- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Watch the fudds cry now!
Instead of rewriting this from scratch, here are the emails I have been writing to folks on the subject. The context is a recently released paper (link below) authored May 11th detailing how trap/skeet ranges should be considered Stage II ecological risks requiring remedial action.
I would hate to be Minuteman or any club with a popular trap range. BTW: I already emailed Jim Wallace so no need to inundate him.
I have a design in my head which I came up with a while back knowing lead shot fall is terribly unmanageable to begin with. Basically the idea is to use shot curtains with a drainage chase under the curtain to funnel the shot into a holding tank. The problem with this idea and this paper below is you would need to put a steel mesh over the chase to prevents birds from ingesting the pellets. That increase management needs. Also, you need to deal with water drainage which I have an idea for too. All of this would cost time resources to build but most clubs could do the labor with their volunteers. The curtains cost $325 per 34.5' x 8.5' curtain not including rigging (telephone poles, steel cables and pulleys/guides) and they last 5 years (so the mfg says), or less with the kind of pounding they would get at a heavily used field. Also, to make this work, the curtains have to be placed closer to the firing line in order to trap more of the shot.
Instead of rewriting this from scratch, here are the emails I have been writing to folks on the subject. The context is a recently released paper (link below) authored May 11th detailing how trap/skeet ranges should be considered Stage II ecological risks requiring remedial action.
I would hate to be Minuteman or any club with a popular trap range. BTW: I already emailed Jim Wallace so no need to inundate him.
I have a design in my head which I came up with a while back knowing lead shot fall is terribly unmanageable to begin with. Basically the idea is to use shot curtains with a drainage chase under the curtain to funnel the shot into a holding tank. The problem with this idea and this paper below is you would need to put a steel mesh over the chase to prevents birds from ingesting the pellets. That increase management needs. Also, you need to deal with water drainage which I have an idea for too. All of this would cost time resources to build but most clubs could do the labor with their volunteers. The curtains cost $325 per 34.5' x 8.5' curtain not including rigging (telephone poles, steel cables and pulleys/guides) and they last 5 years (so the mfg says), or less with the kind of pounding they would get at a heavily used field. Also, to make this work, the curtains have to be placed closer to the firing line in order to trap more of the shot.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/compliance/riskasmt.htm#lseco
If this is used to change policy, this is going to shut down every trap field in the state. It's also a hatchet job. Most of the studies they rely on are not directly relevant and are outdated. They are looking at studies of lead shot in birds that are no longer hunted, but which were hunted at the time of the study. They are also not looking at what is the lead concentration in water foul (which is all they have studies for) now, with today's management practices on trap/skeet fields.
I should be more specific. This passage (3.1.3):
The MCP (310 CMR 40.0995(3)(b)) defines as Readily Apparent Harm: “Visible presence of oil, tar, or other non-aqueous phase hazardous material in soil within three feet of the ground surface over an area equal to or greater than two acres, or over an area equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet in sediment within one foot of the sediment surface.” The readily apparent harm provision is aimed primarily at sediment and soil containing oil and tar, but the presence of lead shot is an essentially analogous condition; it is visible and known to be harmful. Most SPR shot fall zones are likely to have conditions that meet the definition of readily apparent harm. If MCP risk assessments are applied to lead shot sites, it may be appropriate to consider a shot density criterion for readily apparent harm in addition to the area criterion described above.
is what leads me to believe what is on the horizon.
BTW: Remediation is only required if it meets this std: (3.1.5.2)
* Visible presence of oil, tar, or other non-aqueous phase hazardous material in soil within three feet of the ground surface over an area equal to or greater than two acres, or over an area equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet in sediment within one foot of the sediment surface;
* Continuing discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface water where surface water or sediment concentrations already pose a significant risk or exceed Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards.