Maltese Falcon Replaced by Peregrine Falcon in Sinister, Film Noir Genocide Plot

It’s now 10 days since I started writing my “next” blog post.  And this one ain’t that one.  Ten days after starting to write about stormwater best management practices (BMPs) and EPA’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (abbreviated as MS4) requirements and not getting very far on it, I realized I picked too complex of a topic to write about in a blog post intended to be 1,000 words or less.  Fortunately, this month is the 50th publication anniversary of Rachel Carson’s environmental classic, Silent Spring.  Thus, no BMPs or MS4s this time.

Even though Silent Spring is one of those handful of books that I think should be read by everyone who cares about preserving our environment for future generations of all species of creatures, I did not have its publication anniversary stored in my internal clock, waiting to notify me in a nightmarish dream about a world with no birds.  I simply saw a recent on-line article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/rachel-carson-killer-of-africans-652507/) with a catchy headline about Rachel Carson killing Africans.  Sounds like international intrigue worthy of a cheesy, film noir black & white movie.  More on what that headline is about in a minute.

The biography section of this post

Rachel Carson (photo from Lear/Carson
Archive, posted on PADEP website)

If you aren’t familiar with Carson or her 1962 environmental best-seller, Carson was born outside of Pittsburgh in 1907 (thus Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s interest in her in the 21st century).  She completed her Master of Science degree in zoology at Johns Hopkins University in 1932.  After doing some work toward a PhD, she eventually began working at a temporary position in 1935 for the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, which later became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  In 1936, she was hired full time as only the second female field biologist for the Bureau of Fisheries.  While writing technical reports for the Bureau of Fisheries, Carson also became a published writer with frequent contributions to Atlantic Monthly, Sun magazine, Nature, and Collier’s magazine. By the time Carson had become chief editor of publications for the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1949, she had already decided to leave the FWS to focus full time on her writing career.

Her first book, Under the Sea Wind (1941) was well reviewed but commercially unsuccessful.  In 1952, however, she was finally able to leave the FWS with the publication of the best-selling The Sea Around Us.  A third book, The Edge of the Sea, followed in 1955.  But it would be her final book, released in September 1962, that would be credited with starting the environmental movement in the United States.  Although Silent Spring was an eye-opening call to action for many, not everyone was inspired by its message.  Silent Spring was a pretty scathing indictment of society’s inclination from the mid-1940s until it was banned in 1972, to try to solve all insect-related problems using the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane.  You’ve probably heard this chemical compound called by its initials, DDT.  With one of their most popular chemical products being knocked off of its pedestal by the case Carson made against it in Silent Spring, and fearing the potential loss of its U.S. DDT market, you can imagine that DDT manufacturers were pretty pissed off at Miss Carson.

In 1963, President Kennedy ordered a review of DDT and pesticide use in the U.S., and Carson and other scientists were asked to testify before a Congressional committee.  Although Rachel Carson died from breast cancer in 1964, the momentum initiated by Silent Spring to protect the environment from the harmful effects of DDT culminated with the newly formed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banning use of DDT in 1972.

  

Rachel Carson (photo from Lear/Carson
Archive, posted on PADEP website)

Silent Spring rained down a firestorm of criticism and attacks on Carson’s professional integrity.  Not surprisingly, the pesticide industry launched a significant campaign to discredit Carson and her popular book.  Ironically, however, not in Silent Spring nor in any public interviews, statements, or testimonies had Carson ever recommended completely banning pesticides.  Rather, she urged that appropriate research be conducted to ensure pesticides were being used safely and to develop alternative products that would be safer to the non-target organisms than DDT.

So where does the alleged genocide scandal come into play?

Chemical industry spin doctors, though, would never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.  Some critics back in the day suggested that Carson was trying to intentionally undermine American agriculture in order to give the Soviet Union an advantage over the U.S. – a pretty venomous accusation during the Cold War.  Some anti-environmental folks have continued to suggest even into the 21st century that Silent Spring, because the book's cautions about indiscriminately using DDT lead to a sharp drop in its use world-side, has killed more people than Hitler.  Those individuals, who likely are global warming doubters, are referring to the estimated millions of Africans who have died from mosquito-borne diseases after spraying of DDT was curtailed in Africa over toxicity concerns.  There is a major difference, however, in banning DDT in a developed country over concerns about unwanted environmental side-effects and restricting its use for control of disease vectors in developing countries (which Carson never intended).  It is estimated that 90 percent of the world's malaria victims live in Africa, and most are children and pregnant women.  DDT is starting to make a comeback in some African countries, however, as their governments seek to gain control of their malaria crisis by eliminating the mosquitos that carry the disease.

What’s the harm in just a little bit of DDT?

If you already know about bioaccumulation, you can skip to the next paragraph.  One of the unintended effects of the insecticide DDT was its adverse effect on birds of prey.  From the advent of heavy DDT use in the mid-1940s through the 1960s, populations of eagles, ospreys, falcons, and other birds of prey had crashed.  Many of these birds were on the verge of being eliminated from their natural habitats throughout the U.S.  Research discovered that residual concentrations of DDT resulting from broad applications such as crop-dusting the chemical on agricultural fields were running off the land and into surface water.  Fish in the lakes and rivers were absorbing the excess DDT, which then was stored in their fat cells and not metabolized and eliminated from their bodies.  As birds of prey ate more and more fish or other prey that ate fish, the DDT then accumulated in the birds’ own fat cells.  After successive generations of birds had come and gone, the latter generations of birds had significant concentrations of DDT accumulated in their body fat and organs.  DDT was found to affect the birds’ ability to manufacture eggshells that are strong enough to withstand the weight of the female birds as they sit on the eggs to incubate them.  The result was that fewer and fewer birds were successfully hatched because their well-intentioned mothers were crushing so many of their siblings’ eggs.

It’s still there

Despite the 1972 ban on DDT in the U.S., it’s still out there.  It has a half-life of approximately 15 years, so at the high concentrations at which it used to be indiscriminately applied (think crop dusting) it could take anywhere from decades to centuries to break down to non-detectable concentrations.  In some of my previous work investigating former industrial properties, I've seen DDT reported in soil samples below its cleanup standard, but I don't think I ever saw it reported above its cleanup standard at any of the numerous sites where I've done characterization work.  However, I have seen DDT's breakdown products, DDD and DDE, show up in soil analytical results from time to time, sometimes over their regulatory cleanup standards.  In my mind, the detections of these toxins that are below cleanup standards are just as worrisome as the exceedances of cleanup standards.  I'll explain.

Presumably, the soils in which DDT or its daughter products was detected above cleanup standards will be dug up at some point and properly disposed.  But there is no driver compelling a property owner to clean up contaminants that are detected at concentrations below cleanup standards.  So those relatively low concentrations will remain in soil or sediment where they can enter the food chain and begin to bioaccumulate.  Bioaccumulation is not typically factored into the risk equation when regulators develop cleanup standards for environmental contaminants.  Standards are developed based acute exposure concentrations or chronic exposure concentrations over an organism's lifetime, but the variable toxin concentrations inherent with the bioaccumulation process do not fit in the standard risk assessment models that calculate safe cleanup standards for environmental contaminants.

Fast-forward …

Rachel Carson was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980 by President Carter.  In a clever play on words that acknowledges her final book and its impact, the following paragraph accompanied her posthumous Medal of Freedom:

“Never silent herself in the face of destructive trends, Rachel Carson fed a spring of awareness across America and beyond. A biologist with a gentle, clear voice, she welcomed her audiences to her love of the sea, while with an equally clear voice she warned Americans of the dangers human beings themselves pose for their own environment. Always concerned, always eloquent, she created a tide of environmental consciousness that has not ebbed.”

Here is the fun part of this post

The state office building that houses both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources was named in honor of Rachel Carson.  Therefore, it seems fitting that a nesting pair of peregrine falcons decided to make their nest on a ledge on the 15th floor of the building (see inset on photo below).  The DEP maintains a Falcon Cam so that visitors to their website can keep tabs on activity in the nest (http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/falcon/).  The female laid four eggs in March of this year, and in April two of the eggs successfully hatched.  Both hatchlings have since “left the nest.”

The Rachel Carson State Office Building in Harrisburg, completed in 1992, was retrofitted with energy conservation measures in 2005 to achieve the Energy Star Labeled Building designation (PADEP photo).

Still photo from PADEP's Falcon Cam on the Rachel
Carson State Office Building in Harrisburg, PA

Regardless of scandals, real or imagined, surrounding the 1972 DDT ban in the U.S., here in Pennsylvania, Rachel Carson is still celebrated as a native daughter turned accomplished biologist and world-changing environmental writer.  And on those special occasions when I’ve been fortunate enough to glimpse a majestic bald eagle soaring in the wild, I’m pretty grateful that the quiet girl from western PA sounded the alarm so loudly, yet eloquently, about the cumulative effects of synthetic chemicals in our environment.

So, there you have it.  A bit long winded (just over 1,600 words), though probably not as long as my scuttled stormwater post would have been.  But hopefully more entertaining than talking about storm drains (how cool is the Falcon Cam?).

Maybe the Glass Really IS Half Empty

I think those of us who live in the eastern part of the U.S. don’t think about competition for water resources as often as our friends in the western states probably do.  Many of us easterners are aware that source water in northern California and in Lake Meade in southern Nevada is diverted to southern California to hydrate the sprawling populations and corporate farms found there.  I have to admit that I have usually allowed myself the luxury of focusing on conservation issues that manifest themselves closer to home here in Pennsylvania … until last week.  Suddenly, we have international competition for our local source water.

Here is the back-story.  It all started about 10 or more years ago when a former mayor of Allentown, PA, negotiated a bonehead contract with the city’s police officers.  The mayor agreed to allow pensions for retiring officers to be calculated based on the number of hours worked in the year leading up to retirement.  Well, as the local urban legend goes, many officers decided to volunteer for extra shifts in their last year before retirement.  Some of them are rumored to have even worked so many extra shifts that, with time and a half overtime pay, many were able to effectively double the pensions they would be due from the city upon retirement had their pensions been based on pay for 40-hour work weeks.  That’s pretty much what I recall about the start of the Allentown pension crisis from the local newspaper and local TV news.  But I can’t vouch for the total accuracy of this account, because I wasn’t paying really close attention … I mean, I live next to but not in Allentown, so why would their pension crisis affect me?  Right?

The abuse of the pension system by some retiring police officers coupled with allegedly generous pensions for city workers in general now have Allentown on the brink of financial disaster, with bankruptcy a real possibility in the next couple of years.  Therefore, in the hopes of raising between $150 million to $200 million in upfront cash, the City of Allentown last month announced that it was considering leasing its water and sewer system to an outside operator.  I was surprised to hear that but didn’t think much of it, because few details were reported at the time.  But then last week, the City announced that it has nine entities from as far away as Australia that have provided their resumes to the city hoping to be deemed qualified to submit bids to lease and operate Allentown’s water and sewer systems for the next 50 years.  This is not small potatoes.  Allentown owns a 30-million-gallon-per-day, modern water treatment plant that services an average daily demand of about 20 million gallons to residential and commercial customers.

Treatment Plant, Allentown Bureau of Water

 So now I’m getting uncomfortable at the thought of entities with no local ties coming in to run Allentown’s water and sewer systems.  This lease deal affects me because the quasi-public water and sewer authority serving my municipality, and most of the developed portions of our county outside of the City of Allentown, recently entered into an agreement to purchase 2 million to 7 million gallons of water per day from the city for the next 25 years.  It’s almost a given that water and sewer rates for Allentown customers will increase under a for-profit operator, because the that operator will need to turn enough of a profit to recover the up-front money that the city is expecting as part of the deal.  And since my water and sewer authority is probably one of Allentown’s biggest water and sewer customers, as an end consumer, I’m concerned about rate increases.

Little Lehigh Creek (PADEP photo)

As a conservationist, I’m also concerned about what a for-profit operator of Allentown’s water system could do to my local stream, the Little Lehigh Creek.  Allentown's source water comes from two large, local springs and two surface water sources.  The Little Lehigh Creek is the primary surface water source, and the Lehigh River is the secondary source.  The Little Lehigh is designated by the state as a High-Quality Cold Water Fishery, and it’s already under significant stress from sedimentation associated with construction and storm water runoff from over-development in our area.  We are also fearful that, under drought conditions, the limestone springs that feed the Little Lehigh could be seriously impacted as our local water authority pumps its nearby wells to ensure that their corporate customers have all the water they need.  In fact, even though we were not under official drought conditions in 2009, all residential customers of our local water authority were proactively not permitted to water lawns or wash cars so that there would be no interruptions for the major commercial customers of the authority:  Samuel Adams PA Brewery, Nestle Waters, Niagra Bottling, and Coca-Cola.  And coming next year, a brand new Ocean Spray bottling plant will be tapping into our local water authority and, thus, into the additional capacity from Allentown.  Water is big business around here.  The thought of another for-profit player entering the local water game means more competition for a finite and seasonally fickle resource.

This is a developing story.  There will certainly be more information to process before this deal is settled and a lease is awarded to one of the bidders.  One thing is clear already, however.  Just as is the case with all environmental issues anywhere, the water supply for the third largest metropolitan area in Pennsylvania is not contained by municipal boundaries.

Now I’ll leave you with one last thought:  Why does the antlered animal on the label of Deer Park Spring Water look suspiciously like an elk?

By the way, that's my tap water.

Conservation at a Turtle's Pace

I stumbled across story on-line yesterday about some folks who remove rattlesnakes from sites in northern Pennsylvania where gas companies are preparing to build well pads to drill into the Marcellus Shale for natural gas.  I guess venomous snakes are what it takes for some developers to be proactive in addressing impact to natural resources (or in this case, the impact from the snakes) at project sites.   But if site workers are not at risk for being bitten, it’s usually more difficult to get developers to be proactive about impacts to natural resources at project sites.

In this part of eastern Pennsylvania, it seems that the most common threatened or endangered species to look out for is the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii or Glyptemys muhlenbergii )).  I'm not saying that the turtle itself is common, but its range is in pockets throughout a large part of this and surrounding states.  On construction projects that require any kind of a federal permit (like an FCC permit for a cell tower installation) or require an actual environmental impact study, one of the first steps in the permitting process is to send an endangered species inquiry to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).  In the responses from the FWS, the bog turtle is often cited as a species of concern for projects in this neck of the woods (or this neck of the bog).

Bog Turtle.  From Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Fact Sheet

The bog turtle is the smallest turtle found in Pennsylvania and is on the federal list of threatened species.  Quoting a boilerplate response letter from an inquiry to the FWS,  "The northern population of the bog turtle occurs in the states of Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Hersey, Delaware, and Massachusetts.  Bog turtles inhabit shallow, spring-fed fens, sphagnum bogs, swamps, marshy meadows, and pastures characterized by soft, muddy bottoms; clear, cool, slow-flowing water, often forming a network of rivulets; high humidity; and an open canopy.  Bog turtles usually occur in small, discrete populations occupying suitable wetland habitat dispersed along a watershed … Some wetlands occupied by bog turtles are located in agricultural area and are subject to grazing by livestock."

So if any potential bog turtle habitat, as described above, is present within the area of a proposed project, the FWS requires a qualified wetland scientist to conduct a bog turtle survey (a survey in this case means a field inspection).  If the bog turtle survey confirms the presence of wetland conditions favored by the bog turtle, and if direct or indirect impacts to the wetlands in question cannot be avoided, a more detailed survey must be completed and submitted to the FWS.  Then if the detailed survey finds that bog turtles are within an area that will be disturbed, and if project activities might adversely affect the bog turtles, you can count on the project’s progress slowing down to a turtles’ pace.

When the presence of a 4-inch long turtle holds up any kind of project in which developers or politicians have money or reputation on the line, you’re going to hearing cursing and moaning about the “damned tree-huggers” and the “whacko environmentalists.”  However, I do not feel badly for their inconvenience.  Because,

Proper planning prevents poor performance.

That phrase doesn’t just apply to photocopier salesmen doing their homework before giving a presentation to a potential new client.  It also applies to stakeholders in projects in which an endangered species issue has the potential to change the project dynamics.  I’ll explain.

A couple months ago, I was in a meeting with a local government official discussing a request from a conservation organization for permission to access some municipally owned land to perform a natural resource survey as part of a state-wide natural resource inventory.  First of all, it’s public land, so, in my opinion, asking permission was unnecessary other than to massage the politician’s ego.  The unnamed official bristled at the suggestion that some environmentalist-type guy would go onto this municipal property and possibly find an endangered plant or animal.  He said, “If he finds something there, that’s going to tie our hands if we want to subdivide this property in the future and sell it off.”

Obviously, he and I have vastly different ideas of what it means to be a steward of municipally owned open space.  He was concerned that a bog turtle might turn up during the proposed survey and scuttle his plans to open even more of our community up to the rampant over-development that has made us the fastest growing municipality in Pennsylvania for the past decade or so.  So I then pointed out to him that by finding out now if there are any sensitive plant or animal species on the 84-acre parcel in question, any future plans for the parcel could proceed in an educated manner and avoid the delays associated with waiting until after the planning stages to do any necessary natural resource surveys.  To give the official a differing viewpoint, I added, “If we wanted to put in a walking and biking trail around the perimeter of the property, we could easily route the trail around any sensitive habitats that might be discovered now instead of having to re-route the trail while we are in the middle of construction.”  Plan now to prevent poor performance later.  The official grudgingly consented to allow the conservation organization to do the natural resource inventory on the municipal property.

We haven’t seen the results from the inventory of the property yet.  But I would be surprised if there were actually any bog turtles on that 84-acre parcel after having been plowed and planted for the past 150 or so years.  I don’t know if there are any threatened or endangered plants there either.  It would be nice if there were a few bog turtles or spade-footed toads there, because they might make it tougher for our local officials to try to liquidate an 84-acre natural asset like this parcel.  Unfortunately, it’s not easy for these local officials to grasp the concept that municipal open space is there for residents of our township to get out among nature and play, observe, enjoy.  Open space is not an inventory of real estate to be auctioned off to create more impervious surfaces, more runoff to streams, more traffic, and less quality of life.