franklin
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,660
DEP to make gas wells near high quality streams go through full permitting process
salmonoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,721
Good news, but my initial response was "Duh!".. Why WEREN'T they already doing that, other than the almighty dollar that feeds the pol machine..
bikerfish
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,639
I agree. isn't that's why the permit process is there to begin with? to make sure things are done correctly? to make sure the site is suitable? to protect surrounding properties and people?
criminal to not go through the permit process to begin with. absolute BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
criminal to not go through the permit process to begin with. absolute BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maurice
Administrator
Staff member
Notice the title says "high quality" streams yet the process focuses on EV streams? I am not sure if the reporting was spotty or if the threshold is at HQ-CWFs or only EV-CWFs. If its only EVV its still coming up short.
Here is a little short story for ya....We have a stream in our watershed that contributes the most warm and silted flows to NB Muddy Creek in York. (Pine Run). Now we are NOT in the Marcellus region.....so whatever.....anyway. For the entire early part of the current century we were unable to get funding to stream work on this stream even though it was the worst in the watershed, proven through Growing Greener watershed assessment grant. However it wan not on the 303D list of impaired streams. These were the streams that were being focused on for funding...reasonable. It has the macro life which was the only criteria holding it back. Its mainly grazing farmland, mowed to the banks with 6-8' sheer meanders. We tried feverishly to get funding to do work here with grant after grant being denied. (three rounds). Reasons: Too much stream $$$, Reduced stream length, Still too much for the $$$, Then we were told its not on the 303D list. So we said, lets have the biologist look at it, he came down and said holy mackeral, its a mess. Listed it impaired and now it gets funded. During the design permitting process, it gets bumped up to HQ-CWF. Everyone says that's great! look what we have here.....I said WTF?
No offense to DEP and PF&BC for upgrading streams. I agree with the science and the push for protections. But in this case, it will destroy our hopes at furthering restoration efforts should GG be reincarnated. But then again, who knows?
Here is a little short story for ya....We have a stream in our watershed that contributes the most warm and silted flows to NB Muddy Creek in York. (Pine Run). Now we are NOT in the Marcellus region.....so whatever.....anyway. For the entire early part of the current century we were unable to get funding to stream work on this stream even though it was the worst in the watershed, proven through Growing Greener watershed assessment grant. However it wan not on the 303D list of impaired streams. These were the streams that were being focused on for funding...reasonable. It has the macro life which was the only criteria holding it back. Its mainly grazing farmland, mowed to the banks with 6-8' sheer meanders. We tried feverishly to get funding to do work here with grant after grant being denied. (three rounds). Reasons: Too much stream $$$, Reduced stream length, Still too much for the $$$, Then we were told its not on the 303D list. So we said, lets have the biologist look at it, he came down and said holy mackeral, its a mess. Listed it impaired and now it gets funded. During the design permitting process, it gets bumped up to HQ-CWF. Everyone says that's great! look what we have here.....I said WTF?
No offense to DEP and PF&BC for upgrading streams. I agree with the science and the push for protections. But in this case, it will destroy our hopes at furthering restoration efforts should GG be reincarnated. But then again, who knows?
