"How Safe Is the Tap Water?"

As water flow either on the surface or under the ground, it collects microorganisms through its path. Most of the microorganisms are harmless, but some cause human disease. Layer of soil reacts as a natural filter and removes the majority of microorganisms from water. The longer the water moves, the more contamination absorbs by the soil particles. Statistics shows that over one billion people have lack of access to safe water supplies and 2.6 billion people have lack of access to adequate sanitation. About 3.2 million people lose their lives because of infectious diseases associated with water contamination. This is about 6% of all global death.

With the population and agriculture growth the waste discharges to the environment and particularly to the water has been increased during last decades. Bacterial densities in run-off from agricultural lands often exceed water quality standards. Several studies show that the bacterial indicator organisms in streams in US are proportional to the number of cattle and the area of pasture. Microbial infectious disease outbreaks demonstrate the fragility of barriers designed to protect public health. Our water treatment technologies have allowed us to practically eliminate the diseases that remain major causes of morbidity and mortality in other countries (like cholera, typhoid, and dysentery).

Although water treatment can kill most of the pathogens in drinking water and a concentration of 1 to 2 milligram of chlorine per liter in tap water can kill %99.9 of the pathogens, sometimes some disastrous failure in water treatment can happen. The most common waterborne disease in US is gastrointestinal illness. The US Centers of Disease Control have reported increasing incidents of waterborne infectious disease in the United States, and it’s estimated that 6 to 40 percent of all gastrointestinal illness in the United States may be waterborne origin. During the epidemic of Cholera in US in 1991, about 746,968 infected cases were reported, among which 6,448 died. Effective treatment of drinking water and sewage plus adequate personal hygiene habits, has contributed to a successful line of defense against the spread of cholera in the U.S. In 1993, a failure in water treatment in Wisconsin, Milwaukee, caused an estimated 400,000 cases of diarrheal disease and approximately 100 deaths. In 2000, in Walkerton, Ontario, 2,300 people were sickened and seven were died after heavy rain s compromised a municipal drinking water well and water treatment process failed. Fortunately these major problems occur very frequently. The most common waterborne contaminations sources are:

Agricultural runoff
Combined sewer discharges
Sanitary sewer overflows
Wastewater treatment plant discharges
Septic tank systems
Livestock operations such as dairy farms, feed operations, grazing.

Fresh water source on earth is very limited. Every day, we withdraw billions of gallons of fresh water from surface and groundwater sources. Since we all use water, we are all responsible for saving it. The two basic principles behind maintaining water resources are: conservation and protection. Doing simple things like turning off the tap when brushing your teeth, using fewer chemicals on your lawn or garden, or fixing a leaky faucet can add up to big savings in both the quantity and quality of the water we drink. There is no washing or cleaning detergent yet in existence that is completely harmless to the environment. All such chemicals contribute pollution to varying degrees. The best we can do is to use them in a reasonable and proper way and, preferably, buying those products labeled as being safer and containing environmentally friendly substances. While state governments need improvements in the regulation and protection of public drinking water supplies, the most important decisions affecting the quality of the drinking water are made by individuals. Cleaning up waterways, performing stream monitoring, voting for land-use policies that protect community water resources, all are individual actions that add up to a safer, more plentiful drinking water supply.

"Repeal of US Forest Service Roadless"

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule was taken in the final days of Clinton administration on January 5, 2001. The rule bans the construction of roads and the harvest of timbers in 58.5 million acres of America’s national forests, except under certain circumstances, such as having access to the current mineral lease boundaries, or for the safety and public health. It started in January 1998, when Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck proposed to temporarily suspend road construction and reconstruction in most inventoried roadless areas and other adjacent unroaded areas. In October 1999, Former president Clinton directed the Forest Service to develop regulations that would provide appropriate long-term protection for currently inventoried roadless areas. On January 12, 2001, after nearly three years of analysis and the greatest public outreach in the history of federal rulemaking, the U.S. Forest Service adopted the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to conserve 58.5 million pristine acres of National Forests and Grasslands from most logging and road construction. The Roadless Area Final Rule was supposed to go in effect on March 13, 2001, but on February 5, 2001 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) postponed the implementation of the rule due to an order from Bush administration for 60 days. In the absence of further delay, the current effective date of the Roadless Rule would be May 12, 2001. On May 13 2005, the Bush administration repealed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and replaced it with a state petition process based on several separate lawsuits challenging the implementation of the Roadless Area final rule. Under the new rule almost sixty million acres of the national forests was opened to road construction, oil exploration, logging, mining, and other forms of developments; so that the roadless areas may receive protection only if the governors of the states in which the roadless areas lie, complete and file the petition at the Department of Agriculture. There is no guarantee that the petition will be accepted and the government can either accept it or reject it. The officials and citizens outside those states can’t be involved in the decision either. This decision was made because of the several complaints from various recreational groups, livestock companies, minerals companies and Indian tribes, challenging the implementation of the Roadless Area final rule.

On January 8, 2001, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, two Idaho counties, various recreational groups and snowmobile and ranching companies, some livestock companies, and the Boise Cascade Corporation filed suit in the federal district court in Idaho to block the federal government from implementing the Roadless Rule. According to the complaint, the Forest Service failed to involve the public adequately as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and failed to consider environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives for the recommended course of action in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since the Forest Service violated its procedural obligations, the plaintiffs have requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction preventing the Forest Service from implementing the Final Rule until the case is heard and adjudicated. According to Mike Moser, the spokesman for plaintiff Boise Cascade, a timber company, the rule was predetermined and one-sided and failed to consider the long- term consequence for managing the health of the national forests.

On May 10, 2001, federal district judge Edward Lodge made a preliminary determination that the Roadless Rule likely violated NEPA and APA. He believed that the Clinton rule-making process was improperly hurried and the Forest Service was not given time to produce a coherent proposal so that the end result was predetermined. Surprisingly, the federal government, represented by the Bush Administration, filed a response that failed to defend the Roadless Rule; instead it invited the court to order a stay of the effective date of the regulation until the case is resolved. “The government also declared that the USDA clearly retains the discretion and authority to promulgate, amend, revise, or rescind rules such as the Roadless Rule here at issue. Furthermore, Justice Department attorneys went so far as to say that the intervening defendant environmental organizations would not be harmed by a delay in the implementation of the rule because any timber sales that might move forward as a result of a delay could be challenged on a site specific basis where the sales would be occurring.”(Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, J. Fidel)

The federal government, the defendant, did not appeal Lodge’s decision. But the federal appellate court in San Francisco allowed a consortium of activist groups to appeal the ruling. When the activist groups were allowed to appeal, the Bush administration surprised the supporters of multiple uses by filing a brief supporting the Roadless Rule. Turning to the merits of the appeal, the appellate court, determined that the Roadless Rule did not violate NEPA.

According to the court, “NEPA simply provides the necessary process to ensure that federal agencies take a ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of their actions, That “hard look,” the court ruled, required only that the Forest Service give some input to state and local governments, affected Indian tribes, and the general public in preparing and implementing a plan to prevent degradation of national forests (Appeals Court Upholds Clinton Roadless Rule, J.M. Taylor.).”The appellate court rejected the district courts determination and claimed that the Clinton administration had moved too quickly to implement the rule and it should have considered alternative plans for protecting national forests that did not contemplate a complete ban on new road-building. The appellate court determined the NEPA requirement to consider a variety of alternative plans “must be interpreted less stringently when the proposed agency action has a primary and central purpose to conserve and protect the natural environment, rather than harm it (Taylor).” On the other hand, appellate court judge Andrew Kleinfeld argued that the activist groups had no legal right to intervene in and appeal district judge Lodge’s preliminary injunction. Kleinfeld wrote: “The majority admits that “the interveners do not have an independent protectable interest.” The majority nevertheless claims the interveners assert “defenses of the Roadless Rule directly responsive to the claim for injunction” and have “an interest in the use and enjoyment of roadless lands.” This is plainly insufficient under Rule 24(b), which requires common claims or defenses, not merely parallel but distinct interests. The government’s interest in this action is in compliance with the procedural requirements of NEPA, not in the enjoyment of national forests (Taylor).” He also argued that all the few alternatives suggested by Clinton Administration banned the road construction, and didn’t give any alternatives of not banning road construction. Kleinfeld believed that since roads are necessary to protect the forests and those who have property affected by them from avoidable destruction by fire, insects, and disease, other alternatives such as allowing road construction with limits on density, allowing construction of roads made of certain materials only, or limiting road use to low-emission vehicles could be included.

Kleinfeld believed that “the national forests [are] established to provide a source of timber and to protect the flow of water. “National forests [at their creation] were not to be reserved for aesthetic, environmental, recreational, or wildlife-preservation purposes.” (United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 707 (1978)).They are not the same as wilderness areas, and the national forests are not “natural environments.” They’ve been a managed rather than a natural environment for a hundred years. For most of that time they were managed to serve as a federal tree farm, supplying timber as a renewable resource” (Taylor).

On July 14, 2003, Wyoming U.S. District Court Judge, Clarence Brimmer, blocked implementation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. He believed that Roadless Area Conservation Rule violated NEPA for five reasons:

1. Failure to extend the scoping comment period
2. Failure to explain denial of cooperating agency status to the State of Wyoming
3. Inadequate range of alternatives
4. Inadequate cumulative effects analysis
5. Failure to prepare a supplemental EIS.

The State of Alaska filed its own suit over the Roadless Rule, and the Mountain States Legal Foundation filed a separate suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia representing Communities for a Great Northwest (Great Northwest is a rural grassroots group located in Libby, Montana).

After the Roadless Area Rule was suspended by the federal court, in September 2003, the Bush administration decided to propose a new roadless rule, rather than to continue with rule revisions it proposed in June.

In May 2005, the United States Forest Service issued a new national roadless policy in an effort to repeal the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The 2005 rule terminated that protection and directed each Governor to develop a new public process and petition the federal government to either open lands for development or maintain their protections. This interim rule reserves most decisions on timber harvesting and road building projects in these areas to the chief and regional foresters. Under the 2005 rule, the states were granted 18 months for the petition process. However, there was no guarantee that the U.S. Forest Service would grant protections to the areas identified by the states. A state has the option to include all or a portion of its roadless areas in a petition, and the governor could agree with most of a Forest Service’s land management plan with the exception of one area. Governors had until November 13, 2006 to submit petitions to the Secretary of Agriculture. If a governor decides not to file petitions, the conservation and management direction for these areas will continue to be guided by current land management plans. The interim directive will remain in effect as well, and it is the Secretary of Agriculture who makes the final decision on a petition.

It was the breadth of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule that spurred lawsuits by several states, caused lots of challenging through the procedural process of the rule and the authority of the government to implement such a policy. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule limits or prohibits new road construction or reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands unless:

1. To protect the health and safety in cases of an imminent threat of flood, fire or other catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause the loss of life or property
2. To conduct environmental clean up required by federal law.
3. To allow for reserved or outstanding rights provided for by statute or treaty.
4. To prevent irreparable resource damage by an existing road.
5. To rectify existing hazardous road conditions.
6. Where a road is part of a Federal Aid Highway project.
7. Where a road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are under lease, or for new leases issued immediately upon expiration of an existing lease.

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule limits or prohibits activities that would most negatively affect the roadless, such as: cutting, sale, and removal of timber in inventoried roadless areas, except for the removal of generally small diameter trees which improves roadless characteristics and habitat for threatened or endangered species, or to maintain or restore ecosystem composition and structure, such as reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects. In practice, the rule would prohibit road building and most timber cutting in inventoried roadless area, and would effectively bar most off road vehicles and new oil, gas, and mining operations.

New Mexico was the first western state to file a petition to protect all of its inventoried roadless areas in May 2006, but the state also joined a suit to invalidate the Bush administration's rule. In September and October, 2006, a Federal court in California reinstated the Clinton Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In November 30, 2006, the court blocks many oil and gas and road projects approved while roadless area protections were removed. After that Oregon joined the two other states, California and New Mexico, as well as Virginia and North Carolina and filed a law suit against U.S. Forest Service, to stop the implementation of the 2005 Roadless Rule, and to get the full protection of the roadless acres in their states that were covered by 2001 Roadless Rule, and to make sure that the state has the role in the management of federal lands. In October 2006, Idaho became the first state to request less than 100% protection. The lawsuit states that undeveloped lands in national forests are not only critical to a healthy Oregon ecosystem, but also are of "enormous national importance”. Oregon’s roadless areas are vital to the survival and recovery of at least seven rare and endangered species, including the bald eagle and several species of salmon. Governor Kulongoski opposed repeal of the 2001 Rule and expressed serious concerns about the rule that replaced it. He has consistently supported placing Oregon’s 1.9 million acres of roadless areas back into protected status. He asked Oregon Attorney General, Hardy Myers to file for a temporary restraining order in the Federal District Court in San Francisco to stop the federal government from proceeding with the sale of timber in the South Kalmiopsis Roadless Area of the Siskiyou National Forest. He believed that the federal timber auction would foreclose his ability to influence the management of Oregon’s unroaded national forests when he petitions the federal government, but the U.S. Forest Service is moving forward with the timber sale despite the Governor’s March 9th letter requesting the agency not do so.

The 2001 Roadless Area Rule which was developed by the federal government may become the greatest land-use battle of the year to find the proper way to manage the last remaining parcels of undeveloped, unprotected forests. It was with extensive public input and based on scientific data.

The U.S. Forest Service held more than 600 meetings and hearings in 37 states. More than 25,000 people participated. 95 percent of the more than 1.6 million comments submitted favored the strongest possible protection for roadless areas. In 18 separate opinion polls, conducted by both Republicans and Democrats, Americans demonstrated robust support for roadless area protection. In July 2005, over 140 members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill to codify the Roadless Rule into law. There are valid scientific and economic reasons for preserving roadless areas on the national forests, and the public has come out in strong support of the concept of keeping roadless areas free from development. Obviously the Americans understand the need for roadless forest protection. These pristine lands are the sources of clean water for millions of Americans. Since 2001, the administration has been trying to gain access to roadless forests. It eliminated all protections, and reverting management of these areas back to existing forest plans. Forest plans allow road building in 34 million acres of inventoried roadless areas, about 59% of the 58.5 million acres of roadless forests. Inventoried roadless areas provide benefits to over 220 wildlife species listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed by the Endangered Species Act – approximately 25% of all animal species and 13% of all plant species. Inventoried roadless areas also provide large undisturbed blocks of important habitat for a wide variety of native terrestrial and aquatic plants including more than 1,400 Forest Service listed sensitive species.

References:

Repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule
http://www.ourforests.org/threats/repeal_of_the_roadless_rule.html

Appeals Court Upholds Clinton 'Roadless Rule' http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11438

Wyoming District Court Blocks Implementation of Roadless Rule http://www.wilderness.org/OurIssues/Roadless/brimmer_decision_analysis_20030715.cfm

The Wilderness Society, http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Roadless-StatePetition-FinalRule-Analysis1.pdf

Vermont Journal of Environmental Law http://www.vjel.org/editorials/2001S/fidel.html

Controversies: Public Participation in Roadless Area Management http://www.redlodgeclearinghouse.org/legislation/nationalforestmanagement5a.html

Governor Announces New Plan to Protect Oregon's Roadless Areas
http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/p2005/press_083005.shtml

Governor Announces New Plan to Protect Oregon's Roadless Areas
http://www.ourforests.org/documents/AG_suit/or_ag_pr.pdf
Judge declares "roadless rule" illegal http://www.paohv.org/right_frame_casper.html
Questions and Answers on Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule
http://wyoming.gov/governor/policies/documents/RoadlessRuleQ_A.pdf
Governor Kulongoski will try to halt federal timber sale
http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/p2006/press_060906.shtml
The National Forest "Roadless Area" Rule
http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/qroadless.asp
Roadless Area Conservation Rulemaking Facts
http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/rule/zRULE_Facts_1-5-01.htm

The History of Suez Canal

The idea of a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea dates back to ancient times. It was Senause, Pharaoh of Egypt, who linked these two seas to each other for the first time in 1874 B.C, but that canal was abandoned and reopened many times, First by Nkhaw, then during the Persian invasion of Egypt, by king Darius I, who ordered it completed and reopened in 510 B.C. It remained in good condition during Ptolemy’s era, but fell in to ruin afterwards. The Romans Emperor, Trajan re-dug the canal in 117 B.C., and the Arab ruler Amir Ibn-Abbas was the last person who reopened the canal in 640 A.D. Over the years it fell again into ruin and was completely abandoned.

At last, on November 30, 1854, a French engineer Ferdinand De- Lesseps signed a concession with the Egyptian government to dig Suez Canal. On April 25, 1859, the digging began, and it continued for 10 years. More than 1.5 million Egyptian workers took part, of whom more than 125,000 lost their lives. On November 17, 1869, the Suez Canal was opened with great ceremony at the northern Terminus, Port Said.

At that time, the canal was 163 kilometers long, about twice the length of Panama Canal. “The Suez Canal was also easier to construct than Panama Canal because it crosses flat, sea - level terrain and requires no locks. About 24 miles (39 Kilometers) of the canal are channels dredged through lakes. Most of the banks of the other 77miles (123 Kilometers) are reinforced with stone, or steel to help prevent erosion.

Suez Canal emerged on the political scene in 1956 when Egyptian president Jamal Abd- ol- Nasser nationalized the canal in response to the British, French and American refusal of a loan for building the Aswan High Dam. He said: “The revenue of the canal would help finance the High Dam project (Suez Canal, p.2).” The colonial countries rejected this decision and froze Egypt’s funds in European Banks. Matters became worse when the UK, France and Israel triggered the tripartite aggression on October 29, 1956, to force Egypt to relinquish its stance, giving the three countries enough room to occupy the Suez Canal. The canal has been closed for one year, but under the pressure of the United Nations, the British and French were ordered to withdraw from the Canal Zone, and the United Nations subsequently decided that the Suez Canal did in fact belong to Nasser (Building the Suez Canal p.146). “In 1963 Egypt paid the last compensation to the Suez Company shareholder and become sole owner of the waterway (Suez Canal,p.3).”

The Suez Canal was closed for the second time in 1967 during the Arab- Israeli war. Thus no more oil was pumped to Europe, and prices of good rose. It cost $150 million for Britain but more for Egypt. About 5,000 Egyptians died. Egypt’s financial loss rose. Also 63 ships and marine units were sunk to block the canal. When Egypt reopened the canal after 8 years, she reconstructed and modernized it. Now, the Suez Canal is 193 kilometers long. The present capacity of Suez Canal is more than 25,000 vessels annually.

The Suez Canal is distinctive because:
It is the largest canal in the world with no locks.
Compared with other waterways, the percentage of accidents is almost zero.
Navigation goes day and night.
It is liable to be widened and deepened when required to cope with expansion in ship size.

The Suez Canal has a strategic location because it links two oceans and two seas, the Atlantic and Mediterranean via Gibal Taregh to Port Said, and the Indian Ocean and Red Sea via Bab –Al- Mandab and the Gulf of Suez to the Port of Suez. It also connects Africa to the Middle East, Which makes it good trade location.

The Suez Canal transports 14 % of the total world trade, 26% of oil exports, and 41% of the total volume of goods and cargo to the Persian Gulf.

saving of 86% in distance is achieved to port the goods from Black Sea to the Persian Gulf. All these have made this canal a strategic trade area, where each country wants to have some room. Thus the Suez Canal pumps $5 million in to Egyptian exchequer daily! Today, when the Canal Zone presents a lush, busy appearance, it is difficult to imagine that in 1855 it was just a part of that almost uninhabited, waterless, and windblown desert which stretched eastward from Nile Valley across to Syria.

"The Traditional Native- American Literary Expression"

Before Europeans settled in America, Native- Americans had been lived for thousands of years in this continent. They had about three hundreds different cultures and were speaking in about two hundred different languages. Since they didn’t have any alphabets and writing literatures, they passed on their cultural values, their wisdom, their understanding about nature and surviving, and their sense of identity through oral literature. The older generations passed their knowledge and their wisdom to the younger generations through oral narratives, oratories, songs and poems. Oral narratives were often told by an older in a story telling session to the younger members while the adults were present. These stories usually were about sacred or secular stories, some religious or historical like the Tlingit tribe’s story of their first contact with white people.

Some of the Native – American myths are about creation and nature like the one about how the world was made. The Cherokees believed that the world consists of various levels: the earth, the underworld, the heaven, and the level between heaven and the earth. According to the Cherokee myth, at first the earth was flat and very soft and wet. The animals were above in Galun lati, beyond the arch. When it was crowded, they sent the Great Buzzard to find out if the earth is dry and if he can find any place for the animals to live. “When he flew all over the earth, he found it soft and wet. When he reached the Cherokee country, he was tired and, and his wings began to flap and strike the ground, and wherever they struck the earth, there was a valley, and wherever they turned up again there was a mountain.” When the earth was dry and the animals came down it was still dark, so they got the sun and set it in the sky. Since it was too hot, the conjurers put the sun in another hand – breadth for seven times to make it tolerable. When the animals and plants were made they were told to keep awake for seven nights. On the seventh nights, of all animals only owl, panther and a few others were awake. So they were given the power to see in dark. Of all plants only cedar, pine, spruce, the holly and the laurel were awake, so they were given to be always green. Human being was created after all animals and plants. At first, there were only one brother and one sister. The brother struck the sister with a fish and told her to multiply; so after seven days a child was born to her. After that each seven days she gave birth to a child until the earth was crowded. Then, it was made that each woman should have only one child in a year.

The story of the first fire began when the thunders sent their lightning and put fire in to the bottom of a hollow sycamore tree, which grew on an island. Before then, the world was cold, so every animal wanted to bring some fire from that island. Every time any of them tried to go in to that island and bring fire, some thing happened to him, like Raven and Uksuhi snake got black since they burned themselves, and Hooting Owl and Horned Owl have white ring around their eyes because of the smoke. At last, it was the Water Spider who managed to bring fire in a bowl hanging on her back and ever since we have fire and the Water Spider has her bowl.
Native- Americans song may also be of a religious nature or about history. The religious expression may vary from dance dramas staged as public ritual or personal. The Zunis who used to live in the area now called New Mexico, prayed before planted their corps. During the ceremony, they honored the power of life, and prayed for their ancestors, who have become masked Gods and had the power to bring rain. Some times the songs were about war, like the Papagos of the southeast or “They came from the east”, which is about how European settlers came to America and what happened to Native – Americans after they settled. “The Coming of the First White Man” was another poem, which was transcribed from Mayan hieroglyphs shortly after the Spanish conquest of the Central America in 1541. This narrative has been told for centuries all over the Tlingit country of Southeast Alaska. For readers, it is necessary to supply more gesture and social context to inform the expression to the song.

Native American’s skills in oral literature had been improved during the events such as religious presentations, welcoming, petitions and meeting with other tribes. Although most of the events and myths have been transferred through the stories and song orally to the next generations, some have been recorded and translated by European settlers, such as the meeting of the Seneca chief known as "Red- Jacket". Although these translations help us understand Native – Americans better and learn about their culture and traditions more, even best translations must struggle to give the right sense and expression to the readers. The vibrant oral tradition was central to most Native – Americans and continues to be so today.

Resume

farida_forouzan@hotmail.com


Education:

PHD Student in Environmental Engineering in Tehran University, Tehran, Iran. January 2009.
PHD. Student in Environmental Science in Arkansas State University, Arkansas, USA. January 2008-Present, GPA:3.6
Masters in Civil and Environmental Engineering in Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Graduation Date August 2007, GPA: 3.73
Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering in University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Teneessee, USA. Graduation date: August 2003.

Work Experience:
Consultant engingeerin HSE in National Iranian Oil refining and Distribution Company/ National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Tehran, Iran, April 2009- present.
Instructor: Teaching in Elmi- Karbordi University in Tehran, Iran. February 2009- Present.
Teacher: Teaching English in different levels in Mehrdad English Academy,Tehran, Iran. October 2008- Present.
Assistant Researcher: performed overall duties in Eco- toxicology lab, doing toxicity and chemistry tests on water and soil samples, January 2008- September 2008.
Roadway Specialist II: Performed overall duties as an engineer in roadway design, such as design, erosion control, traffic control, and construction in Tennessee Department of Transportation using Microstations and GeoPak, October 2003 – February 2008.
Language Teacher: Teaching Persian to the non-speaker teenagers and kids, 2006-2008.
Assistant Teacher: performed duties in environmental lab on the effects of metal contamination on oxidation reactions in plants and bacteria at TSU, March 2006- August 2007.
Assistant Teacher: Performed duties in soils and asphalt lab, assisting the teacher to prepare the class notes and put them in power point format at UT, April 2002- April 2003.
Internship: Worked as a trainee in Iran Oston Consulting Engineers (I.O.C.E) company in Roadway Design, June2001- August2001.
Tutor: Tutored in math, physics, and chemistry in Learning Center at the University of Tennessee, September 2000- December 2003.
Tutor: Tutored students in math, physics, and chemistry in Learning Center at Pellissippi State College, September 1998- May 2000.
Assistant Teacher: Worked in Math Department and Work- Study Non-Department, assisting the teachers to correct the papers and assignments at Pellissippi College, February1998-December 1999.

Student Ambassador: Assisted new students with orientation and their academic goals, August 1998- December 1999.
English Teacher: Teaching English in different levels in Jamin English Institute, 1991-1992.

Published:

SENSITIVITY OF THE OXIDASE-ENZYME INDUCED CHEMO-LUMINESCENCE TO WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS, at Tennessee State University. August 2007


Presentations and Awards:

Won the first place in graduate-student poster award; TSU. (Poster title: Sensitivity of the Oxidase-Enzyme Induced Chemo-Luminescent to Water Quality Parameters). March 2007.
Awarded "Engineering Academic Achievement" Scholarship 2000-2003
Awarded "BETCHEL Women of Oak Ridge" Scholarship 2001-2001
Awarded "National Association of Women Construction" Scholarship 2000-2001
Won the first place in mathematics competition fall 1999
Won the second place in mathematics competition winter 1999
PowerPoint presentation in "The Graduate Scholar's Day Conference" (GSDC) in Arkansas State University; The effects of metal pollutions on oxidation reactions in live organisms. April 2008
Poster presentation in AWRA as a co-author; Development of an Aquatic Plant Chemo-luminescent Bioassay to Monitor Water and Sediment Quality April 2008

Memberships:
Member of Engineering Society of Tehran-Iran, September 2008 -Present.
Member of North America SETAC; (Fall 2007 poster presentation on Development of a Chemo-luminescent Bioassay to Monitor Possible Metal and Organic Pollutions). Fall 2007-Present
Member of Mid-South SETAC (spring 2007 presentation: Sensitivity of the Oxidase-Enzyme Induced Chemo-Luminescent to Metals in Water) Spring 2007-Present
Member of AWRA (poster presentation: Isolation of Bio-Luminescent Bacteria from the Orfelia Larvae) Spring 2007-Present Member of Phi Theta Kappa honor society, 1999-Present
Member of National Deans, List 1999-Present

Training:

HSE, managements and control of HSE based on ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 in Tehran University, February 2009.
Design Principles for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control for Construction Sites October 2007
Smoke-Stack School Spring2007
Risk Assessment Training Session Spring 2007
Drainage Training Session August 2006
Fundamental of Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control January 2005
Traffic Operation and Control Spring 2004
Introduction to Highway Hydraulics December 2004
Passed the Tennessee Board of Architectural and Engineering Exam May 2003
Participated in FHWA International Conference, Washington D.C. January 2002

Activities:

Proficient in Computer skills such as Microstations, GeoPak, Trim, AutoCAD, Matlab, and Microsoft Office.
Attended classes in Drawing, Painting, and Ceramic.
Bi-lingual, Speak English fluently and knows Spanish.
Certified in Open-water Scuba Diving .