Author Archives: Krystal Dong

Posts by Krystal Dong

NYC Water Supply (Government Agencies)

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Krystal Dong

Government agencies are all primarily concerned with keeping the New York City water supply system safe for everyone as well as compiling with the SWTR. In order to maintain the water quality, government agencies can either ensure the quality of unfiltered water to satisfy the provisions of the SWTR for unfiltered water, or filter the water if the quality drops. The cost of constructing a filtration facility would be $6-8 billion and would cost $500 million annually to operate. This is extremely costly, and government agencies would be in favor of the most cost-effective solution, which would to continue to allow water to flow into New York City unfiltered. The City regularly issues reports on the DEP’s source water protection programs established to maintain the Filtration Determination Avoidance for the Catskills and Delaware portion of the NYC water supply. The Filtration Avoidance Annual Report for 2011 and well as other reports show why it is unnecessary for the NYC water supply to be filtered.

New York City first applied a waiver from the filtration requirements of the Surface Water Treatment rule in 1991 for the Catskill/Delaware system. Since then, the DEP has spent more the $1.5 billion to maintain the quality of the source waters of the Catskills and Delaware watersheds. The DEP’s source water protection program is based on research done by DEP scientists about existing and potential sources of water contamination. SWTR monitoring includes monitoring raw water for fecal coliform concentrations, turbidity, disinfection values, entry point monitoring for chlorine residuals, distribution monitoring for chlorine residuals, coliform bacteria levels, trihalomethanes, and haloaceitc acids. The percentage of positive raw water fecal samples was below the maximum percentage allowed by the SWTR. During 2011, there was only one occasion when the raw water turbidity level was greater than 5 NTU, at 5.1 NTU, but the regulatory limit is 5.4 NTU, so the water was still safe. All chlorine residuals were detectable in the 15,020 samples collected, and all of the other monitoring samples complied with the standard set by the SWTR.  Since the City is able to meet the Filtration Avoidance criteria and has also laid out a plan for the DEP’s proposed source water protection program activities for 2012 to 2017 as well as a Long-Term Watershed Protection Plan, it is unnecessary for New York City to filter it’s water. It is much more cost-effective to leave the water unfiltered.

Source:

New York City Department of Environmental Protection. March 2012. Filtration Avoidance Annual Report for the Period January 1 through December 31, 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/2011_bws_fad_annual.pdf>.

Marris Questions

Posted on October 30, 2012 by Krystal Dong

1. Did any of the criticism you received about the book make you question and reconsider your ideas and what you wrote about?
2. What do you believe is the best way to go about conservation in New York City?
3. What place do you believe is the best example, or closest to your idea of a rambunctious garden?
4. In fifty years from now, how do you imagine the world to be? Do you believe the people can really work to save and conserve the environment, or will we just continue to destroy and harm the environment?

Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Krystal Dong

1. Where are bed bugs most common and what causes them to more common in some areas and not others? How do they affect human health? About two years ago, there were bed bugs reported in many place in New York. Had the number of bed bugs been increasing up to that point? Is the number increasing or decreasing now?

2. Where in the city is pesticide use the greatest? How does the use of pesticides differ in various parts of the city? What is the effect of pesticide use on human health?

3. How do birth outcomes differ geographically? What role does the environment play in birth outcomes?

Marris Chapter 10

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Krystal Dong

In the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Marris lists seven different goals for conservation. The seven goals are to protect the right of other species, protect charismatic megafauna, slow the rate of extinction, protect genetic diversity, define and defend biodiversity, maximized ecosystem services, and protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. The goals that I believe are most important and would like to see accomplished are to protect genetic diversity and to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature.

Protecting genetic diversity is important because it is where the source of diversity in all life comes from. Even in a species, there are differences in the genetics of different populations. Genetic diversity also shows how different species have evolved over time. One of the examples given was that if we lost two species of three-toed sloths, we would lose 15 million years of evolution. Like with the other conservation goals, there are problems with this goal, the main one being that if the genes are more important than the actual animals, there is no need to keep them alive, like to breed in captivity or anything since you can just freeze tissue samples for the genes.

As Marris says, “we like the way nature looks, smells, and feels.” I definitely feel that way, and believe that is it important to preserve the spiritual and aesthetic experience of nature. I think it is really nice to be able to get away from all the business for a while and just look at and appreciate nature and to marvel at how truly amazing it is. She mentions how many people only allow themselves to be “moved or to find beautiful only that which we believe to be pristine,” but we can find beauty in all nature if we adjust out perception. I definitely agree with this and believe that we can find beauty in nature that has been man-made elements to it. It just like how Central Park isn’t completely natural and was developed by people. People still find it beautiful and visit there all the time. Even if there are cans and garbage on a piece of nature, such as in a forest or beach, the beauty of the area can be easily found.  This goal would also appeal to many people since most people do enjoy nature and feel some connection to it.

Marris talks about many goals in the last chapter, all with their own pros and cons. There is no right way to go about conservation and different goals can and should be used for different areas. One thing is clear though, which is that conservation is needed. Since humans have changed and affected nature so much, we can’t go back, but we should instead focus and preserving what we have left and managing it better as a place for all species to live.

Marris Chapter 8 & 9

Posted on October 1, 2012 by Krystal Dong

In chapter 8 of Rambunctious Garden, Marris talks about designer ecosystems. Designer ecosystems are ecosystems developed to achieve a specific goal, such as “nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of species.”  This is a different type of conservation, as opposed to trying to restore land to a baseline. This method of conservation is much better than trying to recreate an ecosystem of the past. This is because nature is constantly changing and baselines do not take into account for an area has changed. What was there before might not be good for today. Furthermore, designer ecosystems can make an area even better than it was before. Take for example, the conservation goal of saving the Galapagos penguin. The penguin is endangered and only two thousand remain. One of the threats to their survival are introduced rats who eat the chicks. One solution to the problem would be to get rid of the introduced rats. However, a better solution that was used was for scientist to drill more nesting wholes into the rocks for the birds. This increases the number of chicks that can be born, so the population can increase, and not be so effected by the rats. The drilling of the nests does not restore the ecosystem to a baseline, but it does make the ecosystem better for the Galapagos penguin. Creating designer ecosystems is a much better conservation tool than returning it to a baseline. Designer ecosystems can make a habitat better since it is working toward a goal, and it can also allow humans and nature to live together and work together better.

In chapter 9, Marris talks about different conservation views and how they tie together. She mentions strategies she had talked about in earlier chapters, such as rewilding, assisted migration, and novel ecosystems, and how even though they all seem very different, they are all about “making the most out of every scrap of land and water, no matter its condition.” Marris says that conservation should be everywhere in order for us to get the most out of protected areas. Little areas of nature may not seem like much, but they really are something. Take her example of a small park in the middle of industrial access roads at the end of Duwamish Diagonal Avenue. It is in the middle of industrialness, but it is still peaceful and quite, and there are even animals, like the Canadian geese, and a seal. Industrial areas can have nature as well, like with the example of the Hostess Cupcake factory roof, and can help to bring people closer to nature and move species. As Marris says, this kind of strategy is quite easy for citizens to do and they can use pretty much any space. I think is would be a really good strategy to be implemented everywhere. It might seem like a lot, but it is a small first step that everyone can take in order to people to become more connected and closer with nature.

The High Line and Stalter

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Krystal Dong

I visited the High Line for the first time on Thursday, September 20th and I was quite amazed by what I saw. I started off at 23rd street and then walked up a few blocks, and then down to 20th street. I saw many different plants and pollinators, including different bees, small flies, and butterflies. The High Line is so different from the surrounding areas, with all the buildings, and stores and traffic and whenever I looked around and saw the buildings and then at the plants again, it felt like two different worlds. This, I thought, was a large part of the beauty of the High Line. It’s pretty amazing to see how a railroad could be transformed into a place filled with different plants and species and it really fits in with Marris’s concept of a rambunctious garden.

Marris believes that we shouldn’t try to restore ecosystems of the Earth into pristine wilderness that was supposed to have existed before humans disturbed it, but rather to have humans accept that they are in charge of nature and to mange it and make it so that we are creating environments where nature and humans can coexist and interact. The High Line is just that. It is not just a closed off space of nature, but rather a place where nature is being conserved and restored and people can go there and connect with nature. People restored and manage the place, but they aren’t just putting any plants and making their own ecosystem. Many of the species there are native species. Those species, along with many others might not be there if not for the management of humans. Having native species grow back while humans manage the area to fit into the urban environment is a good example of rambunctious gardening.

Stalter’s paper doesn’t change my view of the High Line, but it does make me appreciate it more. In his study, Stalter found that “species richness at the High Line is greater than species richness at four nearby New York City sites.” The High Line has 38.8 species/hectare while at Hoffman Island, it was 21.8 sp/ha, 37.9 sp/ha at Bayswater State Park, 19.8 sp/ha at Liberty Island, and 22.8 sp/ha at Ellis Island. I wouldn’t have thought that the High Line would have so much species richness since it’s in an urban environment and was created not so long ago. One of the possible reasons Stalter gives for the high level of plant species is “human disturbance including trash deposition, trampling, oil compaction and fire.” The disturbances in cause the habitats to keep on changing, but the species there are still able to adapt to it. Just as Marris said, nature is resistant and adaptable. I think the High Line is a great project and should be an example for future conservation projects, especially in cities.


 

 



Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Krystal Dong

Assisted migration is when species are moved from where they presently live to a new habitat in the hopes that the species will thrive there. This concept is similar to rewilding, but they both have different goals. I think that assisted migration would be a good tool to use for conservation if it were regulated, such as with the guide that Parmesan and Possingham provided, which was that “species should be moved if they are at high risk to extinction from climate change, if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints.’” (82) It should only be used when it necessary to help save the species, and not just for experimentation.

Assisted migration sounds like a useful tool because it is intended to save species that are losing their homes due to climate change. Take for example, the American Pika. Pikas curl up and die after a few hours in 78 °F heat. As the global climate becomes warmer, pikas have move higher up in order to live, but as you move higher up on a mountain, there is less and less space. Some pikas already live at the top of some mountains, and have no nowhere to go. If pikas and other species in the same situation could possibly be saved by human transportation to another habitat, then it is worth a shot. Critics argue that because you would be moving the species to a completely different environment, there could be negative effects because you do not know, and cannot control what will happen. One possible effect is that the transported species could die because they do not have what they need to live. However, my thought is that if species are already being threatened by global climate change and may die anyways, it is better to try to do something to save them then to just watch and do nothing. A large part is because humans are the ones who caused the climate change, so we should not just sit back and do nothing.

As mentioned in the chapter, climate change pits two common assumptions against each other. One is that if humans caused climate change, then they should do whatever they could to ensure that species survive the climate change. The other assumption is that ecosystems have a correct baseline that they should be returned too, which means that species cannot be moved from one area to another, because it would violate the baseline. I agree with the first assumption, but not really the second one. I don’t really agree with idea that ecosystems have a correct baseline that it should be returned to. Ecosystems constantly change, so how can a “correct baseline” be determined? It is also more difficult and risky to try to recreate something from so long. I think that is it more important to focus on protecting the native species that we have left and ensuring that they do not become extinct rather than trying to create something of the past.

 

Marris Chapters 3 & 4 Rewilding

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Krystal Dong

Rewilding is a conservation project that involves reintroducing species to areas where they had been extinct, in hopes of creating an ecosystem like the one that existed there thousands of years ago. A closely connected idea that comes from rewilding, Pleistocene rewilding, involves the reintroduction of descendants of Pleistocene megafauna or similar species.

I don’t believe that this idea is practical or ethical. Rewilding is attempting to bring back an area back to the way it was thousands of years ago, but no one can be certain as to how it was that long ago and ecosystems constantly change over time. The Pleistocene megafauna became extinct a long time ago, and in their absence, ecosystems have evolved, so the reintroduction of large mammals can have many negative effects of an ecosystem. One of the things mentioned in the chapter was that death was very important in the rewilded areas and that carcasses can attract other species to the area. This however, may not necessarily be a good thing, as the attracted areas may not belong in and adapt to the ecosystem. Take for example, the black vulture from the French reintroduction program that was killed by a train. In addition, many of the species are long gone, so proxy species are being used, which can cause even more trouble. The proxy species might not be suitable substitutes and can become invasive and harm the species already there, possibly through disease, or other factors.

Donlan argues that large mammals are less likely than other species to become invasive and that “we killed ‘em once; we can kill ‘em again.” (69) This idea that we can introduce species to an area and just kill them if they become invasive is unethical and are humans trying to play god, which as mentioned in the book, is a big criticism of rewilding. Donlan argues that we already do that, and the leap is “admitting to ourselves that we live in an intensely managed world.” (68) Rewilding however, takes human interaction and control of nature to the extreme. We would be deciding where species live and which ones live and die and because many species are extinct and “proxies” are introduced instead, it seems like we are actually creating our own, new ecosystems.

Rewilding seeks to create an ecosystem like ones that existed thousands of years ago, before humans were around, but as Marris says, “the whole place is cultivated, man-made, created.” (70) It does not make sense to try to create ecosystems of the past when the outcome is unknown and can harm the ecosystems that exist today. We should just focus and preserving the nature we have now and learn to better treat and use the tools of nature all around us.

Rambunctious Gardens Ch. 1&2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Krystal Dong

In Emma Marris’s novel Rambunctious Gardens- Saving Nature in a Post-Wild World, she talks about a new way of seeing nature. Nature is everywhere, from our backyard to the streets, and although people may believe so, is not pristine. Humans have been changing the landscapes they have occupied for as long as they have been around, and even without human interaction, ecosystems are changing. However, the idea of a stable, pristine wilderness as the best for every landscape is a large focus of ecology and conservation. In Hawaii, Australia, and other places, this was the idea behind the conservation projects. Hawaii has been given the name the “extinction capital of the world.” Many of the native birds are gone or almost gone, and about half of the plants in Hawaii are none native.  Study plots were created to attempt to fix the problem, and in one study plot, all of the introduced species were removed and native Hawaiian plants species were planted. It was an experiment to see whether a native Hawaiian forest could flourish if all the introduced species were removed. After five years however, the mature native trees had grown very little. In Australia, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy is attempting to bring an area of the outback to the same conditions as it was in 1770, when Captain James Cook landed there. Introduced species, such as foxes, goats, cats and rabbits were killed to bring out the native animals that had hid from the predators. These conservation projects have attempted to bring back the area to before humans, or at least Europeans arrived, but as Marris argues, that is not the way to go. By trying to bring nature back to the way it was long ago, the nature there now is being destroyed and species that are there now are being killed.  It takes a lot of time, work, and money to bring an area back to how it was before, but it is pointless because it is nearly impossible. Nature is constantly changing and adapting, and no one really knows for sure how an area looked at long ago. Instead of the striving for “pristine wilderness,” nature should be a rambunctious garden. We already have a huge influence over nature and are in charge of where animals and plants go. Rambunctious gardening is proactive and optimistic and creates more nature as opposed to simply preserving the nature that we have left. Humans already run the Earth, and to be able to do effectively, we should acknowledge and embrace the role. The planet is our space to improve and work on for nature and humans to grow side by side.

8/30 Weekly Reading

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Krystal Dong

The Anthropocene is the period of time in which humans have had a huge impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.  During this era, humans have had influence over every part of the planet’s natural systems. Both of the articles talk about and give examples as to how human actions has affected the planet, but Vitousek seems to be much more negative about what is happening, whereas Kareiva talks about how nature is strong and resilient and can adapt to changes. Vitousek talks about extinction and says that recent calculations show that the rates of species extinction is now 100 to 1000 times what is was before the dominance of humans on Earth. He mentions, “11% of the remaining birds, 15% of the mammals, 5% of the fish, and 8% of the plant species on Earth are threatened with extinction.”  Kareiva on the other hand gives the example of polar bears, which may have a good chance of surviving global warming if the population and range on harbor seals and harp seals increase due to the changing environment. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago, and can evolve again. Species always evolve to take advantage of new environments, showing how strong and resilient nature is.

The two articles also offer different solutions as to how to fix the problem. Vitousek believes that we should decrease the rate at which we change the Earth, increase our efforts to understand Earth’s ecosystems and their interaction with “human caused global change”, and accept responsibility for managing the planet.  Kareiva’s solution is to have a new vision for conservation. Now, conservation is mostly focused on creating parks and protected areas, but it should move towards a more human-friendly type of conservations. The first step is for humans to appreciate strength and resilience of nature as well as how much humans depend on it. Conservation should support development that will use technology that will improve both human and nonhuman natures.

In my opinion, Vitousek’s solution seems that it would have good results if it actually happened, but it does not seem very likely. There is a huge human population on Earth and we are very much dependent on technology. It seems rather difficult to be able to slow down the rate at which we change the Earth. Kareiva’s solution seems more likely to be achieved. If we accept and understand that nature is much stronger then we believe, it would also be beneficial in taking conservation in a new direction that would be better able to preserve nature. He says that conservation “should seek to support and inform the right kind of development.” The development should utilize that right kinds of technology that would improve both human and non human natures. This is the direction we are going in, albeit too slowly and without enough commitment to make it the method of conservation in the future. With more commitment, the change of direction for conservation can be quicker and it can be successful.

Comments by Krystal Dong