Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Late last summer I noted in this column the observation of far more purple loosestrife than in years past; some of you concurred. I knew that there had been a biological control in place in the Northwest Corner and the thought, “Is the biocontrol no longer working?” nudged me from time to time over the winter.
Biocontrol is the science of enlisting a natural predator to control a plant or animal that has become invasive and is harming an ecosystem. I had read about one that is being developed — but not yet approved — to curtail phragmites. Given its prevalence and destructiveness to habitat, a biocontrol for phragmites would be a game changer in the United States.
There is already a viable biocontrol against hemlock woolly adelgid, the insect that has been decimating hemlock trees on the east coast, and the scientist working on this biocontrol is right here in Connecticut.
Carole Cheah is an agricultural scientist with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and I spoke with her recently.
The woolly adelgid is a small, aphid-like insect that comes from Japan where it feeds on Hemlock and Spruce trees. It was accidentally introduced in Virginia in the 1950’s where it found Hemlock trees here to its liking. The woolly adelgid’s telltale white fluff is easy to spot on hemlock stems. It has been decimating trees for years here, and many have already died.
Dr. Cheah has been studying the issue for over 30 years. After her predecessor at the CAES traveled to Japan and brought back the one insect that only feeds on woolly adelgid, the lady beetle (Sasajiscymnus tsugae), Carole worked to understand the viability of introducing this insect to the U.S.
These lady beetles are black and the size of a sesame seed. Since they only feed on woolly adelgid, the potential of lady beetle damage to other plants and insects was not an issue, as can be the case with introducing biocontrol. The key to this solution’s viability was, then, rearing the lady beetle for mass production. Even though the beetles overwinter in mild winters, they do still need to be produced in labs. Funding was accessed to set up an operation to research and rear the beetles in Connecticut and, when funding ran out, Jayme Cabrera, founder of Tree Savers in Jermyn, Pennsylvania, continued to rear them. Tree Savers now remains the sole production source of these beetles which are sold to the public. They are delivered in the spring and should be released when received. An arborist is not needed for release.
Biocontrol for hemlock woolly adelgid obviates chemical control, especially important as chemicals containing Imidacloprid and Dinotefuran, used by arborists against woolly adelgid, are also harmful to beneficial insects.
Currently,Tree Savers has a waiting list for beetles, but last year Dr. Cheah received extra beetles due to over-production by Tree Savers. She released them in the Northwest Corner, specifically in Mohawk Mountain’s Black Spruce bog, at Dean Ravine in Falls Village, around Furnace Brook and at Gold’s Pines.
My final question to Dr. Cheah was about the purple loosestrife re-appearance. She found my observation interesting. It turns out that Donna Ellis, from University of Connecticut, had led the beetle rearing program for loosestrife biocontrol until the USDA funding ended in 2014. Donna then retired in 2019 and since then, nobody has been working on this invasive plants proliferation.
On a different note, for the second year, The Cornwall Garden Club is hosting a native plant sale where you can add gorgeous native pollinators to your garden at gentle prices. I even grew some from seed! Please join us Saturday, May 24, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on the veranda of The Pink House Restaurant located at 34 Lower River Road in West Cornwall.
Dee Salomon ‘ungardens’ in Litchfield County.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.