HB 1565

[ebroesicke]

Also posted in Conservation, but I felt this needs the exposure of the General forum..

A potentially harmful Bill(HB1565) has been introduced into the House of Representatives by Maria Hahn (R) Northampton, which, in short, would remove the requirement to leave a 150ft riparian buffer on HQ and EV (exceptional value) streams, when creating a disturbance of 1 or more acres. This would be an change to the clean water act as it stands now. HQ streams make up about 23% of the streams in PA, and EV about 2%. These streams have the best water quality, and often support outstanding wild fish populations.

As you may or may not know, riparian buffers (trees, bushes, etc) are one of the most effective ways to reduce/ prevent/ manage storm runoff, pollutants, sedimentation etc. They provide shade and hiding places for fish, bugs and wildlife.

Please consider contacting your legislator(s) and let them know you are opposed to HB 1565.

you can find your legislator(s) here: CLICK

When you get to the home page of your rep/ senator you can click on the little envelope below their picture and send them a message.

This Bill already seems to have strong support in the House, so time is important.

Thank you.

Erik Broesicke
President Monocacy Chapter TU

 

[Fishidiot]

Unfortunately, this bill passed the state house this evening. It will soon move to the Senate. I intend to voice my opinion on this bill. Please consider adding your voice.

Trout fishermen matter in Pennsylvania.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

Done. I just e-mailed my Senator.

 

[SteveG]

These legislators are really getting out of hand with their "cutting corners" bills that try to supercede in place regulations.

 

[poopdeck]

Maybe I read the wrong thing, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but I read the bill and I could not find where it states anything at all about removing a requirement for riparian buffers 150 feet from ev streams. Before I send my senator something could somebody point me in the right direction on what has already been passed by the house. What I'm reading does not support the original post.

 

[afishinado]

poopdeck wrote:
Maybe I read the wrong thing, maybe my reading comprehension is off, but I read the bill and I could not find where it states anything at all about removing a requirement for riparian buffers 150 feet from ev streams. Before I send my senator something could somebody point me in the right direction on what has already been passed by the house. What I'm reading does not support the original post.

The use or installation of riparian buffers and
riparian forest buffers shall not be required under this
section. Riparian buffers and riparian forest buffers may be
used as a preferred choice or option among best management
practices, design standards and alternatives to minimize the
potential for accelerated erosion and sedimentation and to
protect, maintain, reclaim and restore water quality and for
existing and designated uses of a perennial or intermittent
river, stream or creek or lake, pond or reservoir of this
Commonwealth to ensure compliance with 25 Pa. Code Ch.93
(relating to water quality standards).


I suggest you give Gail and Marcia a call or e-mail to express your thoughts here.

 

[ebroesicke]

PD:

This is the current PA Code:

102.14. Riparian buffer requirements.

(a) General requirements for mandatory riparian buffers.

(1) Except as in accordance with subsection (d), persons proposing or conducting earth disturbance activities when the activity requires a permit under this chapter may not conduct earth disturbance activities within 150 feet of a perennial or intermittent river, stream, or creek, or lake, pond or reservoir when the project site is located in an exceptional value or high quality watershed attaining its designated use as listed by the Department at the time of application and shall protect any existing riparian buffer in accordance with this section.

This is what it will say: (Bold to highlight problem):

(c) (1) The use or installation of riparian buffers and
3riparian forest buffers Riparian buffers and riparian forest buffers may be
5used as a preferred choice or option among best management
6practices, design standards and alternatives to minimize the
7potential for accelerated erosion and sedimentation and to
8protect, maintain, reclaim and restore water quality and for
9existing and designated uses of a perennial or intermittent
10river, stream or creek or lake, pond or reservoir of this
11Commonwealth to ensure compliance with 25 Pa. Code Ch.93
12(relating to water quality standards).

13(2) Projects in special protection watersheds that propose
14greater than one acre of earth disturbance within 100 feet of a
15surface water shall offset any reduction in the total square
16footage of the buffer zone that would have been utilized as a
17best management practice, with a replacement buffer elsewhere in
18the same drainage basin

 

[poopdeck]

Afish, I fail to see the point that you were making. I'm sorry if the desire to be informed upsets you.

ebroe, thank you for your gracious and gentlemanly attempt to inform me. I'm still not reading how it effects the high value streams. I assume the worry is that these buffers could be taken from a high value stream and moved to another stream. If that is the worry I do not see it since the permit process remains as does requirements for post construction water qualities and stream protections.

I am also confused about the laws. It seems that this is an amendment to the clean streams act and not to the law recited. Are there two laws covering the same thing? Is one a portion of the other? Very confusing these things. If nothing else your post has made me want to try to learn and UNDERSTAND the system.

 

[afishinado]

poopdeck wrote:
Afish, I fail to see the point that you were making. I'm sorry if the desire to be informed upsets you.

ebroe, thank you for your gracious and gentlemanly attempt to inform me. I'm still not reading how it effects the high value streams. I assume the worry is that these buffers could be taken from a high value stream and moved to another stream. If that is the worry I do not see it since the permit process remains as does requirements for post construction water qualities and stream protections.

I am also confused about the laws. It seems that this is an amendment to the clean streams act and not to the law recited. Are there two laws covering the same thing? Is one a portion of the other? Very confusing these things. If nothing else your post has made me want to try to learn and UNDERSTAND the system.

Poopdeck,

I took the time to read the wording in the bill and copied the relevant info to answer your question in my post above. Also, I posted a link to a memo from the Legislator, the same info that ebroesick posted, which gives the reasoning behind writing the bill. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my effort.

Further looking into the question; from my reading of the bill, maintaining a riparian buffer will become an option rather than a mandate:

The use or installation of riparian buffers and
riparian forest buffers Riparian buffers may be used as a preferred choice or option among best management practices, design standards and alternatives to minimize the potential for accelerated erosion and sedimentation and to protect, maintain, reclaim and restore water quality....

Projects in special protection watersheds that propose
greater than one acre of earth disturbance within 100 feet of a
surface water shall offset any reduction in the total square
footage of the buffer zone that would have been utilized as a
best management practice, with a replacement buffer elsewhere in
the same drainage basin....

Again, here is an explanation from the Legislator on the purpose and result of the proposed bill:

In the near future, I plan to introduce legislation amending the Clean Streams Law (Act 394 of 1937) to clarify that riparian buffer and riparian forest buffers shall not be required under the act but may be used as a choice among best management practices or design standards to minimize pollution from erosion and sedimentation.

Businesses and landowners alike have expressed their frustration with our 25 Pa. Code, Section 102.14 riparian buffer requirements and the negative impacts they have on development and land use in many areas of the Commonwealth. It seems to me that this regulation has resulted in a major shift of state policy, which in effect, amounts to a taking of property without legislative oversight or approval.

My legislation will allow those seeking erosion and sedimentation approvals to have greater flexibility in protecting water quality in Pennsylvania. If you have any questions please contact Gail Pakosky, gpakosky@pahousegop.com or 717-783-8573.

 

[ebroesicke]

PD:

I will PM you my number, if you care to call me I think I can clear this up for you.

Erik

 

[FarmerDave]

It is still confusing.

EB, your post appears to be apples to oranges. I could be wrong, but it does appear that way to me.

The change appears to be to section (c), while you are comparing it to section (a). Section (a) where it currently says 150 foot riparian buffer is required when disturbing the ground, appears to be unchanged.

Here is the existing law.

link

Here is the proposal.

link

Note it starts with (c) AND the "shall not be required" par was stricken. On the other hand, it does still use the word "may" which still means optional. It encourages INSTALLING riparian buffers. I don't think it permits removal of them.

My point is that this change appears to apply to where there is already an erosion problem, not new earth disturbing projects.

That said, it doesn't seem to fit into the current section (c) all that well, either.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to learn and I most definitely could be wrong.

The sponsors own words make this bill sound really bad.

IMO most people should be opposed to a bill like this until clarification, not the other way around and I am not pointing finger. It never hurts to ask questions.

 

[ebroesicke]

FD and others:

I am trying to get "official" answers to your questions/points because I am not well versed in how Bills/ Laws are written/ worded etc.

I will say that if you read the memo above from Ms. Hahn, I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow land owners the option of leaving existing buffers, which is currently required: (quote from memo)
" ...riparian buffer and riparian forest buffers shall not be required under the act but may be used as a choice among best management practices". They did strike the "shall not be required" but left "may", which I don't think changes the intent.


i'll post my findings about the wording when I get it.

Erik

 

[poopdeck]

Afish, my apologies sir, I incorrectly viewed your response as sarcasm. As I re-read your comment I feel my initial response was out of line. Thank you for your help.

Farmer Dave, exactly! In addition there is a blending of two different codified laws. I think. Damn lawyers!

 

[tight-lines]

Imagine a piece of legislation that is hard to decipher, I guess the best lawyer wins. :-(

As I understand this effects HQ and EV streams buffers and replaces them potentially with “best management practices”. What does that mean? 3 layers of silt fence and call it a day? I’m trying to be funny but believe me it can get there in a big hurry.

What is more disturbing is the wording in section (2) “Projects in special watersheds that propose greater than one acre of earth disturbance within 100 feet of a surface water shall offset any reduction in the total square footage of the buffer zone that would have been utilized as a best management practice, with a REPLACEMENT BUFFER ELSEWHERE IN THE SAME DRAINAGE BASIN AS CLOSE AS FEASIBLE TO THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE”

No specification of how much of the total stream shall be impacted, no specificity as to how much of the stream is required to retain natural buffers, no specification as to what “as close as feasible” means.
And the bigger questions….why are we changing what already works so well? Who is the push behind this? It this designed to enhance trout habitat? Way too many open ended questions to garnish my support.

 

[ebroesicke]

And the bigger questions….why are we changing what already works so well? Who is the push behind this? It this designed to enhance trout habitat? Way too many open ended questions to garnish my support.

I wish we knew....

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

It's hard to cross streams with pipelines and replace trees.:roll:

 

[SteveG]

Maybe its cheaper to grease a few politicians than to comply with the previous laws.

 

[mr7183]

Email sent to my senator, thanks for posting about this bill.

 

[ebroesicke]

Thank you.

 

[FarmerDave]

ebroesicke wrote:
FD and others:

I am trying to get "official" answers to your questions/points because I am not well versed in how Bills/ Laws are written/ worded etc.

Erik, my point is that it appears like the section that will be modified is (c) which is "Mandatory requirements for all riparian buffers". Furthermore, if you read the wording, it appears to apply to reparations, not new projects that might cause damage. New projects are covered in (a) which appears like it will NOT changed. You still cannot remove an existing riparian buffer.

However, that is what you appear to be comparing it to.

If what I am saying is right, it appears to make an attempt to protect land owners along EV and HQ streams that currently don't have 150' of riparian buffer.

What would be nice to see is what the entire law would look like once modified. That would clear this up.

I will say that if you read the memo above from Ms. Hahn, I think the intent is pretty clearly to allow land owners the option of leaving existing buffers, which is currently required: (quote from memo)
" ...riparian buffer and riparian forest buffers shall not be required under the act but may be used as a choice among best management practices".

I agree with that and said so earlier, but it could be just worded poorly. Until clarified, I'd be against it too. But here is what it looks like to me when examining the actual proposal.

Lets say you have a house that is within 100' of an EV or HQ stream and it was built 70 years ago, or before the stream designation. I have a relative who lives in such a place.

The wording could be just to protect those landowners from being harassed and forced to restore a 150' riparian buffer that was modified even before they were born. And don't think for a minute this doesn't happen. But it does NOT look like the proposal will allow anyone to destroy an existing riparian buffer.

They did strike the "shall not be required" but left "may", which I don't think changes the intent.

It didn't, and I did said that.

i'll post my findings about the wording when I get it.

Don't do it on my account though. I can't vote in PA (not a resident anymore). But I suppose a State Senator wouldn't need to know that.;-)

EDIT: I should have read subsequent responses before responding again, but I didn't. But since I wrote it, I'll leave it, because it would be nice to have more clarification. But I also now suspect it has to do with pipelines.