Sunday, September 23, 2007

Environmental Destroyer Putting Cambridge City Council on Record Supporting Poisoning of the Charles River

Bob La Trémouille reports:

1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.
2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.
3. 2004 Destruction.
A. Sewerage project used for starvation.
B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.
4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.
5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.
6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.
7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.
8. A partial record of a vile City Council.
9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.
10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.
11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.

1. Henrietta Davis asks Cambridge City Council to Bless the Poisoning of Magazine Beach and the Charles River and Stepped Up Attacks on River Animals.

The following is proposed Order number 13 submitted by Cambridge City Councilor Henrietta Davis for the September 24, 2007 meeting:
WHEREAS: The DCR has informed the City Manager that the bid package for Magazine Beach was once again delayed due to a change in the location of the control box for the irrigation system which will result in a construction delay; and

WHEREAS: Richard Corsi of the DCR anticipates that the bid documents will be ready to send out in mid-October of this year; now therefore be it

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to urge the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to assure that work goes forward at Magazine Beach according to the current timeline; and be it further

ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to inform the City Council of any changes in the work schedule at Magazine Beach.

2. Davis’ Reprehensible Record.

Davis’ record is very clear. Environmentally, on the matters that count, Cambridge has nine City Councillors who are heartlessly destructive of the environment. Davis is the worst.

3. 2004 Destruction.

The Magazine Beach project is a continuation of two actions taken by the City of Cambridge and its agents in 2004 when they started starving the Charles River White Geese.

A. Sewerage project used for starvation.

Part of the vile behavior in 2004 was supposedly sewerage work on an outlet across from the Hyatt Regency Hotel. This grassy slope was part of the habitat and food of the Charles River White Geese since the beginning, 26 years ago. It was the eastern end of the habitat.

The sickos from the City of Cambridge finished the sewerage work and left a wall of plastic blocking access to the food from the Charles River. Absolutely no excuse. Truly vile, truly in character with the pols and bureaucrats of the state and the City of Cambridge.

The wall was installed in September 2004.

B. Wetlands destroyed, animal habitat destroyed.

In September 2004, strictly by “coincidence” (I do not believe in sick “coincidences”), Cambridge and the DCR dug up all the wetlands at Magazine Beach, preventing access to all that food from the water. This was the western end of the habitat, and the balance of the food of the Charles River White Geese.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation, from 2000 to about 2006, repeatedly insisted they had no intention to harm the Charles River White Geese.

Corsi, referenced in Davis’ order, explained the apparent contradiction in about 2006. He explained that he does not consider starving the Charles River White Geese harming them.

4. Environmental Destroyers call blocking River Access pro-Swimming in the Charles.

Cambridge and the DCR sicced representatives on the project at Magazine Beach in 2005. The representatives did a swim in, bragging that the project was assisting in swimming in the Charles River. That part of the project constructed a physical wall PREVENTING access between Magazine Beach and the Charles River. The FLAT OUT LIE was part a package of pretty much non-stop lies on the projects on the Charles River.

5. Reality and the Introduced Vegetation at Magazine Beach.

The wall consists of a bunch of designer plants so unfit for the Charles River environment that they kept dying. The LIE which explained this wall of plants called them “native.” As near as I can gather, the secret definition of “native” used by these people translates as “unfit for the local environment.”

There has been a tiny gap left exactly where sickos like to run dogs off leash. The Charles River White Geese have started to feed very early in the morning and leave when the dogs show up. 95% of their feeding ground at Magazine Beach is denied them. 100% of their feeding ground at the Hyatt has never stopped being denied them.

6. From Heartless Starvation to Deliberate Poisoning of the Environment.

The sick portion of the sick project which Davis is now pushing constitutes digging up all the grass and soil at the Magazine Beach playing fields, trucking it away and replacing this perfectly good grass and soil with grass, soil, sprinklers and poisons. The sprinklers replace the wetlands which did not need to be destroyed. The poisons protect the commercial grade grass from problems which are not problems before the project.

The precursor for this project is another ball field at Ebersol Fields on the Charles River near Massachusetts General Hospital. The poisons were not effective enough to keep the bureaucrats happy, so they installed Tartan fungicide. The DAY AFTER THE TARTAN was installed, the Charles River was dead from Boston Harbor to the Mass. Ave. bridge, algae all over the place.

7. Algae habitat installed in Phase I.

The pols and the bureaucrats has tested this concept at Magazine Beach. They created an artificial puddle at the eastern end of the Magazine Beach playing fields. The artificial puddle is separated from the Charles River by perhaps 20 feet and has no water flow contact with the Charles River, so the puddle becomes stagnant and algae loaded.

8. A partial record of a vile City Council.

The Cambridge City Council took the key vote in December 1999 and has proceeded to implement their vile vote by not wanting to know what they were doing. There has been significant turnover on the Cambridge City Council in that period. None of them wanted to know what they were doing.

One of the more demonstrative occurrences came in 2001. There have been many, many attacks on the Charles River White Geese over the years. Many of those attacks looked highly professional and thus the work of the bureaucrats or their friends. The starvation attacks, of course, were the public actions of the bureaucrats and the pols.

In 2001, a nut started beating to death nesting Mother Geese. Nine city councilors were belligerently neutral in spite of repeated pleas that such a person graduates to humans. In October 2001, he graduated. He and his friends raped and murdered a young woman where he had been beating Mother Geese to death. The brutality was strikingly similar.

Nine city councilors discussed the rape and murder for more than an hour. Only Davis mentioned where it occurred. She looked around in a guilty manner and swallowed her words. They did not want to know where it happened.

These reprehensible people have done their best not to know what they were doing on the Charles River.

9. Activity this Year. Standing up to Destroyers.

Last Sunday, Friends of the White Geese leafleted an event by a insider pol, Sam Seigel, running for Cambridge City Council. Seigel, as member and chair of the Cambridge Conservation Commission has really filthy hands from the outrages on the Charles River.

Even more so, Siegel has gone on record BRAGGING about environmental outrages by the City of Cambridge. He has bragged that this environmental destructiveness is a new form of environmentalism that he and the other pols in the City of Cambridge are doing brilliantly.

Friends of the White Geese leafleted the event, communicating the truly reprehensible environmental record.

We have leafleted the first city council debate of the election season.

Thursday, there was a school committee debate. Marc McGovern, former School Committee member running for return to the board, has public fought for the irresponsible project at Magazine Beach. We leafleted the debate and leafleted this School Committee candidate fighting to have children rolling in poisons at Magazine Beach.

10. Davis replies to communication of the truth.

So now Davis has filed this motion putting nine members of the Cambridge City Council on record in favor of this reprehensible project.

11. Expectations from a Vile City Council.

They will probably approve it without comment.

If you are pro-environment, you should have contempt for nine members of the Cambridge City Council and their lies about being pro-environment, using their secret definition which includes environmental destruction in their definition of environmentalism.

I say nine with very deliberate thought. All nine liars using the fake definition of environmentalism which was repeated at

Outrageous, irresponsible. This is the City of Cambridge, MA.

Reality on the "Renovation" of Magazine Beach

On September 23, 2007, Marilyn Wellons sent the following letter to the Cambridge City Council about the city's ill-conceived "renovation" of Magazine Beach. Cambridge's $1.5 million project will pollute the Charles River. It will expose our children to the toxic chemicals needed to maintain the 7 acres of commercial sod there.

The letter refers to an e-mail Wellons sent in July to State Rep. Marty Walz on the same topic. The text of that e-mail follows this letter.

Dear Mayor Reeves, Vice Mayor Toomey, and other members of the Cambridge City Council:

For your information, please find the attached copy of my reply to State Rep. Marty Walz, dated July 29, 2007, about the joint Cambridge-DCR project at Magazine Beach and its prototype, the Ebersol Fields at Lederman Park in Boston.

My e-mail cites documents at the Boston Conservation Commission and other sources regarding runoff from the renovated playing fields at Ebersol. Although the DCR says it doesn't usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles, it did so at Ebersol. Although it didn't plan to use the fungicide "Tartan" there, it did so. It does not deny the use of pesticides.

Runoff from these chemicals at Ebersol Fields polluted the river in 2006 and 2007. They also exposed Little League players to the long-term effects of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Children are at particularly high risk from exposure to pesticides.

You may remember the Council's own concern regarding the use of harmful chemicals expressed in Councillor Simmons's Policy Order No. O-8, December 4, 2006, regarding ChemLawn on the Cambridge riverfront.

Our children have access to the benefits of Little League ball without this project. The adequate, functioning, regulation Little League field at Magazine Beach is less than two hundred yards from a second, at Lindstrom Field. Will you "renovate" Magazine Beach and give our children access to all the chemicals required to maintain the turf there?

Please reconsider this project and reject it. It will pollute the river--undoing millions of dollars and years of work to clean up the river--and adversely affect our children's health.

P.S. There is an error in the attached e-mail to Rep. Walz. Cambridge's $1.5M project at Magazine Beach will install 7 acres of commercial sod, not 6.

E-mail from Marilyn to Rep. Marty Walz attached to this letter:

Dear Rep. Walz,

Thank you for sending the DCR’s response. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the problem for water quality caused by the DCR’s 6 acres at Ebersol Fields (installed spring 2006) and by the one planned for 6 acres [sic] at Magazine Beach (set for this summer).

The DCR has heavily fertilized and otherwise chemically treated Ebersol Fields. Boaters could smell the fertilizer in the middle of the river offshore from the fields all last summer. Runoff from fertilizers and other chemicals is a well-known cause of algae bloom.

Contrary to the DCR’s statement to you, documents filed with the Boston Conservation Commission indicate ongoing maintenance of the Ebersol Fields is with fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals as necessary. The DCR lists “slow-release organic fertilizers” and “integrated pest management practices using biological controls and minimizing [but not prohibiting] the use of chemical alternatives.” (“Operation and Maintenance Plan,” DCR Notice of Intent, submitted May 4, 2005.)

Fertilizers, organic or not, have nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wash into the river, as do the other chemicals applied. Standard chemical care of a home lawn is: 5 applications of fertilizer, 6 of herbicides, and 1 of pesticides, in five treatments from early spring to late fall. (Mailing received from TLC, The Lawn Company, P.O. Box 698, Shrewsbury, MA.)

Maintenance of the 6 acres at Ebersol Fields is estimated at $200,000 per year. Mr. Dick Ebersol has pledged up to $500,000 to match private contributions for this purpose. (Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, June 15, 2006.)

In July, 2006, the Ebersol Fields developed a fungus, as is common with overwatered, fertilized turf (New York Times, July 6, 2007, p. B1, “When the Grass Was Greener”). On August 2, 2006, the DCR asked for and received permission to apply “Tartan,” a fungicide, to the entire 6 acres. The first “Tartan” application was August 10-11, the second, September 1. (Communication from Richard Scott, DCR, September 11, 2006.) Geller Sport, DCR designer of Ebersol, supplemented the two fungicide treatments with “field fertilization” and irrigation. (Memo, July 19, 2006, Stephen D. Brown, DCR Project Manager, to Boston Conservation Commission.)

The algae count exploded after the first treatment, then dropped toward the end of August. After the second, the count climbed again.

The DCR has not hesitated to fertilize and otherwise chemically treat the sod at Ebersol Fields. It has an ample budget to do so. The DCR representative told the ConCom on August 2 that “Tartan” was required to provide “the quality of turf our players deserve.” The agency is eager to provide the same at Magazine Beach. Cambridge also is giving an ample budget for maintenance.

The label warning for “Tartan” reads: “Toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas . . . . Drift and runoff from treated areas may be hazardous to fish/aquatic organisms in adjacent sites. . . Do not apply when weather conditions favor runoff or drift.” (Material Safety Data Sheet, attachment to DCR Request for Determination of Applicability, July 19, 2006.)

The Boston ConCom’s Order of Conditions for “Tartan” requires that “[i]f at any time during the implementation of the project a fish kill or significant water quality problem occurs in the vicinity of the project, all site related activities impacting the water shall cease until the source of the problem is identified and adequate mitigating measures employed to the satisfaction of the Commission.” (Attachment A—Project Conditions, Negative Determination of Applicability, August 2, 2006.)
The unprecedented algae bloom of August, 2006, occurred in the twenty days between the two applications of “Tartan” and fertilizer. I have found no evidence that there has ever been an inquiry into the cause of the bloom or its relation to Ebersol Fields. The DCR has offered none to you.

In sum, the DCR says it doesn’t usually use fertilizers or herbicides on the Charles. Nevertheless it did so at Ebersol Fields. It didn’t plan to use “Tartan” there, but did so. The reply does not deny the use of pesticides.

With regard to Magazine Beach, this response means nothing good to residents of the Charles River watershed. We’ve already spent $60 million to clean up the river, with another $19 million to go before 2013. Our water rates in Cambridge continue to rise. Now we’re set to pay $1.5 million to repeat the blunder at Ebersol Fields and pollute the river at Magazine Beach.

I hope you will ask the Governor not to disperse the Cambridge funds for this imminent, ill-conceived project.