Notes on the Lake: August 2016

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Michigan fracks and puts lower Great Lakes at risk

Fracking has been occurring in Northern Michigan for decades, but, compared to the Marcellus Shale, has been essentially overlooked by the national limelight. The Great Lakes are a vast natural resource, therefore it is imperative that fracking’s impacts to the watersheds feeding the Great Lakes, such as the Grand Traverse Bay watershed, be considered. The laws and regulations in Michigan do not provide enough protection, but new regulations are currently being proposed and non-governmental organizations have played a key role in educating the public and hopefully strengthening the protection of the Great Lakes.

by Alisha Falberg in Vermont Journal of Environmental Law: "Fracking in Michigan: How Drilling for Natural Gas Could Impact the Great Lakes" March 23, 2015.

Nestled between the Leelanau Peninsula and the Michigan mainland lies Grand Traverse Bay. Grand Traverse Bay, part of Lake Michigan, has exceptional water quality. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) watershed quality assessment report, Grand Traverse Bay is of “good” quality; there are a few “impaired” parts, primarily caused by E. coli from recreation, but overall, the water quality of the Bay is very good. However, fracking in northern Michigan—part of the recent frackingboom—could impact this pristine watershed, as well as the rest of the Great Lakes.

Fracking Pit

While the Marcellus Shale, Texas, and California have been in the public eye, fracking in the Great Lakes region has been largely ignored. But fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is occurring in northern Michigan and at a great rate. Fracking has been employed in Michigan since the late 1980s throughout the northern lower peninsula’s Atrim shale and Collingwood/Utica shale, which contain vast sources of natural gas. In 2010, the Antrim shale became the U.S.’s thirteenth largest source of natural gas, comprising over 12,000 drilled wells. The Collingwood/Utica shale is a much deeper formation than the Antrim shale, and in 2010, 5.5 million gallons of water was used in this active fracking well, producing an average of 2.5 million cubic feet of natural gas a day for 30 days. Both of these shale formations cross into the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed. Over the past five years, 1,070 oil and gas permits have been issued across the state. The surface water impacts—such as contamination from spills, leaks, and/or the disposal of inadequately treated shale gas wastewater, and the accumulation of toxic and radioactive elements in soil or stream sediments near disposal or spill sites—and ground water impacts from fracking could apply to the Grand Traverse Bay watershed, and thus to Grand Traverse Bay and Lake Michigan. For example, disposal methods currently allowed in Michigan greatly threaten surface water quality. Fracking wastewater is typically disposed of by injecting it into deep underground wells; however, Michigan “still allow[s] untreated wastewater to be sprayed onto roads for dust control . . . or directly onto lands.”

This method of disposal greatly threatens surface water, as the runoff will flow directly into the watershed, and, in the case of the Grand Traverse Bay watershed, will directly contaminate Grand Traverse Bay. Additionally, as fracking consumes an extreme amount of water, wells drilled in the Grand Traverse Bay watershed region could permanently remove millions of gallons of water from the watershed’s water cycle. Maps showing countless well locations and drilling sites in the five counties in the Grand Traverse bay watershed, are available from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by county.

States are primarily responsible for regulating fracking activities, as fracking is exempt from most federal laws targeted toward environmental protection, such as the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, Michigan laws also largely exempt fracking from key water protection statutes, like Michigan’s codification of the Great Lakes Compact. In fact, Michigan’s codification of the Great Lakes Compact under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994, Great Lakes Preservation section, exempts the oil and gas industry from complying with the requirements of large quantity water withdrawals, including obtaining a water withdrawal permit, stating a withdrawal undertaken as part of an oil and gas activity are exempt withdrawals unless they result in a diversion.

Considering that fracking has been occurring in Michigan over the past few decades, and deep horizontal well drilling has been in abundance since 2010, Michigan’s laws and regulations are minimum at best.

Michigan’s main law that regulates fracking is the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act of 1994, Part 615, Supervisor of Wells (NREPA). This section outlines what the duties of the supervisor of wells are, such as the prevention of waste, not allowing drilling in any of the actual Great Lakes, and requiring all drilling operations be done in such a manner as to prevent the pollution of, damage to, or destruction of fresh water supplies, including inland lakes and streams, the Great Lakes, and connecting waters (MCL §§ 324.61504-61506).

Fracking Site

The regulations promulgated the Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality’s Office of Oil, Gas, and Minerals (OOGM) require all oil and gas well projects to go through a permitting process, the application of which contains an Environmental Impact Assessment and a public comment period. The Environmental Impact Assessment section of the permit takes careful note of the location of the proposed well with regards to inland lakes and streams, wetlands, and water supplies.

The DEQ regulations also require wells to be drilled at least 300 feet from fresh water wells, do not allow surface water to be used for drilling, and require wastewater, or “flowback,” to be disposed of in underground injection wells. However, considering the number of permits that are granted by OOGM each year, the regulations, the permitting process, and the duties of the supervisor of wells under NREPA seem to be not enough to protect the watersheds that lead into the Great Lakes  

Recently, the DEQ has proposed new rules for fracking in Michigan. The proposed regulations created an entirely new section specifically on fracking, as well as added language throughout the existing regulations to refer to fracking. The draft proposed rules include: new definitions, such as flowback fluid, high volume hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic fracturing, and large volume water withdrawal; further permitting requirements, incorporating a large volume water withdrawal assessment component and permit; monitoring of nearby freshwater wells; sampling and analysis of groundwater baselines; further well completion notifications and reporting and monitoring requirements, encompassing storage and disposal of flowback fluids and eliminating use of flowback for dust control on roads; and mandating disclosure of fracking fluid chemical additives.

However, these proposed rules are not being strict enough. For example, there is currently no notification to concerned parties, such as public interest groups and citizens, of pending permit applications, such as there are under other NREPA sections requiring permitting. Additionally, the proposed regulations do not require monitoring of nearby stream flows or surface waters, which could be significantly impacted, and, while they propose groundwater sampling, the proposed regulations are not sufficient in length of time required for the monitoring nor do they monitor a great enough sample of possibly impacted groundwater wells and aquifers.

Non-governmental organizations, like FLOW, however, are taking the lead in commenting on the proposed rules and educating communities on how they can make sure fracking takes into account water quality and the environment. FLOW’s focus is on how water, especially the Great Lakes, is held in the public trust, and therefore, should be protected and preserved for all to enjoy.

FLOW reaches out to local governments helping provide them with legal strategies to protect their communities from the environmental harms of fracking. Local ordinances, such as the Zoning Enabling Act of 2006 and the Township Ordinance Act of 1945, provide townships and counties with legal authority to adopt either zoning ordinances that govern land use or police power ordinances that govern health, safety, and pollution issues associated with unconventional hydrocarbon development.Without watchdog groups, like FLOW, or baykeeper organizations, like The Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay, which does on-the-ground projects, commented on DEQ’s proposed regulations, and advocates to protect the watershed, the Great Lakes could be in even greater danger of pollution from fracking.

With large and prosperous natural gas shales so close to a massive, pristine natural resource like the Great Lakes, it is even more imperative that Michiganders work diligently to conserve and preserve the beautiful water we all grew up with and took so much for granted. Protecting these great water bodies from the dangers of fracking should be at the forefront in our fight to reign in and better regulate this industry.

Friday, August 12, 2016

Ecological Consequences of "Shoreline Hardening"

Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening

Rachel K. Gittman et al. Ecological Consequences of Shoreline Hardening: A Meta-Analysis. BioScience, August 2016 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biw091

Shoreline hardening, defined as the installation of structures to prevent erosion or provide flood protection, is a common practice worldwide. Over 22,000 kilometers of shoreline have been hardened in the United States alone, and many major coastal cities, such as Hong Kong and Sydney, have 50% or more of their shorelines protected by artificial structures. With growing urban populations and rising seas, these trends are expected to continue. However, despite a growing chorus of conservation practitioners advocating for more nature-based approaches to coastal protection, the science on shoreline hardening's effects has failed to keep pace.

To address this shortcoming, a team of marine ecologists led by Rachel K. Gittman of Northeastern University conducted a meta-analysis of 54 existing studies on shoreline hardening. The results described in the journal, BioScience, highlight stark ecological effects of shoreline hardening and of seawalls in particular. "Biodiversity was 23% lower along shorelines with seawalls when compared with that of natural shorelines," observed the authors. Moreover, Gittman and her colleagues noted that overall organism abundance was 45% lower in seawalled areas.

The authors describe the possible mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, including the loss of shoreline habitat: "Because they are typically placed in the high intertidal zone, installation of a seawall and to a lesser extent, a riprap revetment, can sever the connection between upland and intertidal habitat, reflect wave energy and alter sediment transport, and potentially increase the depth of the intertidal and nearshore subtidal zones."

Despite this, one potentially encouraging finding was that biological diversity and the abundance of organisms were not demonstrably altered by other forms of shoreline hardening, such as riprap and breakwaters. The authors report that "some shore-protection structures may serve as surrogate habitats for native epibiota where natural hard substrates, such as oyster reefs and mussel beds, have been lost to overharvest, erosion, and poor water quality." However, Gittman and her colleagues caution that such structures may enable invasive species or have other unintended consequences: "In general, additional studies examining the ecological effects of riprap revetments and breakwaters are needed to inform future decisions on the consequences of selecting these types of structures."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160810141920.htm

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Map 1810 Lake Ontario

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

New name for Braddock Marina: "Westpoint Marina"

Democrat & Chronicle August. 9, 2016

Daniele family to take over Braddock Bay Marina

by Meaghan McDermott. Meaghan McDermott, D&C

Over the past 10 years, the number of boats docked at the Braddock Bay Marina has dwindled from a high of more than 300 to fewer than 20.

The primary problem: Ever since a spit of land washed out of the bay mouth back in the early 1970s, silt and sand carried in by waves from Lake Ontario clogs up the navigation channel. Right now, that channel is less than 2 feet deep. Cleaning it out annually has proven expensive and mostly futile.

"In order to get out on the lake, you've got to go full throttle, or you're going to bottom out," said boater Paul Risio, one of the few hearty souls remaining at the town-owned Braddock Bay Marina on East Manitou Road. "You'll just get stuck."

But a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project is bringing some big changes to the bay mouth — contractors begin next week building a barrier beach that will help keep excessive silt and sand in check — and clearing the way for what the town hopes will be a resurgence of the bay as a destination for recreational boating.

ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE

Army Corps completes some work in Braddock Bay

"We're on one of the Great Lakes and the remarkable thing about Greece is that there is very little space for the 97,000-plus residents here to access the water," said Town Supervisor Bill Reilich. "So when the Army Corps came in and made their commitment we knew we had to invest in our marina."

To that end, the town is negotiating a contract with the Daniele Family of Companies to not only run, but to refurbish the marina with all new docks, electrical systems, plumbing, fueling station and even a small restaurant.

"It's going to be among the nicest marinas on Lake Ontario," said Reilich.

Westpoint Marina

The Daniele Family of Companies proposal to run the town's marina was one of just two proposals submitted back in May. The other was sent in by Steve Gibbs, who had run the Braddock Bay Marina since 1996. He and the town engaged in a protracted argument over whose responsibility it was to dredge the channel, with the town taking on the task until 1999 when grant funding ran out, then refusing to do any additional work.

Gibbs tried to dredge the channel on his own, but his attempts were in vain. The silt kept coming back and over time, boaters fled the marina. Meanwhile, without revenue coming in, the structures there fell into disrepair. Now, the marina's three docks look like something out of a Dr. Seuss illustration: all hills and valleys, with twists and turns and missing boards. Reilich said the town dismissed Gibbs earlier this year for not meeting his contractual obligations to make annual improvements, but didn't bar him from making a new proposal.

One entire dock at the marina is gated off, closed with orange barrels and a padlocked gate

"Some kids went walking out on that one a couple of weeks ago," said Risio, pointing toward the closed walkway. "And it just started to sink on them."

Reilich, also Chairman of the Monroe County Republican Committee, said he separated himself from selection of a new marina operator to avoid the appearance of favoritism. Anthony Daniele, a Republican and president of the Monroe County Legislature, is co-owner of the Daniele Family of Companies.

The company has proposed a $1.7 million renovation of the marina that will begin in 2017 with the construction of 100 new docks. As occupancy increases, additional docks would be replaced. There's also plans for a small convenience store as well as a restaurant that would offer options like hamburgers and hot dogs. Details of a 25-year operating contract are still being hammered out, but the town would get at least 15 percent of annual revenues, plus 5 percent of fuel sales.

ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE

Southpoint Restaurant and Bar open on the bay in Penfield

The marina would be renamed Westpoint Marina to align with the Daniele family's upscale Southpoint Marina on Empire Boulevard. That facility includes a 150-seat restaurant overlooking Irondequoit Bay, a private pool for members and a clubhouse with full-service bathrooms, showers and recreational areas.

Ecosystem restoration

The aim of the ongoing $8 million Army Corps of Engineers project isn't to restore the bay for boating, but rather to restore fish and wildlife habitats to an ecologically important section of Lake Ontario.

Over the winter months, crews excavated channels and holes into the existing marshes and treated acres of invasive non-native cattails with herbicides in an effort to boost native species and add diversity to the wetland habitat.

The bay is part of the Braddock Bay Fish and Wildlife Management Area, a 6-mile-long complex along Lake Ontario that also includes Buck, Long and Cranberry Ponds as well as Rose Marsh. It is an environmentally sensitive waterfowl nesting, resting and feeding habitat and is the Atlantic flyway for migrating species. More than 100,000 various species of raptors migrate through the park annually.

The marina is on a piece of the 375-acre former Braddock Bay State Park, for which the town paid $1 in 1979 to secure a 100-year lease. The town subleases the marina.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer was a driving force behind securing money for the restoration project from the Environmental Protection Agency.

"After decades of decline, I’m glad to report the multi-million dollar federal investment to restore Braddock Bay back to the region’s premier wildlife conservation and recreational destination is in full swing," he said in an emailed statement when the first phase of work was completed in April. "Since last August when I announced our successful push to convince the EPA to greenlight and fund this project, work crews have created new wetland habitats. Soon they will begin dredging to reconstruct the barrier beach that will not only protect the wetlands but enhance boating and recreation in Braddock Bay and rejuvenate the entire area."

Beginning next week, crews will dig out a navigation channel that will be about 200 feet wide and at least 8 feet deep. Sand from the excavation will be used to build a barrier beach that includes 1,675-foot continuous rubble mound breakwater, two 180-foot rubble mound groins, a three-acre headland beach and two 150-foot headland rubble mound breakwaters.

"They have to make it safe for boaters," said Nick Mustang, who on a recent afternoon went out in the bay with his personal watercraft. The navigation channel isn't clearly marked, he said, and in some spots the water was so shallow, that old concrete piers from the long-defunct railroad that ran along the lake were less than 2 feet below the water's surface. "If you didn't know they were there, you'd just hit them."

If all goes according to the proposal, all renovations would be complete by 2022, with the first phase of construction completed by May 2017.

That's something Risio is looking forward to.

"You know, it was like 10 years ago that this place was hopping and there was a two-year wait list to get a slip," he said. "Then they just stopped taking care of the channel. I've been waiting for this to come back for years."

MCDERMOT@Gannett.com

1987: Rochester Embayment 'Area of Concern' created to improve public health

"Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations Program by the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the Department of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services" This was the original intent of identifying 'areas of concern'.

Not so much about the 'black tern.

From the Federal Register Volume 76, Number 214 (Friday, November 4, 2011):;

In 2009, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was enacted as Public Law 111-88. The GLRI makes Great Lakes restoration a nationalpriority for 16 Federal agencies. The GLRI is led by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Under a 2010 interagency 
agreement with the US EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR) announced a funding opportunity called the 
``Biomonitoring of Great Lakes Populations Program'' (CDC-RFA-TS10-
1001).
    This applied public health program aims to measure Great Lakes 
chemicals in human blood and urine. These measures will be a baseline 
for the GLRI and future restoration activities. The measures will be 
compared to available national estimates. This program also aims to 
take these measures from people who may be at higher risk of harm from 
chemical exposures.
    Three states were funded for this program: Michigan, Minnesota, and 
New York. The health departments in these states will look at seven 
AOCs and four types of sensitive adults: Michigan--urban anglers in the 
Detroit River and the Saginaw River and Bay AOCs; Minnesota--American 
Indians from the Fond du Lac Community near the St. Louis River AOC; 
and New York--licensed anglers and immigrants from Burma and their 
family members living in four Lake Ontario and Lake Erie AOCs. These 
include the Rochester Embayment AOC, the Eighteenmile Creek AOC, and 
the AOCs along the Niagara and Buffalo Rivers.

Braddock Bay helps delist Rochester AoC Embayment

Braddock Bay, NY
Coastal Wetland Restoration Nearshore / Non-Point Source

Focus Area
Project Location: Braddock Bay is located on the shore of Lake Ontario within the Great Lakes Rochester Embayment Area of Concern (AoC) [an EPA designation] in the town of Greece in Monroe County, New York.
Project Description: The project goal is restoration of 185 acres of high quality coastal marsh wetland habitat. Potential project alternatives involve restoration of an extensive network of channels and potholes providing a large amount of edge and shallow water habitat between open water and emergent vegetation, as well as shore protection to re-establish the function provided by historic barrier beaches.
Non-Federal Partner: No cost share sponsor is required for the current Feasibility Study, phase and both the Town of Greece and New York State Department of Conservation support implementation.
Project Benefits: The project benefits include: contributing to the delisting the Rochester Embayment Great Lakes Area of Concern (AoC) Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) for both (1) degradation of fish and wildlife populations and (2) loss of fish and wildlife habitat, contributing to the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) goal to maintain/restore ecosystem to support self- reproducing diverse biological communities, and restoring habitat for the New York State endangered black tern that has not bred there since 1998.
Project Status: This project was initiated with $100K of GLRI funds under the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program (GLFER) authority. The GLFER project is being terminated, as, in January 2013 USACE and USEPA signed an interagency agreement allowing the project to becompleted under the USEPA GLRI authority through the Economy Act.

Project Milestones
Feasibility Study & Environmental Assessment	Mar 2014
Plans & Specifications	Jun 2014
Construction	FY14

Estimated Project Costs
Federal	$7,500,000
Non-Federal	$0
Total	$7,500,000
FY12 GLRI Funding (Economy Act)
GLRI	$487,500
FY14 GLRI Funding (Economy Act)
GLRI	$7,000,000

Point of Contact

Craig Forgette,
craig.m.forgette@usace.army.mil, (716) 879-4187

September 2013

Monday, August 08, 2016

This is the Expectation for Braddock Bay: US Army Corps

Plans for Braddock Bay Restoration: Greece, NY

Project Location: Braddock Bay is located on the shore of Lake Ontario within the Great Lakes Rochester Embayment Area of Concern (AoC) in the town of Greece in Monroe County, New York. Here is what the US Army Corps/Buffalo plans for the $9M in construction:

Project Description: Braddock Bay is a coastal freshwater ecosystem consisting of 340 acres of emergent and submerged wetland habitat. Shoreline development and management of Lake Ontario lake levels has been negatively impacted many of the process that maintained Braddock Bays diverse habitats. The project goal is restoration and protection of Braddock Bay’s coastal wetlands. The project will restore wetland habitat, treat invasive species, and improve the coastal resiliency of existing wetlands by restoring the historic barrier beach. Potential project alternatives involve restoration of an extensive network of channels and potholes that will increase habitat interspersion, complexity, and diversity; as well as restoration of the former barrier beach to protect the bay from wave energy and reduce erosion of existing wetlands.
Project Authorities: This project is being completed under the Economy Act. Through this authority, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has funded the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a Feasibility Study, Design, and potentially project construction.
Non-Federal Partner: No cost share sponsor is required for the current design. Funding is provided by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) through USEPA and is 100% Federal. Both the Town of Greece and New York State Department of Conservation support implementation.

EWN Application: Historically, strategies for reducing erosion involved construction of rock revetments or breakwaters that lacked the natural transitions from shallow water aquatic habitat to upland terrestrial. At Braddock Bay a stone breakwater is being augmented with features that will allow it to maintain a barrier beach mimicking the natural barrier beach that was historically present at this location. This barrier will reduce erosion and have the secondary benefit of restoring the natural littoral drift processes in the vicinity of the project. The natural littoral processes will move this littoral sediment along the restored barrier beach helping to nourish it while also increasing the amount of littoral sediments that move past Braddock Bay and into downdrift areas. The restored barrier beach will help return Braddock Bay to the low energy system it was historically. As a result, reductions in wetland erosion will be accompanied by natural expansion of submerged aquatic vegetation. A variety of wetland restoration measures will be implemented to further augment these benefits by increasing the diversity and extent of emergent wetland habitat and ultimately increase its suitability for wildlife.

FactSheet US Army Corps 2015

Was there ever a 'barrier beach' across the mouth of Braddock Bay? Answer: No

$10 million dollars says that there was. Tell that to the Rochester, Charlotte & Manitou Railroad Line [Manitou Trolley] which built a 2,000 ft. trestle across Braddock Bay in 1895.

That's what the Army Corps presented in the form of scientist, Dennis Wilcox of SUNY Brockport, who testified to the Town of Greece . . . and that's the local person presenting 'research' upon which the federal 'restoration' funding has been directed [through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative] to build a cement/rock barrier across part of the mouth of Braddock Bay NY on L. Ontario.

How is the assumption of a 'barrier beach' possible? This map was published in 1894. . . . .

Have these people ever SEEN the bay??

In 2015 the Army Corps Engineer Research and Development Center in Vicksburg, Mississippi did various numeric simulations of the sediment deposit and other factors stating this: "A 5,000 ft (1,524 m) long sandbar that spanned the entire length of bay entrance isolated the bay from the lake until 1902. The sandbar stretched the full length of entrance until the early 1900s, but gradually eroded and moved into the bay over ensuing decades. There used to be a railroad located on the sandbar, and a trolley line ran across the bay along this barrier bar, which was abandoned later. By the 1950s, most of the barrier bar had eroded and disappeared, and Braddock Bay became exposed to direct wave action. The bay had also two natural spits at the northwestern and southeastern openings of the bay, and both of these also have gradually eroded away and shifted landward into the bay. With increasing residential developments along the beaches during the second half of 20th century, the armoring of southeastern and northern spits was sought by local residents. These armorings have slowed down erosion due to continuous nearshore breaking waves and strong currents emanating from Lake Ontario." -- http://www.ADA614136.pdf WHAT!!! NOT TRUE!!

Why is it important? Because the 'coastal restoration' funding and deliberate manipulation of a natural coastline across the mouth of Braddock Bay was based on politically [financially] motivated statement. A LOT of money is being poured into coastal restoration. By damaging the natural bay mouth and the bay's west spit natural sandbar coastline and here in the NYS Braddock Bay Wildlife Management Area, the future health of the bay may be compromised. Natural sediment deposit, wave action and other hydrologic features are being tweaked --- and I, for one, cannot really fathom the reason.

A 1894 survey of the shoreline showed the wide open bay mouth with trestle crossing it:

To add more to the debate, papers given to me in 1983 by Mrs. Walter Stone, owner of the Braddock Point Lighthouse, indicated that schooners coming from Sacket's Harbor to Fort Niagara were provisioned at Braddock Bay. The shallow-draft vessels were not blocked from entering the bay. In subsequent years, sandbars forming in patterns along the west spit [west to east] came up against the 1890s Manitou Trolley foundation trestle, remnants of which still remain across the bay's mouth effecively serving as an underwater barrier. I am watching the construction of revetment starting from the eastern shoreline of the bay. I hope I am wrong. I hope I am not just a nit-picker nimby. But I don't think so.