Here is your chance - HB1565 (Riparian) Discussion

[TimRobinsin]

for those of you who do not believe that TU does very much I submit this email that I received this morning from our state level TU for your consideration:

From Katy Dunlap, TU Eastern Water Project Director
Dear TU Team:



Thank you so much for your efforts to contact Senators on House Bill 1565. It’s clear from this week’s action on the bill that they are definitely listening to our concerns! That being said, there still one major core concern that has not been addressed—the removal of the requirement to maintain existing riparian buffers in HQ/EV watersheds.



On Monday, HB1565 was amended and voted out in the Senate Environmental Resources & Energy Committee. The amendments do two things:

(1) Clarified that the replacement buffer must occur along special protection waters within the same drainage list (according to chapter 93). This does not mean that the replacement buffer has to be installed on the same stream. As you know each drainage list is unique and can encompass significant acreage and multiple counties. While TU asked for “drainage” to be clarified and this amendment does that, we are still not pleased that the replacement buffer does not have to be on the same stream because one stream will always be losing the benefits of the buffer.

(2) Tried to strengthen practices that can be used instead of a buffer, by requiring the alternatives used to be “collectively…substantially equivalent to a riparian buffer…” This recognizes that riparian buffers are the most effective management tool.



Bottom line: the amended bill still allows for existing riparian buffers to be destroyed in the headwater streams—potentially trout streams.



Because of a glitch in the legislative printing office yesterday, no action was taken yesterday on the amended bill, which is now known as HB1565 (P.N.4258). That gives us an extra day to make sure our voices are heard!



Here are the talking points to use with your Senator:



1. Although the amendments clarified the bill and made slight improvements, we are still opposed to the bill because it fails to require maintenance of existing riparian buffers in high quality and exceptional value watersheds.

2. We currently have a system that requires riparian buffers, but allows for flexibility through waivers and exemptions. If there is an issue with delays in the waiver process, let’s look for an administrative fix rather try to legislatively fix the problem and as a result allow for existing buffers to be destroyed.

3. Stress that there are no equivalents to a riparian buffer—these are the best and most effective management tool for protecting streams and we need to protect our best streams (EV and HQ).



Please continue to urge your members to contact Senators today and throughout the week. I just learned that the bill will have its second consideration today—so the bill may have its final vote as early as next Tuesday! To find your senator, http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/index.cfm





I will send you an update after today’s session.



Thanks for all you do for trout!

Katy



I know many of you will say TLDR but if you want to stay up on what is happening in our state and the policies that will effect our future fishing there is no better way. PA TU is working hard because there is a lot of crap coming down the legislative pipeline that will threaten our returning wild fisheries. Crab all about your local TU curmudgeons but don't let that deter you from joining and participating in one of the most powerful means we have to influencing Harrisburg.

Side note: I know there is another thread but I'm being a bad boy and trying to get and extra 15mins of fame for this important issue. suck it mods! LOL

 

[DanL]

I agree they are helpful, but they (Katy or whoever runs the state website) sent out the mass email like a day before the vote was due. Wouldn't it have been better a few weeks ago?

Regardless, I used their email generator to send the letter to my reps, so hopefully it helped, but gotta stay a bit more on top the legistlative stuff, because without this website, I would have no clue HB1565 existed....

 

[Moosehead_Belle]

When bill was in the House I contacted my State Rep and received a reply stating that he supported the Bill and why. Very in depth reply and thoughtful, although not the position I wanted and Bill passed the House.
Sent a similar Email to my State Senator and have not had a reply yet. At least it seems someone in Harrisburg is listening.
Let us hope the Bill is defeated or at least revised to continue the protections needed.
They are not making any new streams, so we must protect the ones we have for ourselves and future generations.

 

[ebroesicke]

Dan:

Even though this has been simmering for a few years, from what I have been told it was not on the House Calendar and therefor was sort of brought up at the last min. A tactic to sort of rush it through i guess.

Tim. Thanks for posting this.

Word on the street is that this will come up for a Senate vote very soon.

I for one don't want to be standing in my favorite HQ stream one day wondering why the fishing is getting worse and why someone didn't do something about it.

 

[troutbert]

Thanks for the reminders. I contacted my Senator on this.

Regarding "replacement buffers." I think the concept basically does not make sense.

Suppose a developer removes an existing riparian buffer at Site A, and builds whatever development (housing, retail, warehouse etc.) close to the stream.

That takes away the opportunity for a buffer to exist there essentially forever. Even when the building eventually wears down, which might be 50 to 100 years or more away, the building site will be grandfathered in, and who ever owns that property at that time will be able to build another building there, even though it's close to the stream.

So you will have buildings, parking lots ect. close to the stream, far into the indefinite future.

According to the proposed legislation, the developer would be able to "compensate" for that by creating a riparian buffer on Site B somewhere else in the watershed (not necessarily on the same stream, BTW.)

But what would "creating a buffer" at Site B actually mean, and would the gain be equivalent to the essentially permanent loss at Site A?

At Site A they eliminating a vegetated buffer and replacing that buildings near the stream. At Site B, will they be removing buildings? I don't think so.

What they mean by creating a buffer would mean planting some trees and shrubs along a stretch of stream where the vegetation is currently suppressed, such as mowed lawn, or where there is a grazed pasture or farmed field up against the creek.

The two things are not equivalent at all. The loss is not compensated for, and it's not close either.

Because the loss at Site A is permanent. But the gain at Site B is not permanent. If you plant some trees and shrubs along the stream, there is no certainty that that will remain. A future landowner may just cut the vegetation down. I've seen that happen on several buffer sites.

Also, the legislation would not prohibit the buffer at Site B from also being eliminated in the future, in the same way as Site A.

Also, in areas that currently have suppressed vegetation, i.e. mowed lawns, grazing, farm fields, with no riparian buffer, those areas could potentially become buffers in the future, without the intervention of a "replacement" project.

So the "replacement buffer" might very well have ended up having a buffer anyway, just a few years down the road.

So, looking at things in the long run, passage of this bill would mean less riparian buffer mileage along our streams than if the bill were not passed.

They proponents would like you to believe that with the replacement concept, that things would work out the same. It isn't true.

 

[ebroesicke]

Well said Troutbert. To add to your point, any pollutants that may have been filtered by the buffer at site A are now in the system. Any plantings at another site would do nothing to mitigate this. I would also add that there is no man made BMP (Best Management Practice) that I have ever seen that can shade a stream.

 

[lestrout]

Bully on you fine ffisherffolks, Tim, Troubert and ebroesicke! I sent a followup per your guidance to both my Senator and to another Senator who is a friend.

Is there a way to track and publicize (here) how each Representative and Senator voted on this? That would be useful, so we could let our politicians know that we are monitoring their performance.

Kudos to TU also for monitoring, framing, lobbying and acting in ways that benefit us. Those that are down on institutions like TU based on personal interactions are truly unable to fathom the big picture.

 

[FarmerDave]

I don't have a dog in this hunt (Ohio resident), but I do hold PA near and dear...

I just want to add that every day I drive past an artificial wetland. Basically some builder was forced to create one because he destroyed another.

They just aren't the same.

I'm trying to imagine what a man made riparian buffer would look like.

Most of you know that I am also somewhat high on landowner rights.

That said, I would be against this bill.

 

[JackM]

The bill's short title is amusing:

An Act amending the act of June 22, 1937 (P.L.1987, No.394), known as The Clean Streams Law, further providing for potential pollution.

Here's the house vote:

Roll Call in the House

 

[Chaz]

Troutbert is absolutely correct about this issue. I'd like to ad that PA TU has been working against this bill for as long as it's been out there, PA TU is always in Harrisburg advocating for our streams and wild trout.
These folks work very hard, keeping the conservation of our streams on the minds of legislators. But TU is only 13,000 members strong, anyone who trout fishes should consider joining the cause, the more members we have the more influence we have.

 

[whheff]

Chaz wrote:
Troutbert is absolutely correct about this issue. I'd like to ad that PA TU has been working against this bill for as long as it's been out there, PA TU is always in Harrisburg advocating for our streams and wild trout.
These folks work very hard, keeping the conservation of our streams on the minds of legislators. But TU is only 13,000 members strong, anyone who trout fishes should consider joining the cause, the more members we have the more influence we have.

Well said Chaz.

 

[ebroesicke]

This will be voted on Tuesday. Please contact your Senator if you haven't done so already. If you need some talking points, check out patrout.org

 

[Chaz]

BTW, this HB 1565 is being pushed by the Republicans in Harrisburg, it's their baby, and elections are coming up, if you don't like this bill vote against the people pushing it.

 

[lestrout]

Yesterday, NPR had a nice segment on 90.9 highlighting Valley Creek and the riparian buffer issue.

 

[ebroesicke]

This passed the Senate last night 27 to 22. Thank you to everyone who supported the effort to defeat this, I really believe it made a difference. Thanks again.

 

[JackM]

I understand there was an amendment in the Senate version that has to be concurred in by the House. Does anyone know the nature of the amendment?

 

[ebroesicke]

JAck:

Amendment covers 2 areasfrom patrout.org)

(1) Clarify that the replacement buffer must occur along special protection waters within the same drainage list (according to chapter 93). This does not mean that the replacement buffer has to be installed on the same stream.

(2) Attempt to strengthen practices that can be used instead of a buffer, by requiring the alternatives used to be “collectively…substantially equivalent to a riparian buffer…” This section recognizes that riparian buffers are the most effective management tool.

 

[lestrout]

27-22 means that 3 votes would have swung the bill. I got a nice letter from Andy Dinniman explaining his efforts to help us. He is not my Senator but I knew him so I wrote him as well.

The amendment sends this thing back to the House, so we get another round of trying to persuade our state reps to rethink this thing.

 

[JackM]

I'm certainly not trying to support the bill, but if the language was strengthened to require a substantially equivalent alternative to the blanket buffer width regulation, it may not be so bad as a compromise. The regulatory agencies will then gain substantial control over the proposed substitutes, which, under an environmentally conscious executive, would result in the same effect.

Elect an environmentally executive, and we are good for the next four years, unless a repeal effort is launched.

 

[troutbert]

What is a "substantial equivalent" to a buffer?