Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
December 12, 2005
Someone! Venice's sinking! Do something.
Venezia, as it is said in Italian…It is the Queen of the Adriatic, city of canals and palaces. It is a city that once ago was build up by merchants and sellers. One each four corners of the city is surrounded by water. This city is full of riches ness and devotion from its people. It has withstood the brick of time, through hard and tantrum times. It has a long history and doubly future, but the air in this city is delicate and melancholy. For thousands of years this city was one of the most enduring mercantile sea powers on the face of the earth. Today its brilliance and influence have long since faded, leaving behind a town of tarnished glories, out of time and out of place, so achingly beautiful it's hard not to look for the back of the set. New facts point out that Venice is sinking at alarming rate. This ancient city is sitting on wooden pillars that are pounded into marshy grounds by architects that have live centuries ago. It has sunk about 7 cm a century for the past 1000 years and just in the last 100 years; it has been sinking at the alarming rate of 24 cm. There is a controversial plan name Moses that involves a number of moveable dams and also a plan to reduce the water flooding the city. The project is about $4 billion and it started out in 1966, when a massive flood flooded the St. Mark Square. Without the fact of having bridges and dams, the city is so vulnerable on floods and tides. This project was started by a professor and an engineer at the University of Padua. His name is Gambolati and along with his crew, they are considering to inject sea water to raise the city about 30 cm and rescue it from the tides. The project would require digging holes about 12 of them about 30 cm in diameter and 10km area around the city. To pump the water about 700 meters deep. The sea water would make the sand that is underneath to expand because the group will use waterproof clay to help push the soil. This is the explanation that the professor gives on the project. The estimated cost is about $17 million. He explains that he plans to test his theory by testing a small area at first. The project will need to be approved by the city council and the major. As of the present time, it is only in the beginning phase and also needs to pass to the state commissions before making legal. The final version will be called “Moses” and along with it a flood barrier would also be build to help ease the tension of the tides. The name “Moses” was taken from the Biblical figure that parted the Red Sea and because of the slitting of the water and the building of the dams, that’s why they’ve decided on this name. Much high place society’s city’s figures such as the president of the New Venice Consortiu (the agency that helps out with the project) said that this plan that needs careful testing and it needs to be checked very thoroughly. Venice is a very delicate and soft space and it should be elevated in a different way…that what he said…or the city would crumble. But according to Gambolati, the project will not affect the city’s stability. This project can be considered as a step towards elevating and helping a city that throughout many centuries has lacked the help and need to be saved.
Posted by Andreea Grigore Grigore at 09:05 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
December 09, 2005
Someone! Venice’s sinking! Do Something.
Not only is Venice sinking, but it’s surrounding land is sinking as well. Though this is not new news, there are some interesting tactics being considered to save this international treasure. Are these innovative approaches worth the risk of possible destruction in a historical city?
The current anthropogenic subsidence of the land in the Zennare Basin surrounding Venice city is 1.5 to 2 cm per year. (Gambolati et. al 2005) This is largely due to bio-oxidation of organic rich peat layers, which naturally decompose at a rate that is increased with agricultural nutrification and water level increase from agricultural drainage. Venice currently has sunk about one foot in the last 300 years and is in jeopardy of flooding from high tides and floods which threaten to drown the landmark city. (U.S. Water News)
The current approach to remediation of these issues is a $5.2 billion project attempting to build large gates which will act as a flood barrier for high tide conditions.(U.S. Water News) Though this approach was approved in 2003 a new approach to directly save Venice from its current condition is being proposed. Project head Giuseppe Gambolati and his group of engineers are “considering injecting seawater under Venice to raise the waterlogged Italian city by one foot to rescue it from the tides and floods.”(Gambolati et. al 2005) This extreme hydrological alteration may have large impacts on both the hydrology and the geology of the city and the local area. The current approach to slow the subsidence of the Zennare Basin is to implement conservation soil practices for agricultural land use, implement cover crops in times of bare soils, and manage the level of the water table to keep the levels low and the bio-oxidation at a manageable rate.
Currently, professional dispute of the effectiveness in the seawater injection results exists. Professor of geotechnic engineering at Turin Polytechnic, Michele Jamiolkowski, fears that only half of the projected height gain will be obtained and the possibility of uneven rise as well as other unknown repercussions may tear the city apart.
Difficulties with water table regulation due to fluxes in precipitation are also current concerns about effectively regulating the Zennare Basin drainage discharge.
The approaches being considered for these problems shows innovation as well as solid scientific principal. The largest question is the possibilities of implementation problems such as uneven distribution of the water and uneven land elevation. Agricultural conservation has little possibility of undesired alterations to height levels, but water table management should be done with great care. The risks to the city of Venice should be studied carefully before any action is taken. A mistake on this magnitude would doubtfully be acceptable to any historical preservation entity.
Reference
Gambolati G., Putii M., Teatini P., Camporese M., Ferraris S., Gasparetto G., Nicoletti V., Silvestri S., Rizzetto F., and Tosi, L.(2005) Peat Land Oxidation Enhances Subsidence in the Venice Watershed: EOS Vol. 86, Numb. 23, June 7 pg. 217
U.S. Water News Online (Nov. 2005) New idea proposes to inject seawater to raise Venice: http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcglobal/5newxidea11.html
Posted by Jason Carlson at 01:39 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
December 07, 2005
Integrated Pest Management
We had a section in our book a while ago that covered Integrated Pest Management and at the time I was so impacted by how finite our current methods are and what promise IPM holds. I think one of the most dramatic aspects of the subject is the exponential growth of insect species since we started using pesticides in the 1940's. We are creating a huge monster that we will not be able to control in the future. Farmers are forced to use ever increasing doses and more toxic chemicals to control pests. I'm sure that when we started using pesticides we had no idea the consequences, the envrionment is extremely dynamic and responsive, a point well illustrated in a quote from John Muir stating " When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it is hitched to everything else in the universe.".
Now that we are on the otherside, and can see the harm and misuse of pesticides, we must respond responsibly. Pesticides are clearly a nonrenewable resource, of wihich we must use sparingly, and as a last resort. Pesticides have a negative effect in that application procedures puts only 10-25% of pesticides onto the target species. The rest is damaging and killing the other species who might be keeping the population under control. As soon as the predators are gone, the suvivors of the prey are left to flourish unheeded into a chemically resistant population.
This is a vicious cycle that needs to stop. IPM has been used successfully in many developing countries. Cuba has gone almost completely organic in thier farming practices. In Indonesia, our worst fear came true in that the main pest to their rice crops became resistant to almost every insecticide out there. They were desperate to protect their independence on the crop, so the president took drastic measures. He banned 56/57 pesticides, and set up a crash course on the dangers of pesticides and the processes of IPM to farmers. They were able to cut pesticide use by 75%. The extremely complelling evidence though, is that even though IPM is a more sustainable, envrionmentally friendly method, it does not hinder profit. The Indonesian farmers only had to spend 2.5 rupiah compared to 7.5, while the government also only had to pay 2.5 rupiah compared to 27.5. On top of costing less, the IPM system produced 7.5 tons of rice compared to only 6 tons with the old syslem.
We need to educate farmers on not only the ecological benefits of more sustainable practices, but that it pads their bottom line as well. In every example we have looked at in class, the up front cost may be more, but the profit is always greater in the end for the sustainable method.
This is an issue that effects us all and needs to be addressed. There are many harmful health effects to humans from pesticides besides just the harm to the environment. If we want there to be a future, its clear that we need to return to our past.
Posted by Lindsey Hatz at 09:29 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
ANWR; are we willing to give it up?
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, consisting of 19.6 million acres of land located in the northeastern corner of Alaska, is one of the only land areas on American soil to remain almost untouched by the graples of our society. This area boasts a rich diversity of endemic habitat and wildlife, such as Dall Sheep, muskoxen, wolf, and wolverine. Coexisting with these animals and the habitat are the Gwich'in people who have lived in harmony with this area for hundreds of generations. The !.5 million acres of coastal plains of the ANWR, otherwise know as the 1002 area, is the most biologically productive part of the refuge, and is also highly rich in mineral resources such as crude oil. The richness in wildlife and mineral resources of this small area has brought about much controversy between environmentalist and our government on whether to drill or not to drill this area for oil. The governmental push to drill oil from our own land has become exceedingly a forerunner in congressional issues due to the rapid increase of oil demand in our country and the lack of supply coming from our various exporters. The jump in gas prices at the pump has given us as citizens a voice to even push government officials further in their choice to become less dependent on foreign oil companies which would enable the U.S to lower taxation on oil being used for gasoline. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has proposed a 95 percent probability of removing zero to 6 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the 1002 area. The only problem with this amount of estimated attainable oil (according to the National Wildlife Federation) in contrast to the estimated 7.1 billion barrels of oil that the U.S consumes annually, is it would only support the U.S on an average of six months. The question then that remains is whether the "serengeti beauty" of the ANWR area is worth giving up to only be destroyed by roads, human developement, driling riggs, and pipelines for a measly six months worth of oil. After the oil is removed, will this fragile biological heart ever return back to its rich ecosystem. Some researchers from the class text insist that further developing the fuel efficiency of automobiles around the country just a few more miles could save us more oil than the combined reserve of oil in the ANWR! All in all the ANWR area is one or our last pristine wilderness areas, but the compelling idea of drilling this area and removing our country from foriegn oil dependency is a controversy in itself. Where do we draw the line ethically. For as chief joseph once saidl, "Man did not weave the web of life-he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."
Posted by Hannah Gruber at 11:48 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Motorized Recreation is degrading to the Environment
I firmly believe that most Americans have no idea how much our long term survival depends on the survival of our natural environment. Having said that, I think it's imperative that we (the government or interest groups etc.) build an awareness of any and all things or beings impacting our environment negatively. Certainly we allow the negative aspects of industries such as cattle and oil because they feed us and keep us warm. Should we allow the degradation of land and water for the sake of overgrown kids? In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court gave the following description of off-road vehicle use on federal land: Conflicts are occurring due to the recreational use of so-called off-road vehicles which include vehicles primarily designed for off-road use, such as light weight, four wheel "all-terrain" vehicles and vehicles capables of such use, such as sport utility vehicles. Some states include motorbikes, motorized watercraft, snowmobiles and certain aircraft.
Competing interests between those that would preserve the environment and those that would allocate millions of miles of wilderness to off-road use are in conflict more now that ever. What are the issues? According to Jan Laitos and Rachel B. Reiss authors of the article "Recreation wars for our natural resources. (Public Lands Management at the Crossroads: Balancing Interests in the 21st Century) the use of off-road vehicles on federal land has negative environmental consequences, including soil disruption and compaction, harassment of animals and annoyance of wilderness lovers. They insist that the Bureau of Land Management faces a classic land use dilemma of sharply inconsistent uses, with notably scarce resources and obvious congressional silence with respect to wilderness designation. The BLM is having problems with ORV as well. Lisa Schiffman author of Archaeology, Off-road Vehicles, and the BLM (Archaeology http://www.archaeology.org) reports and incident whereby not was fragile desert landscape scarred probably for years by eight men riding quad runners for several hours, (ignoring government signs) but they left behind trash and ran over and ruined three archaeological sites. This happened in a small southeastern town in Utah but it's happening al over the southwest. Despite a report to the BLM office, Lisa says in her article that nothing was done. Sand dunes on public land are places that appeal to motor sports users says Franklin Seal, Outreach Coordinator for the Southern Utah Wildernes Alliance. He says technology has made ORVs into a powerful mode of transportation designed to go over rough landscape. "They can be customized and go over four foot boulders and can crush trees" says Seal. Well certainly there are those that feel motorized recreation belongs in the back country . Dave Skinner is the author of an article by the same name. He is a contributor to Writers on the Range. "Motorized Recreation Belongs in the Back Country" (Blue Ribbon Magazine http://www.sharetrails.org) is the article in which he speaks passionately of his off-road life style and his plan to fight for his right to continue using motorized recreation vehicles. He is furius that Dale Bosworth speaking for the Forest Service said that ORV use alone affects more imperiled species than logging and logging roads combined. Mr. Skinner states that since that statement he has pretty much declare war on environmentalists. "Selfish environmentalists seem to think"multiple use" means two people hiking the same trail. They want to get rid of logging, mining, cattle and any recreation that doesn't meet their pristine standards".
In closing, I realize that millions ofAmericans visit our beautiful public lands and water every year and surely the majority feel there could be some type of balance between different types of users. But even putting a canoe in lake requires a little skill and hikers need to stay on the path if we have any regard at all for the connection and interdependency nature has to us and we have to nature . I say to those that would bring their over priced motorized, loud, destructive toys out to play on public land; you're not welcome!
Posted by Ramona Beard at 09:59 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
November 10, 2005
Nevada Wilderness Project
I recently had a talk with a friend of mine, Erika Pollard, who has a bachelors degree in Natural Resources Management with a minor in Wildlife Biology from Colorado State University. She received her Masters degree in Conservation Biology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Erika has had various jobs in the conservation field.
She has been currently employed with the Nevada Wilderness Project for the last five years. For four years, she was the Conservation Director and for the past year she has been the National Outreach Director working mainly on fundraising. The organization works to protect Nevadas remaining wild places as legal Wilderness the highest level of protection public lands can receive.
I asked her opinion as to what is currently the biggest danger to Nevadas wilderness.
Erika: The biggest threat to public lands in Nevada outside of the development taking place near the populated areas of the state (Las Vegas and Reno) is irresponsible off-road vehicle use.
Brooke: How long has this been a substantial problem?
Erica: Over the past decade, there has been a huge increase in the number of people traveling around the state to ride their off-road vehicles on public lands around Nevada.
Brooke: Do you think banning off-road vehicles in these areas would solve the problem?
Erika: Many of the people riding off-road vehicles do so responsibly and remain on designated vehicle routes; there are those people who decide to create their own routes by riding off the designated routes and going cross-country. The impact to the landscape and wildlife of this type of use can be devastating. Some of the impacts of irresponsible off-road vehicle use include the creation of an excessive number of trails (often leading to nowhere or into the heart of remote, wild landscapes), fragmenting wildlife habitat, destroying native vegetation, causing the destruction of important ecological communities including riparian areas, and it can lead to harassment of wildlife and domestic livestock.
Brooke: What is a feasible solution?
Erika: Designating Nevadas remaining truly wild places as legal Wilderness would limit the use of off-road vehicles to designated open vehicle routes. Off-road vehicle use is not allowed within a Wilderness unless the boundary of the area is defined by an open vehicle route or the area includes a cherrystem, which is a vehicle route going into the Wilderness that off-road vehicles can drive on, but are not allowed to leave.
Erika told me that many of the people who use off-road vehicles in these areas are hunters. I know that hunters generally tend to be very conscientious about how they treat the habitats they go into; besides their innate love of nature they know that destroying a creatures natural habitat will lead to the destruction of the sport they love.
I believe that the core of this problem, like so many of the environmental issues in America today, is that people are not conscious of the impact that they are having on the environment. I think that Americans can be self-centered people who have a hard time envisioning the long term damage that we are doing to the Earth. Our rugged individualism is both a source of strength and destruction.
I agree with Erika that the areas in danger should be designated as legal wilderness because it would allow a compromise between the off-roaders and environmentalists. People could still use the designated paths to enjoy nature but the designation would be a not so subtle reminder of how to do so respectfully. As she mentioned in the beginning of the interview the largest danger to wilderness is human expansion. I believe that so much land is being turned into cities/suburbs that we should be careful of the limited resource that wilderness provides us.
Posted by Brooke Anderson at 12:22 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
November 09, 2005
Amboseli National Park Goes Local
Information about the turnover of control of the Amboseli National Park was taken from a Science Magazine article published last month, Kenya National Park Transfer Under Fire, written by Constance Holden. (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/1007/3)
Last month, the Amboseli National Park in Kenya was turned over to local control. Before discussing this issue it is important to note Amboseli Parks qualities. Started as a wildlife reserve, the 5,000 square kilometer park provides an ecosystem for many endangered species, such as elephants and zebras. In addition, Kenya makes several million dollars in ecotourism to Amboseli National Park each year. With such multifaceted value in keeping Amboseli Park pristine, why might Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki want to give control of it over to locals? Largely, it is a political move to satisfy the Maasai people living near Amboseli Park in the Kajaido region. The Maasai people worry that they will lose land in the upcoming vote on a new constitution for Kenya, so, to appease, Kibaki gave control over to the county and allowed the Maasai to let their cattle graze in the Amboseli land.
This political move will mean dire consequences for Kenya's economy and Amboseli wildlife. Kenya is an especially important host of endangered species in that it hosts species that fit all of the four categories (keystone, indicator, umbrella, and flagship) a species can be in to warrant protection (Environmental Science, Cunningham, 232). For example, the lions living in Amboseli Park are a keystone species (important to an ecosystem), an umbrella species (requiring a large amount of undisturbed land), and a flagship species (interesting or attractive to humans). The loss of species of these last two categories would especially threaten the Amboseli Park and the Kenyan economy, respectively. Umbrella species would find themselves competing with cattle for food (or be shot for approaching them), and would likely be isolated to small areas of land in which their population could not thrive. Flagship species would threaten the Kenyan economy because they are the main reason people visit the Amboseli Parktourists want to see unique creatures. This has already become evident: Director of the Amboseli Elephant Research Project Cynthia Moss, who has been tracking Amboseli's elephants, says the tourists are already complaining that they didn't spend several hundreds of dollars a day to come to Africa to look at cattle (Kenya National Park Transfer Under Fire, Constance Holden).
The Maasai people deserve to be allowed land for agriculture and cattle-grazing, as well. Kenya is a nation suffering from much starvation and more land for agriculture and cattle-grazing may help prevent malnutrition (if the food produced does indeed go to those who need it). If more land is to be used for this purpose, however, the Amboseli Park is not the place to do it. The Amboseli is an undisturbed habitat holding many endangered species, the importance of which is not fully understood but would be lost if the Amboseli were fragmented. As William Cunningham says in our class textbook, Undisturbed ecosystems often survive extended droughts with little damage, but introduction of domestic animals and agriculture disrupts native vegetation and undermines natural adaptations to low moisture levels (Environmental Science, 361-362). Instead, land being developed for more roads and housing may be better put to agricultural use in order to feed the starving population. The political purpose discussed earlier for the transfer of control is not entirely arbitrary either. In the transition from rural to urban land, many people like the Maasai have been removed from their lands to make way for roads, foresting, and even to build national parks. The fear that the Maasai people have that they will lose land is, therefore, understandable. They should not lose their land. To give them more land, however, which is essentially happening by turning control over to the Kajaido county, does not make sense, though, except within the realm of politics and persuasion.
Posted by Joe Norcross at 09:31 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Supersized America
A recent article in the Star Tribune commented on Americas obsession with buying big. In particular buying large SUVs and even larger homes. The articles focus was on a family who decided to purchase a large home in a newer housing developing outside of the metro area. Now, however, they are forced to pay the high energy costs needed to heat and cool the home, as well as buy the expensive gas for their SUV to drive longer distances to work. They now regret purchasing their large home and wish they had instead went smaller. The main idea of the article was the womans response that America was piggy and we are using and consuming to no end.
This article was consequently discussed on a local radio talk show (KFAN). It was argued that if individuals can afford to purchase these large homes and SUVs then they should be able to purchase what they can afford. People should not be restricted in what they can afford to purchase and likewise others should not force their opinions on what people size house people should buy or what size SUV they should buy. In essence, Americans are fortunate that they have the freedom to choose where they want to live, what size home to live in, and what car to buy. Paying the high costs for these homes and large vehicles is only up to those who choose to live in this manner and should be of no consequence to others who may choose not to live so spendthrifty.
Taking a more environmental approach, maybe, restriction should be placed on where people live, home sizes, and what vehicle they drive. The Star Tribune, states that home sizes have increased from 963 square feet in 1950 to 2,400 square feet today. However, household sizes have decreased. What does one to with the extra space and is it really needed. Energy prices to heat the home have increased substantially this year alone. CenterPoint Energys comment was that energy prices in October alone were 77% higher than last October. We have not even reached the cold weather yet. More money is spent heating and cooling these homes. More importantly, however, is that more energy is needed and consumed to heat and cool these large homes. In addition, large homes and new housing developments with large square foot homes consume more land which may originally been forests, grassland, or agriculture land. Whole ecosystems may be destroyed to provide people with excessive space. These new housing developments may be built on land outside of metro areas, causing homeowners to commute longer to work. Star Tribune stated that most Americans spend an additional 25 minutes getting to work and they generally drive to work alone. Not only do more roads need to be built to accommodate these additional commuters, which also consumes land, but the longer commuting to work supplies the air with more pollution.
Restricting vehicles, areas for homes, and home sizes is not really feasible, however. Legislation concerning these issues will not fly in Congress. People still will build massive homes and buy Hummers and for them the environment may just be an afterthought rather than a personal responsibility. That should, however, be a focus people should be taught that what they do and what they purchase has consequences and not just on the environment. I learn very little about the environment in every day life. Therefore, I feel providing individuals with a little education on the environment, and how it really affects them, can help people learn responsibility and take personal responsibility for the choices they make, which may in turn reduce the consumptive choices they make.
References
Powell, J. Living largeand paying big. Star Tribune. November 5, 2005.
Posted by Shannon Sellnow at 08:53 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Smart Growth in the Twin Cities
Smart Growth has been offered up as a way to cut down on the impact of urban sprawl. The main philosophy driving smart growth is to create a community that strategically plans its footprint so that it can have the most environmental and community benefits. There are many ways that communities can incorporate this into their plans, the one way that seems to work best is to offer incentives for developers to use smart growth methods. On smartgrowth.com they feature the Twin Cities as a community that is offering incentives for development that follows and incorporates smart growth idealogy. Principles that allow developers access to grants are: Includes Mixed Land Uses,Exhibits Compact Building Design, Provides Range of Housing Types, Promotes ''Walkable'' Neighborhoods
Exhibits a Distinct Sense of Place, Preserves Open Space, Utilizes Existing Development, Provides Transportation Choices, Practices Fair Decision-making, and Promotes Stakeholder Participation.
As was mentioned in a previous entry, the unbridled growth of suburbia is something that can't easily be stopped and most likely won't be stopped. However I believe that using the ideals of smart growth would allow for better development. Smarter development, and development that cuts down on pollution and other negative impacts on the environment. The problem is, as usual, funding such a feat, and second getting people to go along with it. There are people who don't agree with smart growth and the limits it would place on development. But the bigger problem is what are we going to do in lieu of smart growth. If something isn't done soon then the damage caused to valuable resources may become irreversible.
Posted by Jake Soika at 08:20 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Problems from Mining
This summer I interned with the Oklahoma branch of the USGS. During this time, I had the opportunity to visit Tar Creek, a Superfund site in Ottawa County in the far northeastern part of Oklahoma. Tar Creek has been an area of significant controversy and concern for many years. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, for over 100 years, this area had been mined for lead and zinc. The crude ore in this area is extremely poor, containing 4-6% lead and zinc combined. The leftover ore, about 95%, was discarded on the surface in chat piles and large flotation ponds, and even when these piles were re-milled, the tailings still contained 10% lead and 25% zinc. About 5,000 surface acres in this area are covered with forms of these tailings. Large parts of towns are built on lands that were formally mill ponds, flotation ponds, or chat piles. Flotation ponds cover 8000 acres, and 75 million tons of chat still remain on the surface. When the mining industry started in Ottawa County, miners most likely did not know the negative effects the ore would have on the environment. They were trying to find something to do with the tailings while mining and piling it in piles and in flotation ponds seemed like a good solution. This is cheaper for the mining companies; the miners were just doing the job they were assigned to do in the most profitable fashion, and removing the waste as easily as possible. In Tar Creeks case though, the waste, together with collapsing shafts, was what caused the damage. This history has led to many problems for this area. The USGS has found that this area is saturated with groundwater, and because of this, water had to constantly be pumped from extensive underground working sites. After these sites were abandoned, the chat piles and underground mine networks filled with water. When the piles filled over the level of the surrounding ground, water began to seep from the sides. The tailings still contain lead and zinc, and when the water begins to run from the piles, it is contaminated with metals. Sometimes the metals are in such high concentrations that the seepage and streams in the area actually run a red-orange, rusty color from the acid mine water. Hundreds of dangerous and deteriorating open mineshafts dot the landscape, resulting in threatening sinkholes. One of the main problems though is the percentages of children affected by lead. Some towns according to government provided medical testing, such as Pitcher and Cardin, had 36% and 64% of the children testing positive for lead poisoning respectively. Although Tar Creek is an extreme case, it still represents the potential devastation mining, and ill-practiced land usage in general, can have on the environment. Many people concern themselves purely on the economic gains they will receive from the land and do not go through adequate measures to ensure the protection of the environment. As seen through Tar Creek, by not employing these protection techniques, both the environment and the Ottawa County community suffered. Not only was there initial contamination through runoff, but this ran into streams and eventually found its way to the watershed. With lead being one of the main contaminants, this causes even more devastation through lead poisoning, and potential learning disabilities in children. With the worlds populations increasing as rapidly as they are, water needs are rising and people are getting their water from more questionable watersheds. Protection measures and restrictions need to be implemented to guarantee that all possible water is available for the increasing populations. Although conditions around this area have improved, and now according to Government funded medical testing only 2% as opposed to above 30%, of the children show signs of lead poisoning, avoiding these problems in the first place would have been a better option. Tar Creek should be a warning for future projects, in order to save money, time, clean water supplies, and essentially, the environment.
My information came from various site and my experience this summer
http://www.ucc.org/disaster/d030204.htm
http://inhofe.senate.gov/superfund1.pdf
http://www.health.state.ok.us/PROGRAM/envhlth/sites/ottawa.html
Posted by Abigail Tomasek at 12:52 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
November 08, 2005
forests for their own sake
As human beings most people believe that we are intitled to do anything that we want with the land, with the animals, with the air and water. We control everything, everything is here for our use. Im sorry but people that think that way are increadably closed minded and self centered. I personally have never been to the rainforest, In my life time I hope that someday I will make it there and I hope that it will still be there by that time. The rainforest is disappearing and inceasing rates and to that I ask why. Why is it our right as human beings to screw with something like that? We need paper, we need space to grow our McDonalds hambergers. On the other hand some people say that we need to save the rainforests so that we can uses its resources. There are plants and animals found in the rainforest that can not be found anywhere else in the world. There could be unlimited medical discovories, from these exotic species. We need to save this land so that it can sequester the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so that global climate can stabilize. My question is why do we need all of these reasons to save forests. Why do people care about something only if it effects them directly, why cant we just leave the forests the way they are for the sake of the forests.
The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.
Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.amazonfoundation.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1000)
"We sing for the future of our grandchildren," said Kate Chung, a member of the Grannies, a group that tackles social issues. "For all the grandchildren, we'd like to have a better world for them."(http://www.ran.org/news/newsitem.php?id=1665&area=news)
Posted by Kacy Bobzien at 02:28 PM | Comments (2) | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
October 20, 2005
Invasive Species
With the most reason warm days, there has been a large inclrease in the number of Asian Lady Beatles. This made me think about the other invasive species in the area, and the need to control such species in order to preserve the natural ecology of this area. One of the biggest concerns of Minnesota invasive species is earthworms, because originally we had no terrestial worms, but now because of fishing we have 15 non-native varieties. A study done by the University of Minnesota has shown that at least 7 species of worms have invaded our hardwood forests and causing the loss of tree seedlings, wildflowers, and ferns. This in turn has reduced habitat for ground dwelling animals that rely on ferns for cover. Minnesota has many other species that are widespread throught the state, and are working to control the populations.
However, we are not limited to the invasive species already in Minnesota, and are looking for ways in order to prevent others from entering the state. An example of this is the Asain Carp, and the Minnesota DNR, Wisconsin DNR, and the "USFWS" have helped fund the research. Through this research they have developed a few different techniques that may slow or stop the movement of the carp into Minnesota waters. The methods devised include creating material barriers to stop movement northwards, use electronic pulses to deter fish from swimming up river, and using bubbles and audio to deter fish from moving north. The USFWS believes that these methods will at least slow the carp, and hopes that we can solve the problem in the time bought by this method.
Posted by Bryan Stramer at 08:01 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Urban Sprawl
Since our classroom discussion reguarding land use and urban sprawl on Thursday, October 13, I have been quite interested in this issue. I am from Albertville, Minnesota, which is part of Wright country. Wright county is not part of the seven-county Twin-Cities metropolitan area, so it was not included in the statistics that we looked at in class.
I was curious, so I looked up demographics of Wright County and found that population went from 68,710 residents in 1990 to 89,986 residents in 2000. This is a population growth of 21, 276 and a 31 percentage change over ten years. In comparison, the average population change over this ten year period for the seven-county Metro area was 15.44. Also, when compared to the top 10 growth communities in the metro area in 2000, Albertville fell just below Woodbury(#1).
Looking at these statistics, it concerns me how much Wright county has grown in the last ten years, especially considering that it is not technically part of the Twin Cities metro area. However, it is the next community past the Metro area to the northwest. I imagine that if our urban sprawl has already found its way past the metro area to the northwest, it is probably doing the same in other directions around the Twin Cities.
The communte to Albertville from the cities without rush hour takes about 45 minutes, and during rush hour, the communte is much longer. On a recent visit home, I was shocked to see how much of the two towns of St. Michael and Albertville have been developed. These are new, huge family homes, and I imagine that many of the new residents make some sort of commute to get to work each day. Thinking of just the environment alone, we now have more families living farther from the cities, more commuters driving further to work, more gas being used, and more emissions and pollution.
Another effect that I have also noticed is the use of land within my town. There are patches of wilderness/wetland/water bodies dispersed throughout the town, which have caused 'problems' for some deveopers. In a few cases, they built around the wetland, preserving only to increase the value of the houses being built. Our mall parking lot was actually built around a body of water. Although the mall has not had major problems yet, certain neighborhoods were flooded during a major storm a few summers ago. This was caused by the natural habitat of the water bodies and the natural drainage or the area being altered. Had the developer not changed the land terrain to build or if the developer had attempted to maintain more of the natural landscape, the flood probably wouldn't have destroyed so many residents' houses and property.
Altogether, looking at my town and those around mine, it doesn't look like development is going to slow down anytime soon. What is important for the environment with the continutation of sprawl is that residents consider closely their effect on the environment and the distance they drive to work. Carpooling will have to become more popular, and many may need to drive more efficient cars. Developers will also have to carefully consider the effects of changing and altering the areas surrounding biomes in the area.
www.metrocouncil.org
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/Cen2000redistricting/Cen00ctypopr.html
Posted by Jacquelyn Wallerius at 08:16 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Australia = nuclear waste dump of the world?!?
As I was reading through the chapters in our environmental science book, I began to question my number one factor concerning the world: pollution. I wondered; where does the pollution go? Although we learned in grade school that pollution is buried deep in a landmine, we never learn WHERE exactly these craters of pollution exist or if it is possible for humans to directly come in contact with the destructive mass of pollution. Searching for the answers to these questions, I found an article in the news (http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051003/full/437799b.html) closely related to my questions. According to the article, Robert Hawke, the former prime minister of Australia, believes Australia should become an "international repository for nuclear waste." Due to the high supply of uranium, Hawke believes Australia must aid in disposing the waste.
Those in agreement with Hawke argue that shipping waste to Australia would boost the economy in that overseas nuclear-power users would be forced to pay in order to ship waste to the "sparsely populated" areas of Western Australia. "It would be an enormous source of income that we could use to address our own environmental problems" states Hawke. Activists propose that the topography of Australia makes it a perfect area for waste disposal. However, the dumping of wastes in Australia is highly unlikely due to the lack of political support because the federal government is already in disagreement about where to place the small nuclear waste of their nation, much less the waste of the entire developing world.
Although it seems necessary to remove nuclear waste from populated, urban areas of the world, I do not think placing the entire world's nuclear waste in one continent will fix the problem. In addition to the danger of transporting the nuclear waste overseas, we must also worry about the livelihood of the citizens of Australia. Although the disposing of waste in Australia may "boost the economy," it seems that it would highly decrease the quality of life. We must also think about the habitat in which the government would be destroying in order to store the nuclear waste. Forests, grasslands and wetlands would all be sacrificed in order to discard the pollution of the modern world. I was both shocked and appalled by this article. Why should we sacrifice our natural habitats in order to get rid of nuclear waste? What is the environment really worth to us?!? With these questions in mind, I sincerely hope the government decides NOT to dispose of waste in Australia in order to save the natural habitat living there.
Posted by ~maggie~ at 02:55 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Vegetarianism and the environment
While reading chapter 9 in our environmental science text book I came across a section that brought up the issue of the way pigs, chickens and cows were raised in order to increase productivity. Many animals were given hormones and steroids to increase rate of growth, animals were kept penned up to increase the amount of fat within the meat which is more desirable for consumers. As a meat eater myself it never crossed my mind how animals were raised before consumption. Regardless of the ethical treatment of animals I thought long and hard about the food and agricultural side of becoming a vegitarian. Would a reduction in meat consumption reduce my intake of harmful hormones and steroids given to the animals? Am I better off consuming pesticides that remain on fruits and vegetables? Scientists say that consuming fruits, vegetables and grains directly is more efficient to humans then feeding it to animals and consuming them. Using land for growing plants for consumption will leave the land far less harmed then if it was used for animal agriculture. In South America the main cause of deforestation is due to animal agriculture. After becoming more educated on the environmental externalities of animal agriculture it makes me think twice about the way our land is being used for raising animals for human consumption. I believe this land could be better used for growing highly nutritious fruits, vegetables and grains that are much better for the human body then animal products.
Posted by Elizabeth Spencer at 01:10 AM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
October 19, 2005
HFRA healthy or not healthy?
I was thoroughly disappointed in the confidence I initially had in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act President Bush signed on Dec. of 2003. This act was introduced to provide, "improved statutory processes for hazardous fuel reduction projects on at risk National Forest System, and Bureau of Land Management lands.". I sadely understated some of the underlying conflicts involved in this act. I don't disagree with the basis of this act highlighting the changes that need to be made to the "leave the woods alone" forest magement policy that has been in place for years. Reducing small natural forest fires due to human habitation moving into or near national forests, has caused forest to become as much as 15 times as dense (according to Gale A. Norton: secretary of U.S department of the Interior) and the growth of thick fireprone undergrowth. What I don't feel comfortable with, is along with the signing of this act during his term as president, George Bush has also enforced major changes in forest management such as, removing protection of wilderness areas in regards to the building of roads through them, less examination of old-growth logging in the Pacific Northwest, and Bush's all in all support of the logging industry in America (info from class textbook). This makes me wonder if the Healthy Restoration Act is altogether just another way of promoting logging in the U.S, but make to sound 'responsible' by supposedly decreasing terrible wildfires. Such terminology as "hazardous waste removal" and "forest thinning" are also kept quiet vague as to what they exactly mean in context to real action in the forest. The Fire Science Laboratory in Montana projected that clearing just 200 ft. around areas habited with humans will essenually protect the areas from wildfires, and the idea of going into the forest and "thinning" is by most regards "irrelevent." Even the idea of delays and statutory barriers for hazardous waste removal and thinning seemingly just provides loopholes for logging companies. As exemplified in section 104 of the act: "Gives the Secretary discretionary authority to limit analysis ordinarily required unter the National Environmental Policy Act to the proposed agency action... " this act gives full authority to one individual, and in most regards is just "greenwashing" the majority of Americans by giving this act and environmentally friendly title.
Posted by Hannah Gruber at 11:08 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act: pro or con?
As I was doing my research for the debate for the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, it was difficult to only take one side on the issue. The Bush Administration poses a good argument in their basis on why the act was formed. It's obvious action needed to be taken because forest fires were devastating parts of the country very heavily, such as California, Arizona, Colorado, Montana and Oregon. Over the two years prior to the signing of the act, 147,049 fires burned nearly 11 million acres, causing deaths of firefighters and civilians, as well as devasting many structures in these states. The act states that it is "to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires whil upholding environmental standards and encouraging early public input during review and planning processes." It is to reduce the undergrowth that fuelds catastrophic fires through thinning and prescribed burns, but focuses on projects that are on Federal lands. These alnds meet strict criteria that have risk of wildfire damage to communities, water supply systems and the environment.
As much as it is a positive step for the administration to put an act into place and take action in helping prevent such damaging fires, there are many loopholes this act does not cover. First of all, the only source I was able to find with much positive information was the White House page itself. Most sources analyzed the bill and showed flaws in it. It is seriously flawed and poses a major threat to environmental protection and public involvement in federal land management, which is quite the opposite of the administrations view. Represenatives McInnis and Walden introduced this bill about 6 months before it came into law and does virtually nothing to protect homes and communities from wildfire. It basically allows the Forest Service to conduct more large-scale and environmentally damaging logging projects without having to consider any alternatives or evaluate the impacts they would be making on the environment. Also, it eliminates the statutory right of citizens to appeal logging projects of the Forest Service. Unfortunately, the geographic scope of this bill is very wide, and this could potentially apply to most National Forest and BLM lands. It generally allow expedited logging projects anywhere in the proximity of intermix and wildland-urban interface areas, instead of specifying a distance limitation away from communities. This allows agencies to log various amounts of miles away from communities as long as the Forest Service thought there was a significant risk that a forest fire could spread far enough to endanger human property and life. In addition, the definition of projects in this bill is very broad and could potentially cover most commercial timber sales.
This bill also abolishes citizens rights to appeal hazardous fuels projects by the Forest Service and only allows the Forest Service itself to establish an undefined administrative process that will serve as the sole means by which a personcan seek administrative redress of such projects. The Bush Administration clearly designed the law to benefit those with timber interests and their Congressional allies as it means to open our public forests to more logging under false coercion with community fire protection, fuels reduction, forest health, and restoration. This is basically diverting the agenda and is known as greenwashing. The Administration argued that:
the intent of the law was to protect lives, homes and the environment from the threat of catastrophic fire by thinning underbrush. Meanwhile, the Administration and the timber industry blocked attempts in Congress to focus fuels reduction work and funding around homes and communities, and instead pushed a bill loaded with incentives to log large, commercially valuable trees far away from communities.
The main question I am wondering from this is if the act is able to be productive and beneficial to us, the citizens, who are directly affected. There are pros and cons to this, but I feel the cons highly outweigh the pros and the Administration tries to pull the wool over our eyes on this logging issue. It just depends what you believe when it comes to how we utilize our timber resources, but in my opinion I feel as if our countrys situation and what we do with our forests could be handled more efficiently. All in all, it is positive the Administration chose to take action on this important issue, but if our countrys natural resources are to last, we need to make the most of what we have and be sure to take intelligent action.
Posted by Keely Gerhold at 10:52 PM | TrackBack | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Urbanization
It seems to me that there is a definate correlation between the ever rising population of the United States and land use and management, or lack there of. In class we wee talking about urbanizing new parts of the country and in turn ruining natural habitats, and it is interesting to wonder how much longer this can go on until there are no more areas to urbanize. This past summer I was up north in Baudette, MN at my buddy's resort. His dad takes all of us out fishing for a few days, and after a few "sodas" we got to talking about the difference between the northern and southern parts of Minnesota. My buddy's dad was saying that in the last few years northern Minnesota has grown a lot in terms of popoulation and has turned some of the natural habitats into urban areas. He said that one of the rrasons that people move or live up hre is to get away from all of that stuff, but at the sdame time start doing those things themselves. He said that he expects much of northern Minnesota to look differently in the next five or ten years, which is terrible considering it is the nicest part of the state.
Posted by Christopher Harrington at 12:52 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
It seems to me that there is a definate correlation between the ever rising population of the United States and land use and management, or lack there of. In class we wee talking about urbanizing new parts of the country and in turn ruining natural habitats, and it is interesting to wonder how much longer this can go on until there are no more areas to urbanize. This past summer I was up north in Baudette, MN at my buddy's resort. His dad takes all of us out fishing for a few days, and after a few "sodas" we got to talking about the difference between the northern and southern parts of Minnesota. My buddy's dad was saying that in the last few years northern Minnesota has grown a lot in terms of popoulation and has turned some of the natural habitats into urban areas. He said that one of the rrasons that people move or live up hre is to get away from all of that stuff, but at the sdame time start doing those things themselves. He said that he expects much of northern Minnesota to look differently in the next five or ten years, which is terrible considering it is the nicest part of the state.
Posted by Christopher Harrington at 12:52 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
October 18, 2005
NNL of wetlands, is it actually working?
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allowa the discharge or filling of wetlands to be allowed if the applicant has shown that all possible efforts to avoid the destruction of the wetland have been made. After that has been proved, the No Net Loss(NNL) goal requires that the applicant replace and wetlands lost by either restoring a pre-existing wetland or constructing a new wetland.
Obviously, wetlands are an important aspect of MN, and trying to keep the wetlands functioning is a good way to keep MN land sustainable, but it has been shown by the MN DNR that flaws are very common with the NNR reconstruction program. The first problem noticed was that the builders of the new wetlands seemed to be unskilled or unintrested in wetland ecocolgy, so the wetlands built are not functioning as a wetland. The second problem noticed was that wetlands built near to the site of draining or filling a wetland have been shown to be unsucessful over time even if they were constructed properly. This is because the devolopement done on the original wetland has altered the land form and the waterflow causing the wetlands to fail. It was noticed that very few constructed wetlands were constructed properly and working properly as a wetland. The inadequate construction can be linked to the expenses involved in constructing a wetland, but it shouldn't matter because the company agreed to reconstruct what they have damaged in the first place.
Research done by the MN DNR has shown that the quality of some wetlands is so poor that they don't even qualify as wetlands. That means that we are still loosing actual wetlands, even though the number of "wetlands" is slightly increasing, the number of sucessful functioning wetlands is decreasing.
That being said, i ask my self who is to blame? well, according to the MN DNR most of the problem is being caused not by farmers, but by contractors for construction, and housing devolopement. The next quiestion that poped into my head is why dosen't the goverment paying closer attention to what wetlands are being constructed. Because it's the sucessful wetlands that are important to MN habitat. I think that more strict guidelines need to be set for the construction of wetlands, and that there should be punishment for not following all of thoes guidelines.
Information found at wwww.choicemagizine.org, "The future of wetlands, Migitation banking" by lenord Shabman and Paul Scodari. And, www.dnr.state.mn, "How to recover ducks: key action for improving habitat", by Ray Norrgard.
Posted by Laura Steinlicht at 12:49 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
NNL of wetlands, is it actually working?
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act allowa the discharge or filling of wetlands to be allowed if the applicant has shown that all possible efforts to avoid the destruction of the wetland have been made. After that has been proved, the No Net Loss(NNL) goal requires that the applicant replace and wetlands lost by either restoring a pre-existing wetland or constructing a new wetland.
Obviously, wetlands are an important aspect of MN, and trying to keep the wetlands functioning is a good way to keep MN land sustainable, but it has been shown by the MN DNR that flaws are very common with the NNR reconstruction program. The first problem noticed was that the builders of the new wetlands seemed to be unskilled or unintrested in wetland ecocolgy, so the wetlands built are not functioning as a wetland. The second problem noticed was that wetlands built near to the site of draining or filling a wetland have been shown to be unsucessful over time even if they were constructed properly. This is because the devolopement done on the original wetland has altered the land form and the waterflow causing the wetlands to fail. It was noticed that very few constructed wetlands were constructed properly and working properly as a wetland. The inadequate construction can be linked to the expenses involved in constructing a wetland, but it shouldn't matter because the company agreed to reconstruct what they have damaged in the first place.
Research done by the MN DNR has shown that the quality of some wetlands is so poor that they don't even qualify as wetlands. That means that we are still loosing actual wetlands, even though the number of "wetlands" is slightly increasing, the number of sucessful functioning wetlands is decreasing.
That being said, i ask my self who is to blame? well, according to the MN DNR most of the problem is being caused not by farmers, but by contractors for construction, and housing devolopement. The next quiestion that poped into my head is why dosen't the goverment paying closer attention to what wetlands are being constructed. Because it's the sucessful wetlands that are important to MN habitat. I think that more strict guidelines need to be set for the construction of wetlands, and that there should be punishment for not following all of thoes guidelines.
Information found at wwww.choicemagizine.org, "The future of wetlands, Migitation banking" by lenord Shabman and Paul Scodari. And, www.dnr.state.mn, "How to recover ducks: key action for improving habitat", by Ray Norrgard.
Posted by Laura Steinlicht at 12:49 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Logging and medicines
In another class I wrote a speech on the logging of rainforests and it effects on habitat and human health. While doing research I found amazing facts about bioprospecting. Basically bioprospecting is where the "U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers are involved in research programs to discover new drugs or cures from plants," (http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm). One of the plants I found paticullarly interesting was the Madagascar periwinkle. The Madagascar periwinkle has completly changed the survival rate of childhood leukemia. Before this drug there were 8 out of 10 children with leukemia dying from the diesease and now 8 out of 10 children survive. I think that is amazing and I just cant help to wonder, how many cures or treatments that we have lost due to deforestation of rainforests with the loss of plants and animals.
The same website states that we lose 137 species everyday and that is a huge potential that we are losing as well, because over "25% of prescriptions are filled with drugs whose active ingredients are extracted or derived from plants."
Posted by Kacy Bobzien at 12:04 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
October 10, 2005
Facts re: Healthy Forest Restoration Act
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act was signed into law on Dec. 3 2003. The full text of the Act can be found on http://thomas.loc.gov/. Type in HR 1904 and then go to the enrolled bill and it's supporting documents. However, to summarize here is what the Act will do: Reduce dense undergrowth that fuels catastophic fires through thinning and prescribed burns; Improve public involvement, select projects on a collaborative basis, involving local and tribal and state governments. Focus projects on Federal lands that meet strict criteria for risk of wild fire damage to communities, water supply systems and the environment; Authorize the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, to protect, restore and enhance degraded forested ecosystems on private lands to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species. "It will encourage biomass energy production through grants and assistance to local communities creating market incentives for removal of otherwise valueless forest material;" and it will develop an accelerated program on certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations.
For an easier read Doug MacCleery of the USDA/Forest Service wrote a summary of the Act Dec. 11, 2003 entitled Healthy Forest Restoration Act: What does it do? Three other articles that are essential reading for backround on forest management are " Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on Crown Fire Severity in Ponderosa Forests by Jolie Pollet and Phillip N. Omi, Hayman Fire Case Study: Summary by Russel T. Graham (Technical Editor) and Fire Fight by Paul Trachtman. Each will give a comprehensive perspective on what land managers have been dealing with for years. Oh, and don't forget to think about the Blue Skies Initiative and President Bush's Initiative to Stop Illegal Logging while you learn about the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
Posted by Ramona Beard at 12:06 PM | Comments (2) | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
September 28, 2005
Shoreline Restoration
It is concerning to see our natural lakes and rivers in the area being damadged by bad land practice. With my mind on the events in New Orleans I couldn't help but think of all the soil erosion, and water pollution that we have already created upriver, and that will now be added to, by the wreckage of New Orleans. I thought of why we have so much pollution and soil erosion, and I keep coming back to the conclusion that humans are using the land and not taking care of it. For instance, farmers have drained their fields by use of drain tile, and they spread fertilizers which will eventually find its way into our waterways. We also have been building homes on shorelines, and then we destroy the natural shoreline habitat so that we can have nice beaches.
I feel that more people need to take advantage of programs that will help restore natural vegitations to the shorelines, and help protect the soil from eroding. It will also be benificial because it will improve water quality, and allow a larger biodiversity because of new habitat. To make things even easier there is funding available in some area's through local Lakeshore Associations, Private or public cost-share grants, or legislative funding.
Posted by Bryan Stramer at 09:27 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
September 27, 2005
that pigs eating my grub..
how land is being used to produce food can have emormous impacts on the enivorment and its sustainability.. and sometimes has nothing to do with the populations..
fast food restaurants such as taco bell, pizza hut, etc.. are in constant attack from major environmental groups in the US because of their environmental impact. intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for these restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradatoin, and contamination of water sources and
other natural resources.. i read an article (i dont remember which newspaper) that for every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil.. we live in a society that consume fast food.. and for some daily..
furthurmore, the water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per animal per day.. and i read that animal farms use nearly 40 percent of the world's total grain production and in the US nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to livestock..
alot of the grains that is farmed are consumed by the livestocks and the land that is being farmed is becoming irreplaceable soil.. this can lead to a disastous outcome for us..
Posted by Steve Wang at 10:32 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management
Category "4. Land Use and Land Management"
Easter Island
Since we were talking about population today, and one of the questions that we were all asked was, what we thought the carrying capasity of the Earth is, that question made me think of Easter Island. For those of you that don't know Easter Island is a common example of over using resources. When people first got there, there were forests, rivers and plenty of resources, then basically more and more people went there, they cut down the trees to make homes and boats(a lot of the people were fishermen), they caught fish, they farmed the land, and then they passed the carrying capasity of the island. So the people that lived there no longer had anything, there were no fish (at least not enough fish for all the people), they killed all the animals, they had cut down all the trees and ruined the soil. The population dropped dramatically, the people that did not die and did not get off the island became cannables.
Although I dont think that this is how the world will be, I think it is an example of how things could be if we don't step in and change the way we do things.
Posted by Kacy Bobzien at 12:23 PM | 4. Land Use and Land Management