Livestock wading in the river

I'm puzzled that so many South Branch farmers reject programs that protect wetlands and riparian zones.  This gives me hope.  - Jim E.

Reposted from the Center for Justice Blog:

State of the Creek

August 15, 2013 in Breaking News

In a ruling with broad ramifications for how effectively Washington can regulate water pollution, the state Supreme Court rules to protect a contaminated waterway from “wallowing” livestock.

Lemire v. Ecology, a case decided earlier today by the Washington Supreme Court, is among the most important state environmental cases in recent years.

At issue, simply, is whether Washington regulators can effectively take action to stop what is known as “nonpoint” water pollution. “Point source” pollution is that which comes out a discharge pipe in to a waterway. “Nonpoint” is basically everything else, including polluted run-off from agricultural operations, or massive shopping mall parking lots. Because of the diversity of sources and investments needed to curtail polluted run-off, getting a handle on nonpoint pollution is often the largest headache in achieving compliance with state and federal water quality standards.

A Lemire cow at Pataha Creek. (Photo Courtesy Washington Department of Ecology.)

In the Lemire case, it was cows. Cattle rancher Joseph Lemire has been allowing his cattle unguarded access to Pataha Creek, a tributary to the Tucannon River not far from where the Tucannon joins the Snake River in the southeast corner of the state. Lemire’s ranch was identified a decade ago by Ecology as having a detrimental effect on Pataha Creek, which flows through the ranch. After trying to work collaboratively with Lemire for six years, the agency finally issued an order to compel the rancher to better protect the creek from the cattle that were trampling the stream banks, “wallowing” in the water, and, as you might expect, defecating into and near the polluted creek.

Lemire lost a challenge to the state’s Pollution Control Hearings Board but then challenged the board’s ruling in Columbia County Superior Court. The superior court judge overruled Ecology and the hearings board, finding that the enforcement action was unwarranted and that it also represented an unconstitutional “takings” of Lemire’s economic rights to use his land.

But in an 8-1 opinion authored by Justice Debra L. Stephens, the state Supreme Court today reversed the lower court’s decision, upholding Ecology’s regulatory authority under state law. In the decision, Justice Stephens wrote that the “plain language” of Washington’s Pollution Control Act “give Ecology the authority to regulate nonpoint source pollution discharge.”

As for Lemire’s contention that his actions do not require a permit under the federal Clean Water Act, Justice Stephens wrote, that “is irrelevant to the question of Ecology’s authority to regulate his activity under state law.

Here, the court cited an amicus brief filed by Waterkeepers Washington (including the Spokane Riverkeeper.)

“As amici Waterkeepers Washington explain,” she wrote, “Lemire’s actions may not be subject to a permit requirement under the Clean Water Act, but his actions are well within the state’s jurisdiction to prevent and control pollution within its borders.”

Today’s decisions got an enthusiastic response from Rick Eichstaedt, the Center’s executive director, who was the lead author on the Waterkeepers Washington amicus brief in the case.”

“This will have giant implications to address pollution across the state of Washington,” Eichstaedt said.
“We think this decision makes sense,” added Spokane Riverkeeper Bart Mihailovich. “We can’t simply place onerous requirements on cities and industries. Everyone needs to share the responsibility for cleaning up our water bodies. Lemire thought he was immune from the law and the Supreme Court rightfully found he was wrong.”

Lemire can appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, Eichstaedt noted. But, Eichstaedt points out, the U.S. Supreme Court would have the discretion of whether to hear the appeal and it usually reserves review to cases involving interpretation of federal law or the Constitution, not matters solely of state law as were involved in this case.

–Tim Connor for the Center for Justice

Webinar - Harmful Algal Blooms and Nutrient Pollution

 

Summer Webcast Series to Build Awareness About Harmful Algal Blooms and Nutrient Pollution

Don Anderson from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and Steve Morton from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will continue the series with a discussion of innovative methods for identifying algae and their blooms, and how government and research institutions and even the public can help to monitor their outbreak and spread.

To register, visit www.epa.gov/watershedwebcasts

1 1/2 hour Webcast

1 p.m.-2:30 pm Eastern  12 p.m.-1:30 p.m. Central     11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Mountain   10 a.m.- 11:30 am Pacific

TACF Recognizes James R. Egenrieder

Even though I'm a graduate of the PSU School of Forestry, it was my dad's involvement with TACF that led to the BC3 generation Chestnut Research at the Wood House Research Farm here in Hampshire County.  

When we were little kids, my dad was frustrated with the chaos of the first day of trout season and for a couple of years he and my uncles stocked Fishing Creek with trout so we could have a more peaceful experience.  Fly fishing is certainly part of my identity, and my youngest brother Tim is a professional, captaining boats up to 50 tons but mostly taking is own boat out into Boston Harbor for enormous Striped bass on light tackle.

Set good examples for your kids and include them in your interests.  You'll be surprised how much they're watching.

==================

Honoring Jim Egenrieder

This month, we honor Jim Egenrieder (seen above on left) who has generously served as the chapter treasurer for the past 5 years. Jim will be taking on greater responsibilities with the Manada Conservancy and transferring his duties as treasurer to PA-TACF member John Civitts. Jim is just seven decades old and is a life-long resident of the Harrisburg area. He is retired from AMP Incorporated and a career in systems engineering. Jim and his wife, Ann, have four sons- Jim, Rick, Brian, and Tim.

Jim is the manager of the Boyd (chestnut) Orchard at the Boyd Big Tree Preserve Conservation Area since 2002, a board member since 2004, and the Chapter’s Treasurer since 2008. He has assisted at other orchards at PSU and in Dauphin, Cumberland, Lancaster, and York counties.
In addition to his PA-TACF responsibilities, Jim currently serves as a Penn State Dauphin County Master Gardener, and he also serves as a board member and volunteers on several committees for the Manada Conservancy.

Jim’s current interests are keeping abreast of environmental issues, working (some say he is a workaholic), reverse engineering, thinking beyond the box, landscaping, visiting his grandchildren, and playing sports games with his border collies.

Join us in wishing Jim well in all of his future endeavors. He has made lasting improvements and contributions in his time here and we are grateful for his willingness and dedication. He will be missed!

Tomato Plant Problems

With the unusual rainfall we've had this year, we're likely to see a variety of tomato plant ailments.

A useful perspective on bees and CCD

Reposted from Quartz:

Everyone calm down, there is no “bee-pocalypse”

By Shawn Regan July 10, 2013

Shawn Regan is a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Montana.

The bees are going to be alright. Reuters/Radu Sigheti

 

The media is abuzz once again with stories about dying bees. According to a new report from the USDA, scientists have been unable to pinpoint the cause of colony collapse disorder (CCD), the mysterious affliction causing honey bees to disappear from their hives. Possible factors include parasites, viruses, and a form of pesticide known as neonicotinoids. Whatever the cause, the results of a recent beekeeper survey suggest that the problem is not going away. For yet another year, nearly one-third of US honey bee colonies did not make it through the winter.

Given the variety of crops that rely on honey bees for pollination, the colony collapse story is an important one. But if you were to rely on media reports alone, you might believe that honey bees are in short supply. NPR recently declared that we may have reached “a crisis point for crops.” Others warned of an impending “beepocalypse” or a “beemageddon.”

In a rush to identify the culprit of the disorder, many journalists have made exaggerated claims about the impacts of CCD. Most have uncritically accepted that continued bee losses would be a disaster for America’s food supply. Others speculate about the coming of a second “silent spring.” Worse yet, many depict beekeepers as passive, unimaginative onlookers that stand idly by as their colonies vanish.
This sensational reporting has confused rather than informed discussions over CCD. Yes, honey bees are dying in above average numbers, and it is important to uncover what’s causing the losses, but it hardly spells disaster for bees or America’s food supply.

Consider the following facts about honey bees and CCD.
For starters, US honey bee colony numbers are stable, and they have been since before CCD hit the scene in 2006. In fact, colony numbers were higher in 2010 than any year since 1999. How can this be? Commercial beekeepers, far from being passive victims, have actively rebuilt their colonies in response to increased mortality from CCD. Although average winter mortality rates have increased from around 15% before 2006 to more than 30%, beekeepers have been able to adapt to these changes and maintain colony numbers.

Source: USDA NASS Honey Production Report

Rebuilding colonies is a routine part of modern beekeeping. The most common method involves splitting healthy colonies into multiple hives. The new hives, known as “nucs,” require a new queen bee, which can be purchased readily from commercial queen breeders for about $15-$25 each. Many beekeepers split their hives late in the year in anticipation of winter losses. The new hives quickly produce a new brood and often replace more bees than are lost over the winter. Other methods of rebuilding colonies include buying packaged bees (about $55 for 12,000 worker bees and a fertilized queen) or replacing the queen to improve the health of the hive.

“The state of the honey bee population—numbers, vitality, and economic output—are the products of not just the impact of disease but also the economic decisions made by beekeepers and farmers,” economists Randal Rucker and Walter Thurman write in a summary of their working paper on the impacts of CCD. Searching through a number of economic measures, the researchers came to a surprising conclusion: CCD has had almost no discernible economic impact.

But you don’t need to rely on their study to see that CCD has had little economic effect. Data on colonies and honey production are publicly available from the USDA. Like honey bee numbers, US honey production has shown no pattern of decline since CCD was first detected. In 2010, honey production was 14% greater than it was in 2006. (To be clear, US honey production and colony numbers are lower today than they were 30 years ago, but as Rucker and Thurman explain, this gradual decline happened prior to 2006 and cannot be attributed to CCD).

Source: USDA NASS Honey Production Report

What about the prices of queen bees and packaged bees? Because of higher winter losses, beekeepers are forced to purchase more packaged queen and worker bees to rebuild their lost hives. Yet even these prices seem unaffected. Commercial queen breeders are able to rear large numbers of queen bees quickly, often in less than a month, putting little to no upward pressure on bee prices following CCD.

And what about the prices consumers pay for crops pollinated by honey bees? Are these skyrocketing along with fears of the beepocalypse? Rucker and Thurman find that the cost of CCD on almonds, one of the most important crops from a honey bee pollinating perspective, is trivial. The implied increase in the shelf price of a pound of Smokehouse Almonds is a mere 2.8 cents, and the researchers consider that to be an upper-bound estimate of the impact on fruits and vegetables.

There is, however, one measure that has been significantly affected by CCD—and that’s the pollination fees beekeepers charge almond producers. These fees have more than doubled in recent years, though the fees began rising a few years before CCD was reported. Rucker and Thurman attribute a portion of this increase to the onset of CCD. But even this impact has a bright side: For many beekeepers, the increase in almond pollination fees has more than offset the costs they have incurred rebuilding their lost colonies.

Overcoming CCD is not without its challenges, but beekeepers have thus far proven themselves adept at navigating such changing conditions. Honey bees have long been afflicted with a variety of diseases. The Varroa mite, a blood-thirsty bee parasite, has been a scourge of beekeepers since the 1980s. While CCD has resulted in larger and more mysterious losses, the resourcefulness of beekeepers remains.

Hannah Nordhaus, author of The Beekeeper’s Lament, warned that the scare stories evoked by CCD should serve as a cautionary tale to environmental journalists. “By engaging in simplistic and sometimes misleading environmental narratives—by exaggerating the stakes and brushing over the inconvenient facts that stand in the way of foregone conclusions­­—we do our field, and our subjects, a disservice,” she wrote in her 2011 essay “An Environmental Journalist’s Lament.”

“The overblown response to CCD in the media stems from a failure to appreciate the resilience of markets in accommodating shocks of various sorts,” write Rucker and Thurman. The ability of beekeepers and other market forces to adapt has kept food on the shelves, honey in the cupboard, and honey bees buzzing. Properly understood, the story of CCD is not one of doom and gloom, but one of the triumph and perseverance of beekeepers.