach, for example — which is a big bone of contention with some people at the beach — if Salisbury's bylaw is eliminated and the Conservation Commission's authority is effaced, paving issues at the beach would go straight to the DEP. And its standards on paving at the beach are more stringent than Salisbury's."
Well, I think folks in Newbury would agree with Harrington's view. The town tussled with the DEP over paving side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project. It seems that this is the central issue: paving at the beach.
Either way, it's kind of disheartening how put-upon local conservation commissions are. My guess is that once residents realize that the DEP is not going to cave, they'll be sorry. And I would think the state will not be happy to have these matters thrown back on the DEP.
But I could be wrong.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Pools on Plum Island
In reading the minutes of the Conservation Commission (for the last 9 months), I have come across a statement made at the Aug. 21, 2007, meeting of this body: "in-ground pools are not allowed on Plum Island as they are structures that are placed in the sand."
That's funny - there are 2 in-ground pools within mere yards of where I'm sitting now, which is on my couch. One is right across the street from this cottage.
The other one, located at a house at the end of the next street over, has obviously been there for a long time. This one across the street, though ... guess it's too late for anyone to do anything about it because it's already there.
The applicant to ConCom, by the way, wanted to put a pool in where their septic tank used to be. I don't know what the difference would be. As I have said before, I was amazed at how much concrete and filtering material (part of the leach field) was in the yard of this house - which was crushed and left buried here - while the contractor was hooking the house into the sewer system. Some of the filtering material is sticking up, out of the sand, at the front of the yard. I can't get it out.
And it seems that whatever it was that was making the commode in my bathroom go berserk has been fixed (see my complaint here). That or I'm so used to hearing it that I just don't notice anymore.
That's funny - there are 2 in-ground pools within mere yards of where I'm sitting now, which is on my couch. One is right across the street from this cottage.
The other one, located at a house at the end of the next street over, has obviously been there for a long time. This one across the street, though ... guess it's too late for anyone to do anything about it because it's already there.
The applicant to ConCom, by the way, wanted to put a pool in where their septic tank used to be. I don't know what the difference would be. As I have said before, I was amazed at how much concrete and filtering material (part of the leach field) was in the yard of this house - which was crushed and left buried here - while the contractor was hooking the house into the sewer system. Some of the filtering material is sticking up, out of the sand, at the front of the yard. I can't get it out.
And it seems that whatever it was that was making the commode in my bathroom go berserk has been fixed (see my complaint here). That or I'm so used to hearing it that I just don't notice anymore.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Conservation concerns in Salisbury
I know I'm one of those 'upstarts' who blew in from the big city and think I should spread environmental awareness throughout the land, but honestly!
Now some people in Salisbury want to repeal the town's wetlands bylaw. At least it's not the town wanting to repeal its own bylaws. And,no, I'm not saying that Newbury wants to repeal its wetlands bylaws!
According to the Daily News, Kevin Henderson of 61 Atlantic Ave. and 16 other registered voters filed the petition that appears as Article 22 in hopes of getting voters to repeal the town's wetlands protection bylaw, which was passed on Nov. 27, 1989. The bylaw relates to protection of Salisbury's barrier beach, flood plains, wetlands and aquifer areas.
But the town has stepped up to debunk the myth that eliminating (or scoffing at) local bylaws would be of any use whatsoever.
According to Town Manager Neil Harrington, Salisbury's Conservation Commission is the local enforcement authority for the state of Massachusetts and the state's Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act. Eliminating Salisbury's wetlands bylaw wouldn't dissolve the Conservation Commission, nor eliminate the authority given by the state to enforce conservation laws.
"Eliminating Salisbury's bylaw means that everything at the beach would have to conform to the state's standards," Harrington said. "In the case of paving at the beach, for example — which is a big bone of contention with some people at the beach — if Salisbury's bylaw is eliminated and the Conservation Commission's authority is effaced, paving issues at the beach would go straight to the DEP. And its standards on paving at the beach are more stringent than Salisbury's."
I could insert here stuff about the big fight that Newbury had last year with the DEP over paving the dirt side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project and that asphalt parking lot at PI center (the one that is now filled with sand).
I should note that the much larger Newburport-owned parking lot, at Plum Island point, is paved. It is well back from the water - but it still should be gravel.
But - about that last paragraph from the DN - what is the "bone of contention?" Do the "some people at the beach" want it paved, or not?
Oh, why do I continue to aggravate people? Why can't I be a good little blogger?
Now some people in Salisbury want to repeal the town's wetlands bylaw. At least it's not the town wanting to repeal its own bylaws. And,no, I'm not saying that Newbury wants to repeal its wetlands bylaws!
According to the Daily News, Kevin Henderson of 61 Atlantic Ave. and 16 other registered voters filed the petition that appears as Article 22 in hopes of getting voters to repeal the town's wetlands protection bylaw, which was passed on Nov. 27, 1989. The bylaw relates to protection of Salisbury's barrier beach, flood plains, wetlands and aquifer areas.
But the town has stepped up to debunk the myth that eliminating (or scoffing at) local bylaws would be of any use whatsoever.
According to Town Manager Neil Harrington, Salisbury's Conservation Commission is the local enforcement authority for the state of Massachusetts and the state's Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act. Eliminating Salisbury's wetlands bylaw wouldn't dissolve the Conservation Commission, nor eliminate the authority given by the state to enforce conservation laws.
"Eliminating Salisbury's bylaw means that everything at the beach would have to conform to the state's standards," Harrington said. "In the case of paving at the beach, for example — which is a big bone of contention with some people at the beach — if Salisbury's bylaw is eliminated and the Conservation Commission's authority is effaced, paving issues at the beach would go straight to the DEP. And its standards on paving at the beach are more stringent than Salisbury's."
I could insert here stuff about the big fight that Newbury had last year with the DEP over paving the dirt side streets on Plum Island as part of the water/sewer project and that asphalt parking lot at PI center (the one that is now filled with sand).
I should note that the much larger Newburport-owned parking lot, at Plum Island point, is paved. It is well back from the water - but it still should be gravel.
But - about that last paragraph from the DN - what is the "bone of contention?" Do the "some people at the beach" want it paved, or not?
Oh, why do I continue to aggravate people? Why can't I be a good little blogger?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Garbage Island
Leading up to Earth Day, I'm going to try and find environment-related stories on which to comment. This one struck me, big time:
I came across an alarming video/report on the CNN website. Apparently there is this large area of plastic floating in one remote part of the Pacific Ocean. It has a name: Garbage Island.
It seems that in this area, northeast of Hawaii, conditions are such that boats don't really go there - what does go there is plastic of all descriptions. It gets caught in the swirling water where there is little wind and just stays there. The 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' is now twice the size of Texas.
As if that weren't bad enough, the report says, the plastic photodegrades. It's still plastic, but it breaks into little pieces. It makes the water look like the inside of a snow globe.
These little pieces, it continues, are gobbled up by small fish. The cycle continues until we get to the part where we humans have a nice piece of fish on our plate.
Eighty percent of the garbage found in the ocean comes from the land.
I have just one word for you: recycle.
I came across an alarming video/report on the CNN website. Apparently there is this large area of plastic floating in one remote part of the Pacific Ocean. It has a name: Garbage Island.
It seems that in this area, northeast of Hawaii, conditions are such that boats don't really go there - what does go there is plastic of all descriptions. It gets caught in the swirling water where there is little wind and just stays there. The 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' is now twice the size of Texas.
As if that weren't bad enough, the report says, the plastic photodegrades. It's still plastic, but it breaks into little pieces. It makes the water look like the inside of a snow globe.
These little pieces, it continues, are gobbled up by small fish. The cycle continues until we get to the part where we humans have a nice piece of fish on our plate.
Eighty percent of the garbage found in the ocean comes from the land.
I have just one word for you: recycle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
