The EPA, Architects, Site Selection and feature replacement

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...you have a reading and compreshension problem...I have said twice now that the water behind Milltown dam is highly toxic and thus a super fund site...

I have said twice now, that the dam is  a pitch shot away from Canyon River Golf Course...

You clearly implied that it was the Canyon River Golf Course that was causing pollution.[/color]

I have said twice now that the heavy metels came from Butte, down the Clark Fork River...its the same toxic mix that is in Berkeley Pit..

You're again mixing the issues, implying that the Berkeley Pit is contaminating down stream water when the Federal Government has stated that it hasn't.[/color]

I JUST stated that a toxic blume is moving around the dam and into wells in the area of Canyon River Golf Course...


NO, that's not what you stated.  Here's what you stated:

"but as I pointed out, in Milltown and Bonner, very close to the Canyon River golf course, a large toxic blume from the Clark Fork River has gotten into wells and other drinking supplies...."

The above is a clear attempt to blame the toxic plume on the Canyon River Golf Course, and that's disengenuous, intellectually dishonest.[/color]
 
I SAID the water in Berkeley Pit is constainly being monitored for leaching...moving...out of the pit..I said it is not currently contaminating anything outside the pit...I said the pit is still filling up...I said no one has figured out what to do with the billions of gallons of toxic water in the pit, but someday they will have to figure it out..

According to some, they already have.[/color]

Try to keep up Patrick..

Two foot buffers! Yeah!! The ONLY way to go! You got that right Patrick!

This is proof positive that you can't tell the truth.

It was YOUR citation of an independetn study that had as one of its controls, a two foot buffer.  A buffer that I objected to in the context of the new regulations in New Jersey that call for a 300 foot buffer.

You never understood the relationship between the 5 degree pitch and the 2 foot buffer and their impact on the study.

Had the pitch been 3 degrees and the buffer 10 feet, the results would probably have been DRAMATICALLY different, and, if they were different at 10 versus 2 feet, how much more different would they be at 25 feet, 50 feet or 75 feet ?

And, what would be the impact on that study, at those distances, had the pitch been 1 degree ?

YOU CITED THE STUDY, not me.
The fact that it supports MY position and undermines yours is your own doing.

It's obvious to everyone but you that the regulations should be site and source specific and not onerously universal.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, did you even read about the Berkeley Pit?

I probably read it before you did.[/color]

The current level is less than 146ft from the "critical level"

That information conflicts with information contained within the same report.  The begining of the report states that there's a 2,310 margin, and the end of the same report it indicates the margin is 146 feet, hence, I have to question the validity of both numbers.[/color]

The Horseshoe Bend treatment plant deals with the 3,000 per minute surface water flow coming from the Horseshoe Bend drainage area...just over 5,000 gals.per minute STILL enter the Pit.

That's a net of 2,000 gallons per minute, which is 1.051 billion gallons per year.

At the end of 2002 there was additional capacity below the critical level to accomodate 25 billion gallons, hence, about 25 years before the critical level is reached, if we're to accept the data from the report you cited.

The Federal Government has decreed that the water treatment problem would be resolved by 2018, or 11 years from now, leaving a 14 year buffer in the event they don't meet their target date.[/color]

Let's go back to GOLF COURSES and the study you cited.

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2005/050126.pdf


Look at the controls and results.
Then factor in the variables of land pitch and buffer offsets and tell me that 25 or 50 feet isn't more than sufficient when it comes to dealing with run-off on land with a pitch of 5 degrees or less.[/color]

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...first the Pit....5,000 gals. per minute are going into the Pit...even after the removal of the 3,000 gals. from the Horsehoe drainage

Back to golf...I NEVER said 25ft...50ft or 100ft or 300ft was NOT adequate...

I have stated the numerous reasons why a broad brush is used to paint a riparian buffer through developed lands..

A "new" golf course development may very well be able to argue successfully its case for a smaller buffer than the maximum in the regulations...one possibility is within the broader context of seeking Audoban approval...

[Craig Sweet]

Hey Patrick...here's yet another example of mine safety not being taken seriously by those we trust to regulate and enforce.

This is the mine in Utah that had the cave in today, trapping 6 miners...this is from the NY Times


"Last month, inspectors cited the mine for violating a rule requiring that at least two separate passageways be designated for escape in an emergency.

It was the third time in less than two years that the mine had been cited for the same problem, according to MSHA records. In 2005, MSHA ordered the mine owners to pay $963 for not having escapeways and the 2006 fine for the same problem was just $60."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hey Patrick...here's yet another example of mine safety not being taken seriously by those we trust to regulate and enforce.

That's just another absurd statement.
How can you state that those that regulate and enforce mine safety don't take it seriously ?

What evidence do you have to support that claim ?

Your view of the world is one of perfection where nothing can go wrong, and that's not realistic.

Whose fault is it when a worker leaves an "O" ring off of an engine and it malfunctions and kills the crew/passengers ?
The manufacturers, the Corporation Operating the craft, the Company servicing the craft, or, that single individual who made a careless mistake ?

You act as if the regulatory authorities can see the future, and know that an accident WILL take place, yet, do nothing to prevent it.

What about the thousands of mines that operate day and night without incident for years[/color]

This is the mine in Utah that had the cave in today, trapping 6 miners...

If it was an open mine, like the Berkeley Pit, cave ins wouldn't have been a concern, would they ?[/color]

this is from the NY Times

"Last month, inspectors cited the mine for violating a rule requiring that at least two separate passageways be designated for escape in an emergency.

How would that have prevented the cave in ?
And, would that additional passageway have made a difference in this incident ?[/color]

It was the third time in less than two years that the mine had been cited for the same problem, according to MSHA records. In 2005, MSHA ordered the mine owners to pay $963 for not having escapeways and the 2006 fine for the same problem was just $60."

But, the escapeways wouldn't have prevented the cave in.
And, you don't know that if the passageways had been available, if they would have been accessible.

Rather than JUMP to conclusions, as many did in the Duke Lacrosse players case, let's wait until ALL the facts are known before pointing fingers and assigning blame.

Lastly, why haven't you answered many of the pointed questions I've asked you ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...first the Pit....5,000 gals. per minute are going into the Pit...even after the removal of the 3,000 gals. from the Horsehoe drainage

In that case it would take about 10 years for the water to reach the critical mark of 5,410.[/color]

Back to golf...I NEVER said 25ft...50ft or 100ft or 300ft was NOT adequate...

That's not accurate.
Here's what you said,

"getting back to your original post...

I think it's the best thing to happen in a long time...this buffer around wetlands, streams and ponds....so what if it means an architect has to "work around" setbacks and buffer zones....water is the most precious resource we have, so why not give it some distance....or is doing some extra permitting and spending a few thousand more a big inconveniance? "

"Steve are you serious? Using "what" ag model?  15-20 foot seperation between ag use and a water way is ridiculous...
I don't know where they apply that....sounds like very, very, old school thinking to me."

Now Craig, those were your words, your reference to a 15-20 foot seperation buffer as being inadequate.  Now do you recall what you typed ?[/color]

I have stated the numerous reasons why a broad brush is used to paint a riparian buffer through developed lands..

A "new" golf course development may very well be able to argue successfully its case for a smaller buffer than the maximum in the regulations...one possibility is within the broader context of seeking Audoban approval...

Audoban approval has NOTHING to do with NJDEP regulations.

My point was that the 300 foot buffer requirement for golf courses is excessive, as is the 150 foot and 75 foot buffer, and that the regs should have site, source and use flexibility.  

There has to be a common sense approach to the issue and not a universal Draconian approach.[/color]  

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...a $60 fine?  For a second offense?  Actually, the news is reporting they have been cited 7 times for this violation....I guess they don't take it seriously...

Gee Patrick...I guess you're right...none of this could have prevented the cave in...BUT IT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE MEN DYING AND GETTING OUT ALIVE...a $60 fine...how  absurd.

You truly are a piece of work.

[Joe Perches]

Patrick Mucci:

I have two questions for you.  Yes or no answers please.  No other answer is required.  If you choose, please expound after answering yes or no.

Should real property owners have an absolute right to determine how to use their own real property?

Do golf courses have any environmental impact beyond the perimeter of the golf course?

Cheers, Joe

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...Steve Lang was speaking of a 15 ft buffer for ag use....if I recall you stated that ag run off was far worse than golf course run off...

In my post I said "getting back to golf..."

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...how do you like this guy Murray?

"Murray also spent part of the news conference advocating the importance of coal to the U.S. economy and criticizing efforts to introduce legislation to curb global warming."

The guys got six of his workers trapped in cave in and he out there shilling for less regulation and hyping his industry...

Oh well....regardless of the outcome,thatmine has provided the families of those trapped miners with the highest standard of living in the world....

A $60 fine for not following safety regulations?  

You need Murray shilling for golf course construction and polluted waterways in NJ!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick...a $60 fine?  For a second offense?  Actually, the news is reporting they have been cited 7 times for this violation....I guess they don't take it seriously...

I'd rather see the actual citation versus relying on your reporting, which hasn't been very accurate to date.

Only after seeing the facts would I draw a conclusion.[/color]

Gee Patrick...I guess you're right...none of this could have prevented the cave in...BUT IT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE MEN DYING AND GETTING OUT ALIVE...a $60 fine...how  absurd.

Not really.
If the cave in was the result of an earthquake, all systems would have been compromised.

You prefer to accuse anyone and everyone before the facts are known.   You would have worked well in Mike Nifong's office.[/color]

You truly are a piece of work.

Yes, I"m one of those crazy individuals who like to have all the facts at their disposal before rendering a verdict, whereas you don't care what the facts reveal, you've determined guilt or responsibility without the benefit of that data and those factors.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick Mucci:

I have two questions for you.  Yes or no answers please.  No other answer is required.  If you choose, please expound after answering yes or no.

Should real property owners have an absolute right to determine how to use their own real property?

No.[/color]

Do golf courses have any environmental impact beyond the perimeter of the golf course?

Yes.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig Sweet,

China mines about 1,400,000,000 tons of coal annually.

The U.S. mines about 1,100,000,000 tons of coal annually.

China reports 5,000 coal mining deaths a year.

The U.S. averages about 5 coal mining deaths a year.

Do you see a difference ?
Do you think the low death rate in the U.S. occurs by accident ?   Or, do you think it's the product of regulations, compliance and enforcement ?

Mining is INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, just like deep diving, motor racing or climbing.  Accidents will occur.

But, you don't condemn an entire system based on a miniscule number of casualties.   I know you do, but, prudent people don't.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...mining is dangerous and China should be held to strict standards if they want a trade agreement with us.

Like a 300ft buffer around riparian areas.....for example.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Craig,

Who is going to hold China accountable ?

Trade is a two way street, although, someone should tell the idiot bureaucrats who negotiated our trade treaties that fact.

Competing on a non-level playing field puts the American Company and worker at a disadvantage.

If China sought to duplicate Augusta National, based on your standards, they'd be unable to do so.

Mark my words, unless the regulatory agencies are infused with ample doses of "common sense" integrated water features will become lost architectural elements/components.