Posted by Brian on January 29, 2014 · 2 Comments
House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy Hearing January 29, 2014 – Testimony by Mr. Brian Oram Geologist, Soil Scientist, Educator, and Citizen of Pennsylvania
My name is Brian Oram and I wanted to thank you for this opportunity. I am a licensed professional geologist, soil scientist, and owner of B.F. Environmental Consultants, Inc. I am lifelong resident of Northeastern Pennsylvania and currently reside in Dallas, Luzerne County. I am here today as a citizen and licensed professional in Pennsylvania in support of House Bill 1565.
The proposed house bill makes a slight change to the Clean Streams Law which would eliminate the requirement to use or install an arbitrary 100 foot riparian buffer on all streams and 150 foot a riparian buffer zone for EV and HQ streams. The proposed wording change for HB 1565 is as follows:
“(c) 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 choice 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.”
The reasons that I support this proposed change:
1. This proposed change in the law will not result in the destruction of riparian zones or significant encroachment or disrupt of these zones because existing environmental permitting processes are already in place to protect these areas. The change in the law will permit the development of a site that permits the design professionals to evaluate all alternatives and select the approach that limits disturbance and manages the potential impacts.
Riparian zones can be divided into three broad zones:
a. Active Zone is the area within the banks of the stream and the channel bottom;
b. Zone 1 is typically associated with the floodway and floodplains; and
c. Zone 2 is typically associated with wetland areas, organic soils, and other transition zones.
Under the current laws in PA, the floodway, floodplains, and delineated wetland areas are protected from direct development and encroachment. With respect to floodways and wetland areas, there are existing permit processes in place to address issues related to encroachment into these zones.
2. The proposed legislative change allows for use of riparian buffers as a site-specific BMP as a function of the stream classification. This approach is consistent with the criteria for HQ and EV streams as already outline in Chapter 93. (Currently, the Chapter 102 regulation is a standard not based on science or a site-specific analysis, but a universally applied arbitrary mandate).
The proposed legislation permits the establishment of riparian buffers zones or maintaining specific riparian buffers that are based on a site-based criteria/analysis. This analysis includes the nature of the proposed development, proposed management system, current conditions, stream classification, and the water quality criteria/biological criteria provide in the law. The proposed change will ensure that riparian buffers are sized and utilized in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of the Clean Streams Law.
3. The proposed change will prevent negative impacts to current or future stream quality.
In most cases, the concept around forest riparian zones is based on the principle that the zone is actively used to manage uncontrolled flow or to control nutrients and sediment. When projects use engineering controls, such as: bioretention devices, rain gardens, wet detention ponds, water reuse, land-based irrigation systems, groundwater recharge, and peak flow retention, treatment is provided by a combination of engineering controls and non-engineering controls that occur and are managed outside of the stream side “riparian zone” and/or wetland areas.
4. Many of the recommendations related to the size of a riparian buffer assume the buffer is the main active control system for post- construction stormwater management and includes provisions that will protect wildlife habitat.
For engineered projects, riparian buffers should not and are not the main system that is used to control sediment, water flow, volume reduction, or even nutrient control. These riparian buffer’s primary role is to further polish that water after it already meets design criteria. However, DEP’s current guidance suggests transporting managed water through the buffer in a pipe or swale directly to the receiving waterbody, which is inconsistent with the true role of the riparian buffer zone.
Criteria for riparian buffers- Buffers and set-backs for a stormwater management system should be based solely on maintaining in stream quality, downgradient use provisions, and biological criteria that are part of Chapter 93. Riparian buffers should not be established in stormwater management regulations to protect the general wildlife habitat for the watershed. Chapter 93 provides wildlife protection to High Quality Waters if the water is a Class A Wild Trout Stream or where the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish resulted in a score of 83 % compared to a reference site. (Chapter 93)
RIPARIAN BUFFERS: WHAT ARE THEY and HOW DO THEY WORK? (http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/BMPs/table.html
“Most decisions about buffer widths will be a compromise between ideal widths based on environmental goals (wildlife corridors, bank stabilization, and water quality protection) and sociologic or economic constraints. Science-based criteria, for which research data may be available to support an informed decision, include the functional value of the water resource; watershed, site, and buffer characteristics; adjacent land use; and buffer function. The functional value of the water resource is important for determining buffer width in that a highly valued resource may merit a wider buffer for increased protection.”
5. A project can use a riparian buffer zone as an additional management tool, but the minimum buffer should be based on site-specific analysis. This analysis should be site and project specific and be done by licensed professionals and not an arbitrary non-scientific approach.
In the long-run, an arbitrary buffer zone will result in inadequate protection in areas with larger streams were a project proposes using little or no engineering control systems. The minimum size of a riparian buffer zone should be site-specific and a function of the proposed project and proposed engineering and non-engineering controls. The regulations, with this proposed change, will be more effective if they are less restrictive and permit the licensed professional in the state of Pennsylvania to make decisions based on the site-specific conditions, proposed nature of the development, and long-term management for the site.
RIPARIAN BUFFERS: WHAT ARE THEY and HOW DO THEY WORK? (http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/BMPs/table.html
“The current proposed buffer standards in North Carolina use a two-tiered riparian buffer: forested areas near the streams and grassed areas away from the stream. The proposed buffer width is 50 feet: 30 feet of forest and 20 feet of grass (NCDEHNR, 1997). Some streams, however, may need greater and some streams need less buffer width, depending not only on site location but also on the pollutant that is being controlled. For optimal performance, riparian forest buffer systems must be designed and maintained to maximize sheet flow and infiltration and impede concentrated flow”.
6. In Pennsylvania, we have enough examples of well-meaning guidance documents not specifically based on science and designed and package primarily in response to lawsuits. These guidance documents have caused the development of policy in PA that are ineffective, make the goals effectively unachievable, potentially creates future problems, and creates significant other unintended consequences.
Recent examples would be the legislation that developed after the PA Guidance Document on Stormwater Management and the recent attempts to regulate nitrates from individual on-lot septic systems.
We do recommend some proposed wording changes to the proposed House Bill:
With respect to the proposed House Bill, we would suggest a slight wording change to clarify the scope and intent.
We recommend the phrase “and/or” should be included in the proposed language to account for the difference in the level and type of protection afforded to EV streams and HQ streams. The level of protection afforded by the current law is not the same for EV and HQ streams.
and
We would recommend that the size of the buffer be based on a site-specific evaluation that takes into consideration the existing conditions, proposed use, proposed engineering/non-engineering controls, and the proposed long-term management that are proposed by the project.
In conclusion, it is my personal and professional opinion that the change in the regulations would put the sizing and the development of stormwater management systems in the hands of professionals that have been licensed by the State of Pennsylvania and other professionals that provide facts and science-based information to make site-specific and project specific recommendations to meet the goals and objectives of Chapter 102 and to meet the water quality standards in Chapter 93. We should not have a one-size-fits-all approach to stormwater management in Pennsylvania.
Prepared by:
Mr. Brian Oram, PG
B.F. Environmental Consultants Inc.
15 Hillcrest Drive
Dallas, PA 18612
http://www.bfenvironmental.com
http://www.water-research.net
bfenviro@ptd.net
Summary
Proposed Change DOES NOT
1. Eliminate or permit the disturbance of riparian buffers.
2. Does not waive any provisions of the law and makes using a Management Riparian Zone an Option with the size of the riparian zone based on science- therefore, it may be larger or smaller than 150 feet.
3. Provides for flexibility without reducing protection.
4. Does not create new waivers that could be challenge in the courts.
Posted by Brian on January 29, 2014 · 1 Comment
Contact: Maureen Moses (mmoses@agiweb.org)
For Immediate Release
EARTH: Interview with Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell
Alexandria, VA – EARTH Magazine sits down with Secretary of the Interior Sally
Jewell to discuss the role of geoscience at the Department of the Interior,
which includes the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees the offshore development of
both renewable and conventional energy resources.
Secretary Jewell, who began her career as a petroleum engineer, discusses the
role of science in reconciling conflicts in the management of federal lands, and
shares how her transition from the private sector, where she was chief executive
officer of Recreation Equipment, Inc., has provided insight into the management
of DOI’s 70,000 federal employees, and the new 21st Century Conservation Corps
initiative (http://21csc.org/)
Read more online and in the April issue of EARTH Magazine: (http://bit.ly/1dP2DI0)
###
Keep up to date with the latest happenings in Earth, energy and environment news
with EARTH magazine online at http://www.earthmagazine.org/. Published by the
American Geosciences Institute, EARTH is your source for the science behind the
headlines.
###
The American Geosciences Institute is a nonprofit federation of 50 geoscientific
and professional associations that represents more than 250,000 geologists,
geophysicists and other earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides
information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared interests in
the profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and
strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in
society’s use of resources, resiliency to natural hazards, and interaction with
the environment.
Posted by Brian on January 8, 2014 · 11 Comments
As part of our outreach and assistance to private well owners, we are offering a free water screening test. The water screening test will check the general quality of your well or spring water and the testing will include pH, conductivity, total dissolved solids, iron, nitrate, nitrite, alkalinity, and total hardness. To qualify for the testing, you will need to do the following:
1. Provide you full name, email address, and mailing address with a general description of your water source. This should include your zip code, county, and local municipality and the water sample should be collected prior to any water treatment.
2. Provide a description of any water quality concerns or questions.
3. Provide a copy of any certified baseline testing or most recent water test.
4. Using a clean plastic spring water bottle or plastic container – collected a 200 ml water sample or 6 ozs- Remove any aeration devices and allow the water to run for 10 to 15 minutes prior to sampling. Ship the sample to the address shown below.
5. State that you Liked our Websites on Facebook ( Keystone Clean Water Team) or Twitter @keystonewater or @KnowYourH2OPath
Mail your water sample to the following address. Turn-around time may be as much as 2 weeks.
Keystone Clean Water Team(CCGG Program)
15 Hillcrest Drive
Dallas, PA 18612
There will be no charge for the analysis, but we will plan to use your testing results as part of our educational outreach program. There will be NO sales calls for water treatment equipment and your contact information will NOT be sold to any third party.
If you are looking for more comprehensive information water testing, please visit our Private Well Owner Water Testing Portal. If you are looking for certified baseline testing, please go to this webportal.
This program is supported by donations by individuals, businesses, and corporations. Please consider supporting this effort – ever dollars helps!
Looking for a water treatment system – Try !
Program is open to all private well owners in the United States.
Volunteer
We seek new people at all skill levels for a variety of programs. One thing that everyone can do is attend meetings to share ideas on improving CCGG, enabling us to better understand and address the concerns of well owners.
Everything we do began with an idea.
We realize your time is precious and the world is hectic. KCWT’s volunteers do only what they’re comfortable with. It can be a little or a lot.
For more information, please go to KCWT’s About Page or contact us.
Keystone Clean Water Team is a 501(c)(3) IRS approved nonprofit, volunteer organization and your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Unsolicited donations are appreciated.
Get Your Water Tested or Order the Private Well Owner Guide (proceeds benefit This Organization).
Filed under acid mine drainage, Arsenic, consumer products, Environmental Health, Groundwater, Homeowner, marcellus shale, Nitrate, Water, Water Testing, Well water testing · Tagged with educating on drinking water, free water testing, private well owner class, private well owner education outreach, spring water testing, tds testing, well water sampling kit, well water testing
Posted by admin on January 7, 2014 · Leave a Comment
blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2014/01/penn_state_surveys_roadside_springs_grouse_meeting_and_more_outdoor_insider.html
By Marcus Schneck | mschneck@pennlive.com
January 05, 2014
Nearly all of the 35 roadside springs across Pennsylvania – all heavily used for drinking water supplies – checked by researchers in a Penn State Extension survey failed at least one drinking water standard. Roadside springs are a common source of drinking water in Pennsylvania, but little is known about the quality of the water. Penn State Water Resources Extension Educators Jim Clark and Diane Oleson surveyed the springs to determine the drinking water. The 35 roadside springs included in the survey were mostly located within PennDOT road rights-of-ways in 19 counties. Water samples were collected by seven Penn State Water Resources Extension Educators between April and August of 2013. Each sample was analyzed for 20 common inorganic and microbiological water quality parameters by the Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory at Penn State.
Overall, 97 percent of the roadside springs failed at least one drinking water standard. The most common health-related pollutants were coliform bacteria (91 percent), E. coli bacteria (34 percent) and lead (3 percent). Other common pollutants that could cause various tastes or other aesthetic issues included corrosive water (89 percent), low pH (40 percent), sediment (31 percent), iron (6 percent) and manganese (6 percent). Several pollutants were not found in any of the springs in excessive concentrations including aluminum, nitrate, arsenic, barium, copper and chloride. Clark and Oleson suggest that these results should provide caution for anyone currently collecting and drinking water from a roadside spring.
Volunteer
We seek new people at all skill levels for a variety of programs. One thing that everyone can do is attend meetings to share ideas on improving CCGG, enabling us to better understand and address the concerns of well owners.
Everything we do began with an idea.
We realize your time is precious and the world is hectic. CCGG’s volunteers do only what they’re comfortable with. It can be a little or a lot.
For more information, please go to CCGG’s About Page or contact us.
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians is a 501(c)(3) IRS approved nonprofit, volunteer organization and your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Unsolicited donations are appreciated.
Help the Organization and Get Your Water Tested or Order the Private Well Owner Guide (proceeds benefit This Organization).
Posted by Brian on November 9, 2013 · 2 Comments
We have been in this heated discussion over the use of fossil fuels and natural gas and the need to switch to renewable energy options. The main problem with the individuals leading this decision is that the approach is wrong. We need to first talk about energy conservation. We waste nearly 58% of the energy that we produce. Now, I agree much of this energy is lot in the form of heat, but it is still energy that we should be able a way to figure out how best to use. To some individuals this may seem like a relatively ok number, but I will put it another way we produce enough energy in the United States to power 2 Countries. Is it sinking in yet?
What we need
1. Taking a very hard look at energy efficient and using energy wisely. In the home, get a home energy audit. If you are looking for a business or career, start an energy audit or weatherization business, Green Building/LEED Design, or green building design/analyst.
2. Stop wasting energy – purchase energy efficient products “Energy Star” etc and unplug items when not in use.
3. Do a self energy audit and maybe
a. Change to More Efficient Light Bulbs
b. Install a programmable Thermostat
c. Install Ceiling Fans
d. Maximize the use of landscaping.
e. Use a Microwave over an oven
f. Clean Filters
g. Clean Ducts and Fix Leaks
h. Insulate / Seal Window
i. Conserve Water and Conservation Tips
4. All energy solutions should be on the table, but if you can afford -you may want to consider the use of a ground source heating and cooling system, biomass (switchgrass, waste wood, pellet stoves, outdoor wood stoves)on-demand water heater, and maybe solar water heating system.
5. Other options are also available that may work for you and your family. Look at the options from your energy supplier.
We all need to be part of the solution !
Recent Presentation to Teens In the Wilkes Barre Area.
Sponsor – Renewable Energy Products and Information
Note: Carbon County Groundwater Guardians is not for or against natural gas drilling. We are for the facts, making good decisions, and helping to inform the public on all sides of this issue.
Volunteer
We seek new people at all skill levels for a variety of programs. One thing that everyone can do is attend meetings to share ideas on improving CCGG, enabling us to better understand and address the concerns of well owners.
Everything we do began with an idea.
We realize your time is precious and the world is hectic. CCGG’s volunteers do only what they’re comfortable with. It can be a little or a lot.
For more information, please go to CCGG’s About Page or contact us.
Carbon County Groundwater Guardians is a 501(c)(3) IRS approved nonprofit, volunteer organization and your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Unsolicited donations are appreciated.
Help the Organization and Get Your Water Tested or Order the Private Well Owner Guide (proceeds benefit This Organization).
Filed under "Beneficial Use", Alternative Energy, Coal, consumer products, Energy, Environmental Health, Fossil Fuels, Greenhouse Gas, marcellus shale, Nuclear Energy · Tagged with biomass, energy audit, energy conservation, energy efficiency, Geothermal, green building, groundsource, LEED professional, renewable energy, solar, Sustainability, Wind
« Previous Page — Next Page »
