Here is your chance - HB1565 (Riparian) Discussion

[JackM]

I am glad you asked.

If maintaining a 150 foot buffer would help the stream somewhat, but it was cut down to allow a use that eliminated some portion of the buffer in that exact location, and the person/entity proposed a 600 foot buffer a mere quarter mile upstream, I have to assume, there may be a net gain. if not at least not a net loss. What would be so hard about empowering an environmentally conscious administrative agency from making such a determination?

 

[lestrout]

The West Chester Fish, Game, and Wildlife Association just sent out an EMail to members asking for another round of contacting the PA Representatives now that the PA Senate made some revisions amending the original bill. We have to follow up on this new chance to let the lawmakers know what we want them to do.

 

[lestrout]

I posted a request to my PA Rep. Dan Truitt to reconsider his vote on his Facebook page. I guess the post is under consideration, since it didn't show on his page when I posted it. I will EMail and maybe physically write him a letter also. We'll see if his staff lets my post appear on his FB page.

 

[ebroesicke]

Les:

I am pretty sure this is sitting on the Gov.'s desk as we speak, but thank you for contacting your rep.

 

[lestrout]

yo ebro -

This showed up today on the front page of the Daily Local News. Andy Dinniman, a friend of TU and many local conservation groups, is taking a lead and expressing 'disappointment'. This bill is in fact back to the House, according to the DLN article (though it has about the same content as the letter Andy sent me). So everyone should get back to their Reps in the next few days. If passed, it will still have to get in front of Governor Corbett, so technically there is one more line to be crossed, though I gather he would not be in our court on this one.

BTW, the sponsoring rep is Rep. Hahn of Northampton County. Those who live there should pay particular attention to this issue.

ebro - one of the general things that can be done to capture mindspace is to do what West Chester FGW and VFTU did a while back: some anniversary, something like the 50th year of one of these groups, was celebrated by having a nice dinner at the Whiteland Country Club. It allowed those who chose to to dress up and make nice. So ALL of the local politicians saw the opportunity to attend and get to be known and to know us sportsmen in a comfortable setting. Even those who weren't overly friendly to the cause didn't want to be left out.

This kind of event needs coordination, planning and networking, and TUs and the many incumbent sportsmen's clubs can be platforms to increase communication. Also these folks tend to have Facebook pages, and that would be another excellent venue to concentrate our voices and also recruit ordinary (voting) people who may not otherwise be as interested in our issues as they could be.

 

[ebroesicke]

les: Duly noted on the banquet and FB things. no doubt we can do better to communicate with out legislature and get our word out. I will have some cnversations with the other LV chapters about this as Hahn is in our back yard.

I am confused about where this Bill is. This is what I got from the PALegis website as it's current status:

PN 2114 Referred to ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY, June 20, 2013
PN 4071 Reported as amended from ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY, Sept. 15, 2014
First consideration, Sept. 15, 2014
Laid on the table, Sept. 15, 2014
Removed from table, Sept. 16, 2014
PN 4116 Second consideration, with amendments, Sept. 17, 2014
Re-committed to APPROPRIATIONS, Sept. 17, 2014
(Remarks see House Journal Page ), Sept. 17, 2014
Re-reported as committed from APPROPRIATIONS, Sept. 22, 2014
Third consideration and final passage, Sept. 22, 2014 (119-79)
(Remarks see House Journal Page ), Sept. 22, 2014
In the Senate
Referred to ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY, Sept. 30, 2014
PN 4247 Reported as amended from ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY, Oct. 6, 2014
First consideration, Oct. 6, 2014
PN 4258 Corrective Reprint, Printer's No. 4258, Oct. 7, 2014
Second consideration, Oct. 8, 2014
Third consideration and final passage, Oct. 14, 2014 (27-22)
(Remarks see Senate Journal Page ), Oct. 14, 2014
In the House
Referred to RULES, Oct. 15, 2014
Re-reported on concurrence from RULES, as committed, Oct. 15, 2014
House concurred in Senate amendments, Oct. 15, 2014 (118-79)
(Remarks see House Journal Page ), Oct. 15, 2014
Signed in House, Oct. 15, 2014
Signed in Senate, Oct. 15, 2014
Presented to the Governor, Oct. 16, 2014

 

[lestrout]

Yo ebro - your diligent research and followup look more rigorous than what I'm doing. Here's the DLN article - maybe my info and the article are dated: http://www.dailylocal.com/general-news/20141020/sen-dinniman-expresses-disappointment-in-stream-buffer-bill

Note at the end that Rafferty and Dinniman are sponsoring a new Senate Bill 1465 that may counter the effects of HB1565 in EV/HQ streams.

 

[ebroesicke]

I think the article made a small error in the timeline. It did go back to the House, but that was last week and it was accepted with the Senate changes.

Also HB 1465 is dead due to going into election year and all Bills die at the end of this Legislative session.

 

[Oregon_Owl]

I feel saddened. This bill should be called How to Ruin A Trout Stream. The removal of one riparian buffer for 500 feet could ruin an entire stream segment. The warming because of lack of canopy does not get 'repaired' when a stream then enters a shaded area. Very sad day if this passes. It will just be a matter of time before all Class A and HQ streams are ruined. The legislation is intentional because developers hate streams with protected status.

My advice is to lobby your state legislators hard. Otherwise in the next couple of generations, anglers will be coarse fishing for chubs.

 

[vcregular]

Yea, this mainly references hurricane Sandy, but of all places to find a piece about the importance of stream buffers/natural defenses - the Wall Street Journal

Man, our legislature is out of touch!

 

[Chaz]

Remember this is a Republican agenda item, and if you don't like it, your big chance is to express this at the poll on Tuesday. Vote against everyone that voted for this bill.
The bill could ruin every trout stream that falls into this category, and then what's next, the not as good streams. Remember this bill focuses on the very best quality waters. If they aren't protected nothing will be.

 

[lestrout]

Chaz's point is well taken, but maybe things are more nuanced than the polarized politics. At voting, Rep. Rep. Chris Ross was meeting and greeting. I mentioned the environmental line on his handout and we talked about HB1565. He took credit for the amendment, which does help. He had a good understanding about the buffer zones and in fact said 25 years ago he took action as an officer of the London Grove area to set up riparian protections.

hp
les

 

[FarmerDave]

Chaz wrote:
Remember this is a Republican agenda item, and if you don't like it, your big chance is to express this at the poll on Tuesday. Vote against everyone that voted for this bill.
The bill could ruin every trout stream that falls into this category, and then what's next, the not as good streams. Remember this bill focuses on the very best quality waters. If they aren't protected nothing will be.

Every?

I suppose that is possible, but so it getting struck by lightning on the way to polls and getting run over by the rescue truck.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't support that bill, but I am no expert, either. I'm only referring to the gross exaggeration at the start of the second paragraph.

I also have no problem with anyone deciding to vote against someone because of this, whether Rep or Dem, or for any other reason for that matter.

But I have never supported gross exaggerations which only take away credibility which IMO weakens ones position.

 

[Chaz]

All you have to do is not have a riparian buffer on 100 yards of water to have the temperature go from 67 degrees to mid-70's or higher, and I have the data to back that up. So if a developer goes and develops land along an EV or HQ stream and the temperature goes through the habitable zone of trout that's ok?