I would caution applying this to Lincoln's Sandy Pond. How does the scaling look, Fresh Pond vs Sandy Pond? Is the total volume of water comparable, volume vs length of perimeter? What is the flow rate into and out of their volumes? i.e. refreshment rate. I would hazard a guess that Fresh Power water is refreshed, "cleaned up/diluted" faster than Sandy Point, despite the high number of dogs. Water safety is always about "how diluted" is the dangerous "stuff" in our water, not its absolute nonexistence.
Granted, I could be wrong. Devil is in the details A study can look like being applicable as a general "rule of thumb", but breakdown when differing specifics are analyzed. No automatic transfer of applicability of one place's study to another place. The deeper look could either support or refute the use of this study for decision making in Lincoln. Caution is a better principle IMHO, rather than having to fix things post-damage. And lastly, in periods of severe drought is Sandy Pond more easily polluted? We are undoubtedly looking at more frequent and longer duration droughts given increasing climate instability. Gordon Woodington On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 1:18 PM Kathleen Lomatoski <[email protected]> wrote: > > Fresh Pond is definitely heavily used, and lots of dogs are walked there > daily. There are dog poop bag dispensers all along the path along with many > trash bins; most people comply with picking up & disposing their dog‘s > waste, though I imagine compliance is not 100%. Only Cambridge-tagged dogs > can be off-leash there, non-Cambridge residents’ dogs must be kept on > leash—this policy is strictly enforced (and was hotly debated.) > > > > [email protected] > > On Jul 11, 2022, at 11:16 AM, Linda McMillan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think what the Cambridge Water Department was saying was that after a > search of all the published literature at the time, they found that it was > geese poop, not dog poop, that posed a threat to drinking water quality, so > they allow dogs off leash around Fresh Pond. The fence keeps dogs and > animals (and people) from swimming in the water, but the dog waste still > seeps into the ground and ends up in the water, but it hasn’t caused a > problem for them. Dog waste seeping into the ground is the rationale ( I > think) that our Water Department is giving for no longer allowing dogs off > leash around Flint’s Pond. Apparently, this is not become an issue around > Fresh Pond despite the fact that the path is VERY HEAVILY traveled by dogs > and people. It’s like a highway there. > > So, I would just be curious for a response to this from our Conservation > Commission, our Water Department, and the LLCT at the next Zoom meeting > because at the last meeting they stated that no analysis had actually been > done on Flint’s Pond to determine what the source of the ecoli problem was. > It could have likely been the geese. > > I’m not bringing this up for any personal reasons. I don’t go around > Flint’s Pond much at all. I prefer the Pine Hill loop on the other side of > Sandy Pond Road which I am on daily, but I think it’s important that any > change in rules be based on the right information, particularly since it > has been this way for many decades. This would be an historic change. > > On Jul 11, 2022, at 6:57 AM, Christopher Eliot <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the full quote was "After an exhaustive search of the published > literature on the issue of dog waste and its impact on water quality, they > found no evidence that dog waste had a negative impact on water quality. > Instead, they found it was geese poop that was creating a problem with > water quality.” This might be specific to the Cambridge site and may or may > not apply to Lincoln. > > In any case, I think this shows how much research based information is > available that can inform these decisions. > > Hello Linda, > > I suspect what they were conveying to you is that dog poo was not a > problem at this particular site. Your statement “*After an exhaustive > search of the published literature on the issue of dog waste and its impact > on water quality, they found no evidence that dog waste had a negative > impact on water quality*”, is incorrect. While the operative thing is the > degree of pollution, dog poo, like many other animal excrements, does > negatively affect water quality. This is especially the case where paved > surfaces allow water and pollutants to runoff into water bodies. > > These two flyers, while basic, explains well: > https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/slc_petwaste.pdf > https://cfpub.epa.gov/npstbx/files/Pet%20care%20fact%20sheet.pdf > > Regards, > > Donald > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Search the archives at http://lincoln.2330058.n4.nabble.com/. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
