Greenversations

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Lea la versión en español a continuación de esta entrada en inglés.
Some links exit EPA or have Spanish content.

In my nightly Web surfing, I came across an article on the “Top 25 Things Vanishing From America.” As expected, the loss of some “old technologies” like the VCR, dial-up internet access, phone landlines, analog TV, made the list. However, what struck me enough to write about it in today’s blog was the mention of the Chesapeake Bay Blue Crabs and honey bees.
Maryland has been my home for nearly 28 years. The blue crab, is practically a state icon. I must note that my family and I enjoy eating crabs in many ways. In this era of going “local” in our culinary habits, you would think that living in the Free State, eating crabs is the right thing to do. Yet this Internet article has made me reflect and question—should we keep crabs off the menu for a while?

Overfishing, water pollution and excessive nutrients are threatening the blue crab and aquatic wildlife that live in and around the Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States. This important watershed spans six states—Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York and the nation’s capital, Washington, DC. EPA and its state partners work closely together to accelerate progress towards a healthy Bay. Through the Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA is trying to make a difference in restoring the blue crab habitat by working to improve water quality and submerged aquatic vegetation. In the meantime, the role of setting harvest regulations for the blue crab lies primarily on the states along the Bay.

Whether you’re concerned about the Chesapeake Bay or your local watershed, there are simple steps you can take in your home, school, community or the workplace to protect these precious aquatic resources. For example, conserve water! Don’t pour used motor oil down the drain! Used oil from a single oil change can ruin a million gallons of fresh water—A year’s supply for 50 people. Use greenscaping techniques in your garden. Bottom line—learn and get involved.

¿Maryland sin cangrejos?

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

En mis viajes por Internet, encontré un artículo sobre las “Principales 25 cosas que están desapareciendo de América”. Como era de esperarse, la pérdida de algunas “viejas tecnologías” como los VCR, las líneas telefónicas terrestres, la TV análoga figuraban en la lista. Sin embargo, lo que me chocó y motivó a escribir el blog de hoy fue la mención de los cangrejos azules de la Bahía de Chesapeake y las abejas de miel.

Maryland ha sido mi hogar durante casi 28 años. El cangrejo azul es casi un ícono estatal. Debo destacar que a mi familia a mí nos encanta comer cangrejos de diversas formas. En esta era de abogar por los hábitos culinarios locales, uno pensaría que viviendo en Maryland, el comer cangrejos sería aconsejable. Sin embargo, con este artículo del Internet, me he puesto a pensar–¿acaso debemos eliminar los cangrejos del menú por algún tiempo?

La pesca en exceso, la contaminación del agua, y los nutrientes excesivos están amenazando el cangrejo azul y la vida silvestre acuática en y alrededor de la Bahía Chesapeake, el estuario más grande en Estados Unidos. Esta importante cuenca fluvial abarca seis estados—Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pensilvania, Virginia Occidental, Nueva York y la capital federal, Washington, DC. EPA y sus socios estatales trabajan estrechamente para acelerar el progreso hacia una bahía saludable. Mediante el Programa de la Bahía de Chesapeake, EPA está tratando de hacer una diferencia en la restauración del hábitat del cangrejo azul al trabajar para mejorar la calidad del agua y la vegetación acuática sumergida. Entretanto, el rol de establecer las regulaciones para la cosecha del cangrejo azul recae primordialmente sobre los estados vecinos a la bahía.

Independientemente de su interés en la Bahía del Chesapeake o su cuenca fluvial local, hay pasos sencillos que puede tomar en su hogar, colegio, comunidad o lugar de trabajo para proteger estos preciados recursos acuáticos. Por ejemplo, ¡conserve agua—cada gota cuenta! ¡No eche el aceite de motor usado por la alcantarilla! El aceite usado de un simple cambio de aceite puede contaminar un millón de galones de agua fresca—el suministro de 50 personas para un año. Utilice técnicas de jardinería verde en su jardín. A fin de cuentas—aprenda y participe activamente en la protección ambiental.

About the author: John DeLashmit began his EPA career over twenty years ago in Chicago. He spent many years working in EPA’s hazardous waste cleanup programs, and now serves as Chief of the Water Quality Management Branch in EPA’s Kansas City office.

We hear its name in the halls and meeting rooms of EPA’s regions and Headquarters: Kaizen, the Japanese process improvement tool. It literally means change (kai) to become good (zen). Kaizen is used by states, feds, and major corporations, such as the Toyota Motor Company, to stay in tune with and provide a better response to changing customer needs. Some of you may wonder what it’s like to go through an Event? Is Kaizen painful, is it dignified, how do you know when it’s over? Do you wear a gi?

I worked with our four Regional states, Headquarters, and my colleagues in the Region at a Kaizen event to “lean” our water quality standard (WQS) review and approval processes in Kansas City. Our Kaizen event took place over four full days last summer. It was quite an experience; we became more enthused about our results as the week went along. The states came armed with diagrams and detailed descriptions of their processes. The Region had no prepared and polished descriptions…we described our procedures, fraught with delay and unnecessary steps, in front of all attending. An ugly process is often described as making sausage; we made our sausage in the window of the butcher shop.

We trimmed (notice that I really like the butcher shop analogy) almost 50% of the steps we’d historically used in our WQS review process, and we eliminated nearly all of the process delays. The refined process we came up with looks much better…on paper. Now, we must implement our ideas and make them work. It’s a new way of doing things, and we realize that there’ll be some frustrations (pain?) while we work to change our old habits.

At EPA, we’re very interested in expanding the use of the Kaizen tool to eliminate waste and delay. I’ll confess…we’re suckers for anything that helps us more efficiently deal with the complexities of regulation, oversight, and our fundamental responsibility to protect the environment. Our Kansas City office will soon use Kaizen to improve our water discharge permitting processes; in the near future, you’ll hear more about Kaizen events in our other regions and Headquarters. We’ll want to share stories about our success…I’ll admit that we’re more than a little proud of what we’re doing.

Just in case my 8th grade English teacher, Miss Osborne, is reading this, I’ll close with a haiku (she would be so impressed):

Kaizen leans our ways
Set a clear course forward
Never hesitate

Read more about Kaizen.

Linked to http://epa.gov/lean/admin.htm

About the author: Jeffery Robichaud is a second generation scientist with EPA who started in 1998. He serves as Chief of the Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Branch in Kansas City.

Ever heard of a guy named Lew Zealand? He was the Muppet that threw boomerang fish (I expect a cut of your winnings if you ever go on Jeopardy and this bit of trivia pays off). I thought of Lew because it is field season again and on the Missouri River we have our own airborne fish. They are Asian Carp, a particularly troubling invasive species that have infested waters and pose a potentially devastating effect to the Great Lakes. They were introduced into the catfish aquaculture business in the 1970s but during floods these “prisoners” escaped their ponds into the Mississippi River, and have been on the run ever since. YouTube has a lot of great videos of them in action.

In Region 7 we administer our Regional Ambient Fish Tissue (RAFT) program where samples are analyzed for contaminants such as mercury, pesticides, and PCBs. States use the data to post fish advisories. Our biologists (including Lorenzo pictured here) end up with nets full of carp because they often are the most abundant fish in the Missouri River. If you talk to some of the old timers fishing along the banks they will tell you the odd-looking paddlefish were more abundant in years past. Paddlefish face many challenges from human-induced changes to the river such as dams, loss of habitat due to channel straightening, and illegal harvest of eggs for use as caviar. Now they count flying fish as enemies since the more abundant carp out-compete the paddlefish for food.

As comical as the spectacle of jumping fish may be, invasive species are a serious threat. A plant may look pretty and an animal may seem cute, yet they may wreak devastating damage when introduced into a non-native setting. In 1884 a single Australian released twenty-four European rabbits on his property for hunting purposes. Within ten years those 24 had turned into over 2 million, and started the delicate ecology of Australia into a downward spiral causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage each year and bringing a $30,000 fine for anyone found harboring their own long-eared friend as a pet. For those outdoor enthusiasts among you, consider scanning your State Conservation Department’s website before you head out on vacation this summer. Find out what you can do to make sure you don’t unknowingly take home a hidden hitchhiker.

Each week we ask a question related to the environment. Please let us know your thoughts as comments. Feel free to respond to earlier comments or post new ideas. Previous questions.

Most Americans have safe tap water and drink tap water fresh from the kitchen faucet. Others choose to buy more expensive bottled water. But bottling and transporting water can carry environmental costs and use energy and resources, and bottles contribute to littering if not properly disposed of.

Why do you drink bottled water or tap water?

.

En español: Cada semana hacemos una pregunta relacionada al medio ambiente. Por favor comparta con nosotros sus pensamientos y comentarios. Siéntase en libertad de responder a comentarios anteriores o plantear nuevas ideas. Preguntas previas.

Muchos estadounidenses tienen agua potable sana y beben agua fresca del grifo de la cocina. Otros optan por comprar agua embotellada más cara. Sin embargo, el embotellar y transportar agua conlleva costos medioambientales y el uso de energía y recursos. Asimismo, las botellas contribuyen a los desperdicios si no se desechan adecuadamente.

¿Por qué toma agua embotellada o del grifo?

About the author: Larry Teller joined EPA’s Philadelphia office in its early months and has worked in environmental assessment, state and congressional liaison, enforcement, and communications. His 28 years with the U.S. Air Force, most as a reservist, give him a different look at government service.

I’ve worked for decades at one of the government’s largest science agencies, witnessing how information is carefully collected and rigorously used to make truly important decisions about, for example,

• health-based standards (e.g., ambient air standards),
• land and water cleanups (e.g., Allied-Signal’s extensive restoration in Baltimore Harbor), and
• long-term strategic plans.

I’ve had a hand in few, but have learned how important it is to make decisions based on well-chosen data and sound reasoning. So it’s been gratifying to see EPA’s (and especially my regional office’s) sustained interest in developing environmental indicators to guide the agency’s work. EPA defines an environmental indicator as a “numerical value that helps provide insight into the state of the environment or human health … based on quantitative measurements or statistics of environmental condition tracked over time.” Higher order indicators track, ultimately, environmental health, while lesser indicators in a multi-level hierarchy portray changes in ambient conditions and environmental protection actions.

Here are my two favorite, if unconventional, indicators; one has gained 20 years of growing popularity and validity (not mine) and one is new, unknown and possibly shaky (mine).

• Former Maryland State Senator Bernie Fowler leads annual wade-ins in streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. He and friends see how deep they can walk and still see their sneakers—as a measure of water clarity, and a great way to connect people to this great but vulnerable natural resource.
• To test how people have started adapting to expensive gas, I began a year ago to track the percent of SUVs and pickups in the parking lot during my weekly supermarket trips. (Does it kill you, too, to see a lone driver use a 6,000 pound SUV to buy groceries?) I know it takes years for the fleet to be replaced, but my year’s “findings,” it seems, are significant and encouraging.

Which low-tech indicators do you use, or propose, that can tell us something interesting about our world’s health?

Each week we ask a question related to the environment. Please let us know your thoughts as comments. Feel free to respond to earlier comments or post new ideas. Previous questions.

Got wheels? There are as many reasons you have a car, truck, or whatever you drive, as there are types of vehicles from which to choose. But there are also trade-offs in your vehicle choice that affect the environment and your wallet.

What do you drive, and why?

.

En español: Cada semana hacemos una pregunta relacionada al medio ambiente. Por favor comparta con nosotros sus pensamientos y comentarios. Siéntase en libertad de responder a comentarios anteriores o plantear nuevas ideas. Preguntas previas.

¿Tienes ruedas? Hay muchas razones para escoger su medio de transporte, sea un automóvil, un camión, o lo que usted decida conducir, así como hay una gran variedad de vehículos que puede escoger. Asimismo, se hacen trueques al seleccionar su vehículo que afectan el medio ambiente y su bolsillo.

¿Qué tipo de vehículo conduce y por qué?

About the author: Lars Wilcut joined EPA’s Beach Team in 2004. He helps oversee EPA’s beach monitoring and notification grants to coastal states and territories.

A couple weeks ago I went to see a baseball game at Nationals Park, which has some great views of the Anacostia River. As I stood there gazing up and down the river, I thought about how nice it is to be on the water.

I love kayaking, and I paddled the Anacostia even before I joined the Office of Water. From my experience with water quality standards issues, I know how far the river is from meeting its designated uses. I still like it, though. It can be so tranquil out on the water, despite the bustle on the other side of the tree-lined riverbanks. Often, I was the only person on the river, feeling acutely like everyone else thought the river was a nuisance and didn’t want to be on or near it. I didn’t think much about the river before I started kayaking. Once I did get out there, though, I began to value it as an important part of our community that I wanted to protect.

So, if I could come to appreciate the Anacostia, can’t other people as well? Building public facilities like ballparks along urban waterways is a big step toward getting people to value their local water resources. What a great thing to have people come out of the ballpark after a game and stroll along the river! When a city reclaims its urban waterway as a community gathering place and surrounds it with public green space and ballparks, those waterways become as much a symbol of the city as the local sports teams.

Through the water quality standards-setting process, we can all participate in protecting our waters. Standards help define what we want our waters to be used for and how we want to make that happen. The people I work with are an integral part of the water quality standards process: EPA reviews and approves state water quality standards to make sure they meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Here in DC, as I return to Nationals Park over the coming seasons, I’m hopeful that we’ll see an improvement in the Anacostia’s water quality; I know EPA will do its part. Then, the next time I’m out there paddling, I won’t be the only one on the water.

Find out about your state’s water quality standards, from EPA’s Repository of water quality standards.

About the author: Lina Younes has been working for EPA since 2002 and chairs EPA’s Multilingual Communications Task Force. Prior to joining EPA, she was the Washington bureau chief for two Puerto Rican newspapers and she has worked for several government agencies.

Lea la versión en español a continuación de esta entrada en inglés.
Some links exit EPA or have Spanish content.

Among my duties as Hispanic liaison, I often conduct interviews in Spanish language media. Recently, I got a call from my cousin Lizette in Puerto Rico who had seen me on a Spanish TV morning show addressing the debate over tap water vs. bottled water. EPA sets the national standards for contaminants in drinking water and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets the standards for bottled water based on EPA standards.

While talking to my cousin, I mentioned—“luckily in the U.S. we have one of the safest supplies of drinking water in the world.” She was quick to remind me—“yes, but in Puerto Rico we have many water challenges. As a Puerto Rican working at EPA you should do more to create awareness of our drinking water which is not in compliance with national standards,” she admonished. She also pointed out that since Hurricane Hugo back in 1989 many people opted for bottled water because “our tap water simply doesn’t taste right.”

I admit that the Island has many water challenges. Nonetheless, I recall the poor conditions and foul smell of the Condado Lagoon at the heart of the tourist section back in the 60’s—a situation which has dramatically improved thanks to the work of EPA in Puerto Rico—just to name one of the Agency’s contributions to the Island’s health and environment.

During our phone call, my cousin mentioned another issue: the lack of fluoridation in the Island’s drinking water. “That’s why so many people on the Island have dental problems.” Given that her brother, my cousin, is a dentist, she had some evidence. Frankly, I had to do some research myself.

I found out that the decision to fluoridate drinking water in Puerto Rico or any other U.S. jurisdiction is a state and local decision. Our role is limited to ensuring that the concentration of fluoride in drinking water from natural or introduced sources does not exceed 4 mg/L. I found out that in 1998, Puerto Rico adopted a law to add fluoride to the water largely at the behest of the state dental association in order to promote dental health. Although the law might be on the books, currently the local utilities are not adding fluoride.

Even though I am not in a position to comment on the fluoride debate, I will urge consumers to learn more about their drinking water and to get involved! (PDF, 36 pages, 2.8 MB).

Agua potable y el fluoruro

Sobre la autor: Lina M. F. Younes ha trabajado en la EPA desde el 2002 y está a cargo del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Comunicaciones Multilingües. Como periodista, dirigió la oficina en Washington de dos periódicos puertorriqueños y ha laborado en varias agencias gubernamentales.

Entre mis responsabilidades como enlace hispana de EPA, frecuentemente hablo con medios hispanos. Recientemente, recibí una llamada de mi prima Lizette en Puerto Rico quien me había visto en un programa matutino de televisión hablando sobre el debate del agua del grifo y el agua embotellada. EPA establece los estándares nacionales para los contaminantes en el agua potable y la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos establece los estándares para el agua embotellada basada en los estándares de EPA.

Hablando con mi prima mencioné—“afortunadamente en EE.UU. tenemos uno de los suministros de agua potable más seguros del mundo”. Ella me indicó rápidamente—“Sí, pero en Puerto Rico tenemos muchos problemas de agua. Como puertorriqueña trabajando en EPA debes hacer más para crear conciencia sobre nuestra agua potable que no está en cumplimiento con los estándares nacionales”, amonestó. También señaló que desde el huracán Hugo en 1989 muchas personas han optado por tomar agua embotellada porque “el agua del grifo simplemente tiene mal sabor”.

Admito que la Isla tiene muchos desafíos de agua. No obstante, recuerdo las condiciones pésimas y el mal olor que emanaba de la laguna del Condado al seno del centro turístico de la Isla en los años 60—una situación que ha mejorado dramáticamente gracias a la labor de EPA en Puerto Rico—sólo un ejemplo de las muchas contribuciones de la Agencia a la salud y medio ambiente de la Isla.

Durante nuestra conversación telefónica, mi prima mencionó otro tema: la falta de fluoruración en el agua potable de Puerto Rico. “Por eso tanta gente tiene problemas dentales”. Dado a que su hermano, mi primo, es dentista, ella tiene alguna evidencia. Francamente, tuve que investigar el tema.

Encontré que la decisión de añadir fluoruro al agua potable en Puerto Rico o cualquier otra jurisdicción bajo la bandera americana recae en el estado y la localidad. Sin embargo, nuestro rol es limitado al asegurar que la concentración del fluoruro en el agua potable de fuentes potables o introducidas no debe exceder 4 mg/L. Encontré que en 1998, Puerto Rico adoptó una ley para añadir fluoruro al agua potable mayormente por el cabildeo del Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico. Sin embargo, en la actualidad los servicios de agua en la Isla no están administrando el fluoruro.

A pesar de que no estoy en posición para debatir sobre el fluoruro, insto a los consumidores a aprender más sobre el agua potable y cómo involucrarse (PDF 36 pp, 1.7 MB).

About the author: Larry Teller joined EPA’s Philadelphia office in its early months and has worked in environmental assessment, state and congressional liaison, enforcement, and communications. His 28 years with the U.S. Air Force, most as a reservist, give him a different look at government service.

I’d hoped my first contribution to this valuable space would speak to a cosmic issue, offering one person’s humble thoughts on how–on the job at an EPA regional office, and away–we can honor our sacred obligation to repair the world. Then, while leaving the train on Friday, I bumped into a co-worker. Our 10-minute walk somehow turned into a friendly contest to invent practical ways to save energy and water.

We came up with two ideas and, being veteran EPAers, devoted most of our words wondering why people more entrepreneurial than us hadn’t already developed and commercialized our utterly obvious breakthroughs.

The first was at our feet: the escalator from the train platform. Why, we wondered, does it continuously run all day long when, except for the morning and afternoon rush hours, it’s used intermittently? Why not have a sensor that starts it up when someone approaches? Energy Star friends, you’ve done wonders for fridges and are now needed at escalators.

Having solved escalator energy waste, and it being National Drinking Water Week, Fred and I devoted our remaining minutes to home sinks. Thinking of two daily tasks-washing dishes and shaving-it seemed sensible that there’s usually no need for the water to run for several minutes when it’s needed part-time. Thinking of doctor and dentist scrub sinks, can there be a safe foot pedal or other way to turn the water on and off while hands are occupied?

Although our last minute together covered possible technical challenges-reliability of switches, wear and tear on escalator gears, tripping over foot pedals, home maintenance-we decided that the R&D gang is up to the task.

Fred and I are willing to share the profits that will surely come our way. My question, readers, is whether our ten-minute commuter brainstorm under the streets of Philadelphia (it was raining) was worthwhile.

About the author: John Lehrter is a research ecologist with the Office of Research and Development in Gulf Breeze, Florida, who joined EPA in 2004. His research activities examine the sources, transport, and fate of pollutants from watersheds to the coastal ocean.

My wife and I have been painting the exterior of our house over the last month or so. It has been a hectic and challenging task. We get home from work, throw on our painting clothes (soon to be retired), and paint until the sun goes down. On weekends we vie for trips to the hardware store to catch a respite from the endless brush strokes. All in all, though, it has been a good experience and the best reward is that we love our house again.

As I was painting on Earth Day it struck me that aesthetics, like a freshly painted house, are very important in how we perceive our surrounding environment. As a water scientist at the EPA, I am often asked the “Why?” question. Why is it important to safeguard water quality and quantity? My typical response is to cite the ways that we are dependent on water resources such as clean drinking water supplies, fisheries resources, and the large number of other natural services provided by freshwater and marine ecosystems. Usually, I forget to even mention aesthetics.

Really, though, the environmental issues we’re most often confronted with on a personal level are aesthetic. During the spring, especially, the natural world showcases its beauty. As we ride to work or run errands we’re visually inundated with scenery. Green scenery, like a city park or a coastal marsh, evokes feelings of well-being. While other scenes, like urban brownfields or heavily eroded hillsides, indicate environmental problems and challenges.

In a lot of cases, training in the environmental sciences is not required to recognize a “good” or “bad” environment. It is rather confusing, however, about what an individual might do to improve things. Educational resources about the environmental issues related to water and what you can do to lessen your impact are available from EPA’s website. Generally, actions that improve aesthetics are a step in the right direction.

Now that we’ve nearly completed painting the house, it is time to start rethinking our yard … and the rest of our environment. I guess I won’t be throwing away those work clothes after all.