PA streams: Let's protect the best of the best.

Anyone who spends time in the outdoors knows Pennsylvania has abundant water resources. With more than 86,000 miles of streams, we’re second only to Alaska in the number of miles of streams. Although many thousands of these stream miles are polluted by a variety of sources, we are fortunate to find other rivers and streams in excellent health, capable of supporting a variety of fish and other aquatic life. The rivers and streams with the most outstanding water quality are afforded the greatest degree of protection, and are designated High Quality (HQ) or Exceptional Value (EV).

Pennsylvania has a detailed process for protecting the existing use and designated uses of all HQ and EV waters. The public may petition the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to upgrade a stream to HQ or EV if sufficient data exist to support the request, and partner agencies such as the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission may do the same. The DEP regional office may also make a recommendation for a stream re-designation. Ultimately, all streams proposed for re-designation must be approved by the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB).

Protecting streams through anti-degradation policies and ensuring that streams have the appropriate regulatory designation prior to permitting development activities within the watershed is critical to protecting the high quality of the Commonwealth’s water resources, for today and for the future.

Unfortunately, the DEP has not proposed any stream re-designations to the EQB since September 2011. Since then, hundreds of miles of streams have been petitioned for upgrade with no formal action by the DEP to re-designate these streams and apply regulatory protections, mainly due to very limited staff.

To remedy this, we recommend that Gov. Tom Wolf ensure that the DEP has adequate staff resources to ensure that streams receive appropriate stream designation under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93.

• The DEP should have adequate staff designated: 1) to review stream re-designation petitions submitted by the public and by partner agencies, and 2) to conduct stream surveys to determine appropriate regulatory designations.

• The DEP should revise and streamline its internal process for reviewing stream re-designation petitions.

• The DEP should respond to petitions for stream re-designations in a timely fashion and propose rulemaking packages to upgrade or downgrade streams to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at least three times per year.

This recommendation, along with many others, can be found in a recent PennFuture report that highlights actions Gov. Tom Wolf and his administration can take to protect Pennsylvania’s environment.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Small but mighty: Streams and wetlands that matter

This guest post was written by Tori Leach. Tori is the online membership and marketing coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation, for which PennFuture is the Pennsylvania state affiliate.

Marshes, wetlands, intermittent streams, and even some lakes fill from rainwater or snowmelt then empty through evaporation—coming and going throughout the year. These small but mighty habitats filter out pollution, ease the effects of flooding, and provide water for wildlife in dry climates.

These habitats, called ephemeral bodies of water, are critical for many species, but small streams and wetlands are at risk and need our help.

Here are a few examples of wildlife that need these on-again, off-again waters!

Three river otters. By James "Newt" Perdue, USFWS

River otters are playful semi-aquatic mammals who spend a lot of time in the water – they can even hold their breath for up to eight minutes! They make their homes near many types of water, including marshes and wetlands. However, they are extremely sensitive to water pollution, which in tandem with unregulated trapping and hunting, had diminished their numbers in the past. Their numbers are coming back strong, but clean water is key to their survival.

Pronghorn are the fastest land animal in North America, and can reach a peak speed of 60 miles an hour. So while they won’t beat a cheetah in a sprint, they can maintain their speed for much longer. In Wyoming, around 400 pronghorn migrate from the Grand Teton National Park to the Upper Green Basin for the winter. During the 150 mile journey, they rely on bodies of water like terminal basins, which are closed, standing bodies of water. These are important for both the water they provide and the food from the ecosystem of terminal basins.

Pronghorn running. Photo by Kathy Gervais

Bighorn Sheep. Courtesy of the National Park Service

Bighorn sheep are known for -- you guessed it -- their big horns! The male horns can weigh up to 30 pounds, and some can grow to over three feet long. In California, federally-listed bighorn sheep rely on pools of standing water called tenajas as a key source of water in an otherwise arid and hot climate. Desert bighorn sheep tend to live within 2-3 miles of water, so the disappearance of any of these tenajas would threaten the species’ survival.

A few species of salamanders have adapted to the changing life of living in a vernal pool, a temporary pool that usually fills in the spring and evaporates depending upon the weather, but often contains water well into the summer. While adult salamanders live on dry land, during the spring they will go to a vernal pool to lay their eggs, which will develop and hatch during the summer. If the pool lasts long enough, the young salamanders will grow and emerge to become terrestrial animals. One cool thing about these salamander eggs is that they contain green algae, so that when the embryonic salamander produces carbon dioxide, it turns it into oxygen that the embryo can use.

Spotted salamander. Courtesy of the National Park Service

American avocets are migratory birds that use ephemeral waters as their pit stops along their migratory path. Prairie pothole wetlands are often frequented by avocets. These “potholes” provide a shallow habitat for avocets to search for food as well as to nest in the spring. Their chicks are quick learners – within 24 hours after hatching, they can already walk, swim, and dive to avoid predators!

American avocet and chicks. Photo by: Andrew Lee

In its 2008 Ephemeral Streams report, the U.S. EPA estimates that these types of waters make up about 59 percent of all streams in the United States (except Alaska). For more than a decade, Clean Water Act protections for these waters have been uncertain, putting them at increased risk of pollution and destruction.

But you have a chance to change that. A bill that would allow polluters free rein in these bodies of water is coming to a vote this week. You can do your part to protect these and hundreds more species by urging members of Congress to oppose this attack on the Clean Water Act.

Be a voice for the wildlife that depend on water—urge your members of Congress to oppose attacks to the Clean WaterAct.

Proposal will protect water (yours and mine) nationwide

Clean water is important.  If you agree, click here.  End of post.

Just kidding! Our communications director would never let me get away with a two-sentence blog post so I’ll elaborate. Keep in mind, however, that my message today is painfully simple: Clean water is important and if you agree, you need to speak up.

Water is important to everyone, every day -- for drinking, bathing, fishing, and swimming.  Businesses and agriculture need it, too. So it might surprise you that over half of all streams and millions of acres of wetlands across the country are lacking clear federal protections from pollution (the reasons why have been discussed on this blog previously). This lack of protection puts the drinking water of 117 million Americans, including 8 million Pennsylvanians, at risk.

Fortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have a proposal that will clarify and strengthen protections for vital upstream headwaters that provide clean water to all of us downstream. EPA’s proposal is important so if you agree, please let them know. Now. And thanks!

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Zombie bill intent on dirtying your water

With fall approaching and Halloween right around the corner, I thought I’d share a frightening tale with you. Here at PennFuture, we have been dealing with a “zombie bill” for over a year and just like real zombies, this bill rises up again and again from the (almost) dead. It may well take an outpouring of citizens to finally kill the bill as the clock moves toward midnight at the end of the legislative session.

What ghoulish bill do I speak of? House Bill 1565 (insert blood-curdling scream)! This proposed legislation would remove riparian forest buffer requirements for our best waters -- those designated as exceptional value (EV) or high quality (HQ). These requirements, established just a few years ago, acknowledge the importance of forested buffers to our water quality, wildlife, and communities. Now, there are some in Harrisburg who want to remove these protections because they believe we can either get by without them or engineer controls, such as rain gardens and wet detention ponds, to do the same things forested buffers do, but that’s just not true.

The unique benefits of maintaining or installing forested buffers are many, including:

           ·          filtering pollution from agriculture and other land uses, improving water quality

           ·          natural flood control for downstream communities

           ·          preventing erosion and stabilizing the stream bank. This helps to maintain the natural width, depth, and sediments of a stream

           ·          improving stream health, which increases the level of in-stream processing of pollutants

           ·          providing habit and food for aquatic life, and shade which keeps temperatures stable

           ·          increased opportunities for fishing, kayaking, and hiking

           ·          increased property values by preserving scenic beauty and natural character

It’s clear that forested buffers provide more than just water retention and sediment removal. How could we engineer shade, aquatic food and habitat, or scenic beauty? A better question might be, why pay to engineer and maintain systems when forest buffers do everything they do, and more, for free?

Additionally, under the Chesapeake Bay pollution limits, Pennsylvania committed to establish forest buffers to reduce pollution from its part of the watershed, but we have fallen behind in meeting our commitments. To achieve our 2017 goal, we need to establish roughly 50 acres of riparian forest buffers every day through 2017. In the recent Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Pennsylvania, along with the other Bay states, has also agreed to conserve existing forest buffers until at least 70 percent of riparian areas throughout the Bay watershed are forested. Given our commitments, we should be doing everything we can to preserve existing buffers and establish new ones, but HB 1565 will do just the opposite (insert second blood-curdling scream).

Sharpen your wooden stake…no wait, that’s for vampires. Get your silver bullet…sorry, wrong again. That’s for werewolves. Stay tuned to find out how you can help put an end, once and for all, to this zombie bill.

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Setting the record straight on Waters of the U.S.

This guest post is from Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

There’s been some confusion about EPA and the Corps’ proposed “Waters of the U.S.” rule under the Clean Water Act, especially in the agriculture community, and we want to make sure you know the facts.

We know that we haven’t had the best relationship with the agriculture industry in the past, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t and we can’t do better. We are committed to listening to farmers and ranchers and in fact, our proposed rule takes their feedback into account.

The rule keeps intact all Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture that farmers count on. But it does more for farmers by actually expanding the list of up-front exemptions. We worked with USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Army Corps of Engineers to exempt 56 additional conservation practices. These practices are familiar to many farmers, who know their benefits to business, the land, and water resources.

Farmers and ranchers are on the land every day, and they are our nation’s original conservationists. The American agriculture economy is the envy of the world, and today’s farmers and ranchers are global business professionals—relying on up-to-the-minute science to make decisions about when to plant, fertilize, and irrigate crops.

Both EPA and farmers make decisions based on facts—so here are the facts about the proposal.When Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it didn’t just defend the mighty Mississippi or our Great Lakes; it also protected the smaller streams and wetlands that weave together a vast, interconnected system. It recognized that healthy families and farms downstream depend on healthy headwaters upstream. But two Supreme Court cases over the last 15 years confused things, making it unclear which waters are “in,” and which are “out.”

That confusion added red tape, time, and expense to the permitting process under the Clean Water Act. The Army Corps of Engineers had to make case-by-case decisions about which waters were protected, and decisions in different parts of the country became inconsistent.

So EPA and the Corps are bringing clarity and consistency to the process, cutting red tape and saving money. The proposed Waters of the U.S. rule does not regulate new types of ditches, does not regulate activities on land, and does not apply to groundwater. The proposal does not change the exemption for stock ponds, does not require permits for normal farming activities like moving cattle, and does not regulate puddles.

The agencies’ goals align with those of farmers: Clean water fuels agriculture—and we all depend on the food, fuel, and fiber that our farmers produce. We at EPA and the Corps welcome input on the proposed rule to make sure we get it right.

Here are clarifications on a few points of confusion about the proposed rule. For further information, check out: http://www2.epa.gov/newsroom/questions-and-answers-about-waters-us

The EPA and the Army Corps are NOT going to have greater power over water on farms and ranches.

• The Clean Water Act and its regulations have multiple exclusions and exemptions from jurisdiction and permit requirements. The proposed rule does not change or limit any of them.
• The agencies also worked with USDA to develop and publish through an interpretive rule, a list of NRCS agricultural conservation practices that will not be subject to CWA permitting requirements. These practices encourage conservation while protecting and improving water quality.

The proposed rule will NOT bring all ditches on farms under federal jurisdiction.

• Some ditches have been regulated under the Clean Water Act since the 1970s.
• The proposed rule does not expand jurisdiction.
• For the first time, the agencies are clarifying that all ditches that are constructed in dry lands, that drain only dry lands, and don’t flow all year, are not “waters of the U.S.” This includes many roadside ditches, and many ditches collecting runoff or drainage from crop fields.
  • Ditches that are IN are generally those that are essentially human-altered streams, which feed the health and quality of larger downstream waters. The agencies have always regulated these types of ditches.
  • Ditches that are OUT are those that are dug in dry lands and don’t flow all the time, or don’t flow into a jurisdictional water.
• Farmers, ranchers and foresters continue to receive their exemptions from Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting requirements when they construct and maintain their ditches, even if ditches are jurisdictional.

The proposed rule does NOT mean permits are needed for walking cows across a wet field or stream.

• Normal farming and ranching activities are not regulated under the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule will NOT apply to wet areas on fields or erosional features on fields.

• Wet areas on crop fields are not jurisdictional.
• The proposal specifically excludes erosional features from being “waters of the U.S.”

EPA and the Corps are NOT taking control of ponds in the middle of the farm.

• The proposed rule does not change existing practice regarding farm ponds.
• The rule does not affect the existing exemption Congress created under section 404 for construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds.
• The proposed rule would for the first time specifically exclude stock watering ponds from jurisdiction in rule language.

EPA rule will protect water resources nationwide

On Tuesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly released a proposed rule that would clarify the muddied jurisdictional waters of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and restore Clean Water Act protections to countless streams and wetlands throughout the Commonwealth and the nation.

The scope of the Clean Water Act was intended to be as broad as its purpose: “To restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” with a national goal of all waters being fishable and swimmable. Over the past decade, however, two Supreme Court decisions have reduced protections and caused confusion about which waters and wetlands are protected by the Clean Water Act.

Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act and based on the science:

•              Most seasonal and rain dependent streams are protected.

•              Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected.

•              Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water, and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis.

Streams and wetlands provide numerous benefits to communities, including reduced flooding, recharge of groundwater, removal of pollution, and habitat for fish and wildlife. Roughly 58 percent of stream miles in Pennsylvania only flow seasonally or after rainfall, and over 8 million Pennsylvanians get their drinking water from systems that rely, at least in part, on these streams.

This rule does not broaden the reach of the EPA or expand the scope of waters historically protected under the CWA. Instead, the proposed rule clarifies protections for about two million miles of streams and 20 million acres of wetlands based on sound science. Once finalized, this rule will provide greater long-term certainty for landowners and protect the streams, wetlands and other waters that feed our nation’s rivers, lakes, and bays. Visit www2.epa.gov/uswaters to learn more about the rule and how you can provide comments.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg.

Good fishin' and a bad bill

Last weekend, I attended the Keystone Coldwater Conference in State College, Pa. It was hosted by the Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited and sessions focused on building partnerships, current research, and best management practices to ensure coldwater ecosystems are protected now and for future generations.

Attendees were from conservation districts, state agencies, Trout Unlimited chapters, watershed associations, and universities. Regardless of where they were from, I would consider most of the attendees to be doggedly devoted anglers, passionate about trout and the waters that sustain them. One attendee told me that after he retired, he moved from Pittsburgh to the Allegheny National Forest so he could fish every day for the rest of his life. Now that's love and devotion!

Stories of secret trout streams and recollections of taking a youngster “out fishing” for the first time were plentiful.  However, the conversation would change once someone began to read some of the papers on my exhibitor table. I had information concerning HB 1576 -- the bill that, if passed, will politicize a scientific process and change how state threatened and endangered species are designated. It also limits the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s ability to designate a class A wild trout stream and, as a consequence, these streams, which represent the best of the best for trout habitat, are left unprotected. 

Needless to say, this crowd of diehard anglers thought the bill was a bad idea and I urged them to speak up and contact their representative or write a letter to the editor -- and I’d urge anyone reading this to do the same. Everyone needs stories to tell about treasured and secret streams and the “big one” that got away.

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture, based in Harrisburg.

Can’t stop the rain (but can reduce the pollution)

We are all acutely aware of the damage caused by flooding after major storms such as Superstorm Sandy. Most of us, however, do not think about the effects ordinary rain events – even gentle showers – can have on our streams and rivers. Although our mental images of rain may include fond memories of running through a warm summer shower as a child, splashing through puddles and trying to catch drops on our tongues, the ultimate effect of that rainwater may actually be harmful to our streams and rivers.

As rain or melted snow makes its way through our gutters, down our streets and sidewalks, and over our fertilized fields, it picks up dirt, motor oil, pet droppings, fertilizer, cigarette butts, candy wrappers, and anything else that might be in its path. Many of our municipal storm sewer systems do not treat stormwater, so all the pollution the rainwater has collected runs into the streams and rivers in which we fish, boat, and swim, and from which we obtain much of our drinking water. In fact, according to estimates, 3,000 miles of Pennsylvania streams are polluted by stormwater runoff alone.

We all know that we can’t stop the rain, so what can we do to help protect our water? First, there are many small things that we can do in our everyday lives. These include properly disposing of products including motor oil or pesticides that contain harmful chemicals; using lawn fertilizers sparingly and only when necessary; and cleaning up after our pets.

On a larger scale, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of drafting standards that would modernize its approach to stormwater. These standards should encourage "green design," which seeks to maximize the amount of stormwater controlled on the site where the rain falls, keeping it – and the pollutants it carries – out of the storm sewer system, and thus out of our waterways. Unfortunately, EPA’s draft rules are long overdue.

A campaign launched in August encourages citizens to ask their representatives in Congress to pressure EPA to publish these overdue rules. There is still time for you to lend your voice to that campaign. The organization American Rivers has developed tools that will make it easy for you to contact your representatives in Congress. Go to http://www.americanrivers.org/blog/tell-epa-not-delay-protect-clean-water/, and make your voice heard!