1. Day 388.
A. Destroyed trees.
B. Workers at the destroyed nesting area.
C. Response as good as ever.
2. Chapter 91 approval delayed, thank you.
3. Globe editorializes on rivers, how about the Charles River White Geese?
Bob La Trémouille reports.
1. Day 388.
A. Destroyed trees.
Walking to the destroyed nesting area, I had to pass the entrance to Magazine Beach.
There were two recent stumps, one on either side of the entrance. What looked like sawdust was on either side.
The DCR has a great deal of convenient disease, one on either side of the entrance?
B. Workers at the destroyed nesting area.
The first thing that was visible was excavation equipment in the traffic island at the very end of the BU Bridge.
A worker told me that “they” were there shooting videos. There was a team of three in orange work clothes as part of his group on the destroyed nesting area side. Others were in the middle of the bridge on that side, not in the bright protective clothing.
There was a car / SUV in the nesting area. As I left, I saw a man not dressed in the orange work clothes getting into it.
C. Response as good as ever.
People were busily taking fliers. I actually had more cars pulling over for fliers than usual.
I told them about the governor’s action, below. That cheered them up.
The geese were quite lethargic, not moving around much. Their world has been destroyed. There is not much to move about.
2. Chapter 91 work approval delayed, thank you.
Marilyn communicated with the governor’s office last week.
They said the chapter 91 approval to build a drainage system in the destroyed nesting area had not been approved. This construction is very much unnecessary with many alternatives in the area, from direct connection to the sewer plant immediately west of the BU Bridge to connection into existing facilities.
She was informed that the governor’s office is responding to the controversial nature of the project.
English translation: keep up the calls and emails. The governor is being responsive.
What you can do and contact information may be found at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/contact-information-for-people-to.html.
3. Globe editorializes on rivers, how about the Charles River White Geese?
Archie Mazmanian comments:
I trust you have seen the Boston Sunday Globe lead editorial [on October 18, 2009] titled "Rethink policy on river water - leave some for the fish."
No mention is made of the plight of the Charles River White Geese under the Commonwealth's (and Cambridge's) annihilation policy.
The editorial closes with this: "In the meantime, the state should stick to a definition of 'safe yield' that ensures the safety of vulnerable plants and animals." Yes, fish are animals; but so are the White Geese. Why isn't the Globe kind to our web-footed friends as well as the Charles' fish?
*********
Ed: The editorial may be found at:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/18/rethink_policy_on_river_water___leave_some_for_the_fish/
