Save the Date – April 15th – Sewage Facilities Planning Module Webinar
DEP invites you to participate in an important upcoming webinar about Draft Technical Guidance for DEP’s review of Sewage Facilities Planning Modules for onlot sewage systems proposed in Pennsylvania’s High Quality and Exceptional Value Watersheds.
The proper location and management of community and individual onlot septic systems is key to safeguarding public health and Pennsylvania’s water quality resources. The new draft technical guidance will ensure cost-effective and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint source control are achieved to maintain and protect water quality when reviewing sewage facilities planning modules for proposed individual or community onlot sewage systems in high quality and exceptional value watersheds.
During the one-hour webinar, DEP staff will describe BMPs for individual and community onlot sewage systems that can achieve nonpoint source control in High Quality and Exceptional Value waters, and review the process for selecting appropriate BMPs to achieve such control.
The webinar will be held from 2-3 p.m., Monday April 15. The webinar is free but registration is required. To register, visit https://copa.webex.com/copa/onstage/g.php?t=a&d=645447507
The Draft Technical Guidance can be found here: http://www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-93420/385-2208-001.pdf Public comments regarding the Draft Technical Guidance are due to DEP May 1.
PADEP Proposes Antidegradation Standard for On-lot Septic Systems
PADEP Proposes antidegradation for On-lot septic systems -Sewage Facilities Planning Module Review for Onlot Sewage Systems Proposed in High Quality and Exceptional Value Watersheds – Proposed Policy – 385-2208-XXX.
POLICY: The Department will assure that cost-effective and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint source control are achieved to maintain and protect water quality when reviewing sewage facilities planning modules for proposed individual or community onlot sewage systems in high quality and exceptional value watersheds.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this guidance is to describe BMPs for individual and community onlot sewage systems that can achieve nonpoint source control in High Quality and Exceptional Value waters, and to provide a process to select appropriate BMPs to achieve such control.
Problem
1. Implementation – Policy says it applies to only new systems or permits, this will therefore include all existing lots not developed. The policy also suggests it should be used for all repairs.
2. Cost to Implement- Could add up to cost of installing and maintaining septic systems in PA.
3. PADEP says the problem is because of nitrate. The only problem is that nitrates are not a problem in PA and the nitrate loading from septic systems to the stream may be only 4%. The major sources fossil fuels, atmospheric deposition, agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and wastewater treatment plants.
Encouraging Others to learn More – My personal blog on the subject.
To review the proposed policy
PA DEP Presentation on the Policy
Rachel Carson State Office Building
400 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8774
tstarosta@pa.gov
How Does Groundwater Pumping Affect Streamflow?
www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3458&from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usgs%2FWater+(Newsroom+-+Water+Releases)#.UKecVYXbaWU
Released: 11/16/2012
New USGS Report Describes Processes and Misconceptions Concerning the Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow
Groundwater provides drinking water for millions of Americans and is the primary source of water to irrigate cropland in many of the nations most productive agricultural settings. Although the benefits of groundwater development are many, groundwater pumping can reduce the flow of water in connected streams and rivers—a process called streamflow depletion by wells. The USGS has released a new report that summarizes the body of knowledge on streamflow depletion, highlights common misconceptions, and presents new concepts to help water managers and others understand the effects of groundwater pumping on surface water.
“Groundwater discharge is a critical part of flow in most streams–and the more we pump below the ground, the more we deplete water flowing down the stream,” said USGS Director Marcia McNutt. “When viewed over the long term, it is one big zero-sum game.”
Groundwater and surface-water systems are connected, and groundwater discharge is often a substantial component of the total flow of a stream. In many areas of the country, pumping wells capture groundwater that would otherwise discharge to connected streams, rivers, and other surface-water bodies. Groundwater pumping can also draw streamflow into connected aquifers where pumping rates are relatively large or where the locations of pumping are relatively close to a stream.
“Streamflow depletion caused by pumping is an important water-resource management issue across the nation because of the adverse effects that reduced flows can have on aquatic ecosystems, the availability of surface water, and the quality and aesthetic value of streams and rivers,” said Paul Barlow, USGS hydrologist and author on the report. “Managing the effects of streamflow depletion by wells is challenging, particularly because of the significant time delays that often occur between when pumping begins and when the effects of that pumping are realized in nearby streams. This report will help managers understand the many factors that control the timing, rates, and locations of streamflow depletion caused by pumping.”
Major conclusions from the report:
• Individual wells may have little effect on streamflow depletion, but small effects of many wells pumping within a basin can combine to produce substantial effects on streamflow and aquatic habitats.
• Basinwide groundwater development typically occurs over a period of several decades, and the resulting cumulative effects on streamflow depletion may not be fully realized for years.
• Streamflow depletion continues for some time after pumping stops because it takes time for a groundwater system to recover from the previous pumping stress. In some aquifers, maximum rates of streamflow depletion may occur long after pumping stops, and full recovery of the groundwater system may take decades to centuries.
• Streamflow depletion can affect water quality in the stream or in the aquifer. For example, in many areas, groundwater discharge cools stream temperatures in the summer and warms stream temperatures in the winter, providing a suitable year-round habitat for fish. Reductions in groundwater discharge to streams caused by pumping can degrade habitat by warming stream temperatures during the summer and cooling stream temperatures during the winter.
• The major factors that affect the timing of streamflow depletion are the distance from the well to the stream and the properties and geologic structure of the aquifer.
• Sustainable rates of groundwater pumping near streams do not depend on the rates at which groundwater systems are naturally replenished (or recharged), but on the total flow rates of the streams and the amount of reduced streamflow that a community or regulatory authority is willing to accept.
“Conjunctive management of groundwater and surface-water resources is critical in New Mexico, where our limited surface-water supplies can be impacted by new uses that are predominantly dependent on groundwater pumping,” said Mike Johnson, Chief of the Hydrology Bureau in the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. “This new USGS publication consolidates our understanding of the connection between aquifers and streams and provides a clear, thorough and up-to-date explanation of the tools and techniques used to evaluate streamflow depletion by wells. This report will be very useful to New Mexico’s water managers in guiding technical analysis, dispelling common misconceptions, and explaining these complex concepts to decision makers and the public.”
The report, which is a product of the USGS Groundwater Resources Program, is titled “Streamflow Depletion by Wells—Understanding and Managing the Effects of Groundwater Pumping on Streamflow” and is available in print and online. [ http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1376/ ]
The Groundwater Resources Program provides objective scientific information and develops the interdisciplinary understanding necessary to assess and quantify the availability of the nation’s groundwater resources. The Program has been instrumental in documenting groundwater declines and in developing groundwater-flow models for use in sustainably managing withdrawals. The research and understanding developed through this program can provide water-resource managers with the tools and information needed to manage this important natural resource.
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192
Paul Barlow
Phone: 508-490-5070
pbarlow@usgs.gov
Kara Capelli
Phone: 571-420-9408
kcapelli@usgs.gov
Water is the new gold, a big commodity bet
finance.yahoo.com/news/water-gold-big-commodity-bet-040352660.html
By Paul B. Farrell | MarketWatch – Tue, Jul 24, 2012 12:03 AM EDT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. (MarketWatch) — “Is water the gold of the 21st century?” asks Fortune. Answer: Yes, water is the New Gold for investors this century.
In 2010 global water generated over a half trillion dollars of revenue. Global world population will explode from 7 billion today to 10 billion by 2050, predicts the United Nations. And over one billion “lack access to clean drinking water.”
Climate and weather patterns are changing natural water patterns. And industrial pollution is making water a scarce commodity. So the good news is that huge “opportunities exist for businesses that can figure out how to keep the pipes flowing.”
Yes, it’s a hot market. So, expand your vision for a minute. How many bottles of water do you drink a week? How much did you use for a shower? When you flushed a toilet? Wash your car? Cooking? Lattes? And my guess is your city water bill’s gone up in recent years.
So ask yourself: What happens in the next 40 years when another three billion people come into the world? Imagine adding 75 million people every year, six million a month, 200,000 every day, all demanding more and more water to drink, to shower, to cook, to everything. All guzzling down the New Gold that’s getting ever scarcer.
Population, the explosive driver in the demand for ever-scarcer water
Now here’s the real scary stuff, the investor’s basic multiplier. In the 12 short years leading up to 2011 the world added a billion people. China’s population is now 1.3 billion. Plus they’ll add another 100 million in the next generation, while India adds 600 million according to United Nations experts. Read more
Webinar to look at natural gas development’s effect on agriculture
live.psu.edu/story/56136#nw69
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — A Web-based seminar sponsored by Penn State Extension will examine how Marcellus Shale natural-gas development is affecting agriculture in Pennsylvania.
The 75-minute webinar will be held at 1 p.m. on Nov. 10. Presenters will be Gary Sheppard and Mark Madden, extension educators based in Westmoreland and Sullivan counties, respectively, who have extensive experience dealing with Marcellus Shale natural-gas drilling impacts on agriculture in their regions.
Sheppard will explore the impact natural gas wells have on farms from four perspectives. “Those include financial, family, farmstead and social,” he said. “I will discuss some planning considerations for the business plan of the farm and highlight the assistance available from organizations such as USDA’s Farm Service Agency and from resources such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement and Farmland Preservation programs.”
Sheppard noted that he also will touch on how some farmers who are embracing holistic concepts of sustainability are struggling to decide how Marcellus drilling fits into their values.
Madden intends to review several case studies of farmers and farms near Marcellus gas-drilling operations.
“I want to capture some of the personal considerations and choices farmers are dealing with,” he said.
The webinar is part of a series of online workshops addressing opportunities and challenges related to the state’s Marcellus Shale gas boom. Information about how to register for the session is available on the webinar page of Penn State Extension’s natural-gas website at http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas/webinars.
Titles of upcoming monthly webinars include “Natural Gas Development’s Impact on Forestlands,” “Seismic Testing: What’s It All About?” “Transportation Patterns and Impacts from Marcellus Development,” and “Municipalities’ Roles, Water Use, and Protections.”
Previous webinars, publications and information on topics such as air pollution from gas development; the gas boom’s effect on landfills; water use and quality; zoning; gas-leasing considerations for landowners; implications for local communities; gas pipelines and right-of-way issues; and legal issues surrounding gas development also are available on the Penn State Extension natural-gas website (http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas).
For more information about the webinar, contact John Turack, extension educator based in Westmoreland County, at 724-837-1402 or by email at jdt15@psu.edu.
Penn State scientists part of new stink bug research project
live.psu.edu/story/56032#nw69
October 27, 2011
Stink-bug damage such as this cost the mid-Atlantic apple industry an estimated $37 million in 2010. (Credit: Penn State Department of Entomology)
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Researchers in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences are part of a new, multi-state project to study the brown marmorated stink bug.
The research is funded by a recently announced $5.7 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture through its Specialty Crops Research Initiative.
The three-year project is aimed at developing economically and environmentally sustainable pest-management practices for the brown marmorated stink bug, which has caused millions of dollars worth of crop damage and become a major homeowner nuisance since it first was found in the United States, near Allentown, in the late 1990s.
Penn State will receive nearly $900,000 of the grant to study stink bug biology and behavior, develop monitoring and management tools and practices, and provide extension education programs to disseminate new knowledge to crop producers.
“It’s too early to put a dollar value on crop damage this year, but the apple industry alone estimated losses of about $37 million as the result of stink bug infestations in the mid-Atlantic region in 2010,” said Greg Krawczyk, extension tree-fruit entomologist at Penn State’s Fruit Research and Extension Center in Biglerville.
Krawczyk, who leads the Penn State portion of the project, noted that crop damage this year appears to be lower than last year, though it varies from region to region. “Growers who experienced big losses last year managed this pest better during this season, but some individual growers still suffered losses of up to 60 percent,” he said.
Because the brown marmorated stink bug is native to Asia, it has few natural enemies in North America, allowing populations to grow largely unchecked. The pest is known to feed on as many as 300 host plants and migrates readily, further complicating control.
Krawczyk said one of the goals of the research is to develop control tactics that rely on the principles of IPM, or integrated pest management. IPM utilizes a variety of methods — including biological controls, pheromones for mating disruption and other techniques — that help minimize pesticide use.
He explained that some broad-spectrum pesticides that are effective against stink bugs also kill the beneficial insects tree-fruit growers rely on as part of IPM programs. “That upsets the balance in the orchard ecosystem — allowing other pests to become more of a problem — and could reverse much of the progress we’ve made in IPM, which has helped Pennsylvania growers to reduce pesticide use by as much as 75 percent in recent decades.”
Penn State scientists will study stink bugs as they relate to the production of tree fruits, vegetables and grapes. Researchers will explore biological control options, stink-bug chemical ecology (chemically mediated interactions among plants and insects), and monitoring strategies. The project also will assess the pest’s economic impact and the economic feasibility of new management methods.
Krawczyk said although the research will focus mostly on specialty crops and will not directly address infestations in homes or in major agronomic crops such as corn and soybean, knowledge gained should aid in the development of recommendations that could be useful for habitat-scale management.
Other Penn State personnel taking part in the project include David Biddinger, senior research associate in entomology at the Fruit Research and Extension Center; Gary Felton, professor and head of entomology; Shelby Fleischer, professor of entomology; Jayson Harper, professor of agricultural economics; Steven Jacobs, senior extension associate in entomology; Michael Saunders, professor of entomology; and John Tooker, assistant professor of entomology.
The project is led by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, along with a core group of land-grant universities: Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, and the universities of Maryland and Delaware. Also participating are researchers from Cornell, Oregon State University, North Carolina State University, Washington State University and the Northeast IPM Center.
More information about the brown marmorated stink bug is available online at http://ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/brown-marmorated-stink-bug.
State may limit drilling byproduct from being spread on farms
Pennsylvania is seeking to limit the use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer on farmers’ fields if the sludge comes from sewer plants that treat wastewater from natural gas drilling.
Environmental regulators’ concerns about the sludge were highlighted in a New York Times article on Friday that described the risks of radioactive contaminants in the drilling wastewater concentrating in the sludge during treatment. The sludge, also called biosolids, is sometimes sold or given away to farmers and gardeners as fertilizer if it meets certain standards for pathogens and metals.
The Times article quotes from a transcript of a March 15 conference call between officials with the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Environmental Protection about how to better regulate discharges of the wastewater that can be high in salts, metals and naturally occurring radioactive materials.
DEP is developing a guidance document about how to include new wastewater treatment standards into permits for new or expanding treatment plants that handle the drilling fluids. The new standards limit the amount of salty discharge, called total dissolved solids, that can enter state streams.
The draft guidance document would also bar treatment plants that receive untreated drilling wastewater from using their sludge for land application.
Ron Furlan, a division manager for DEP’s Bureau of Water Standards and Facility Regulation, is quoted in the the New York Times as saying sludge was included in the guidance document because “we don’t have a good handle on the radiological concerns right now, and in any case we don’t want people land-applying biosolids that may be contaminated to any significant level by radium 226-228 or other emitters.”
The guidance does not carry the legal weight of a regulation and would not be imposed on treatment plants unless their discharge permit is up for renewal or they apply for a new or expanded permit.
The draft guidance also proposes that treatment plants accepting untreated drilling wastewater develop radiation protection “action plans” and have monitoring requirements for radium 226 and 228, gross alpha and uranium established in their permits.
In a letter this week to the EPA, DEP Acting Secretary Michael Krancer wrote that the state has directed 14 public water supplies that draw from rivers downstream from treatment plants that accept Marcellus Shale wastewater to test the finished drinking water for radioactive contaminants and other pollutants. The state also called on 25 treatment plants that accept the wastewater to begin twice monthly testing for radioactivity in their discharges.
Tests of seven state rivers at sites downstream from wastewater treatment plants last fall showed that levels of radioactivity were at or below normal levels.
In the conference call quoted by the New York Times, environmental regulators also expressed concerns about radionuclides settling in the sediment of rivers where the incompletely treated wastewater is discharged from sewer plants.
“If you were really looking for radionuclides, that’s the first place I would look,” Furlan said.
DEP spokeswoman Katy Gresh said Friday that there are currently no plans to begin testing river sediment for radionuclides.
“We will use the results of the increased testing/monitoring to see what is being discharged before making that decision,” she said.
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: April 9, 2011
http://citizensvoice.com/news/state-may-limit-drilling-byproduct-from-being-spread-on-farms-1.1130088#axzz1J1xZtYwG
Budget cuts tap out safe drinking water
In all of the debate on Capitol Hill about cutting budgets, you wouldn’t expect water to get a great deal of attention. But it should.
The Continuing Resolution set to emerge from the House this week makes drastic reductions in support for critical functions of the Environmental Protection Agency – the federal entity charged with protecting water supplies for hundreds of millions of Americans. But slashing the EPA’s budget, without shifting legal and financial responsibility to polluters, will leave America’s fisheries, drinking water supplies, and coastal areas vulnerable. No one else is guarding the door to the henhouse – quite literally, it turns out, when it comes to water pollution.
Industrial animal agriculture operations in the U.S. generate up to one billion tons of manure annually, most of which is applied – untreated – to cropland. As a result, according to the EPA, drinking water sources for an estimated 43 percent of the U.S. population have suffered some level of pathogen contamination associated with livestock operations, and 29 states have identified livestock feeding operations as a source of water pollution. In Congressional testimony, the U.S. Geological Survey identified livestock manure as the single largest source of nitrogen pollution in major rivers across the country, including rivers in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, California and Wisconsin.
As food animal production in the U.S. has shifted from family farms to a concentrated industrial production system, efforts to protect the environment, rural communities and water supplies have not kept pace. These massive operations, housing thousands of hogs or hundreds of thousands of chickens in tight quarters, produce manure and other waste on an equally large scale, but continue to be regulated under a now-antiquated set of rules designed for small family farms. Corporations that own slaughterhouses, packing facilities and livestock often contract with farmers to raise the animals to the point of slaughter and argue that they bear no liability for compliance with Clean Water Act permits during the production period. The companies own the animals; the farmers are stuck with the manure.
Under this system, corporate owners have not been obligated to provide any financial assistance to farmers for the costs of waste treatment and disposal. As a result, local water utilities spend millions monitoring and treating this water pollution, and treasured gems like the Chesapeake Bay suffer from livestock-related pollution, while taxpayers pay the cleanup costs through EPA water programs. These programs are now on the chopping block.
Congressional efforts to find legitimate savings through efficiency and the elimination of waste in government programs are of course laudable. But members of Congress also have a responsibility to ensure that alternatives to government spending are identified so the health and welfare of millions of Americans is not jeopardized.
When it comes to water pollution, the polluters – and not the general public – should be responsible for cleaning up their own waste. It¹s time for industrial animal agriculture to pay its fair share.
By Karen Steuer – 02/15/11
Karen Steuer is Director of Government Relations for the Pew Environment Group.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144261-budget-cuts-tap-out-safe-drinking-water
Emergency drought relief loans available for farmers
http://www.tnonline.com/node/135921
Reported on Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Emergency drought relief loans available for farmers
State Rep. Keith McCall said that farmers in Carbon County are eligible to apply for low-interest emergency disaster assistance loans from the federal Department of Agriculture to help recover crop losses associated with the summer’s dry weather.
“The extreme heat and lack of rainfall has had a negative impact on Carbon County’s farmers this year, and I’m glad the federal government is making these loans available to help our farm families stay afloat and keep their farms up and running,” McCall said. “I hope every farmer affected by the drought conditions will apply for this funding.”
Farmers can apply for the loans through the Carbon County Farm Service Agency in Lehighton at (610) 377-6300 or by visiting the department online at www.fsa.usda.gov.
Besides Carbon County, 15 other counties in the region were declared primary disaster areas: Bucks, Chester, Dauphin, Franklin, Fulton, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Snyder, Union and York.
In addition, 22 counties bordering the primary disaster area were named contiguous disaster areas: Adams, Bedford, Berks, Centre, Clinton, Columbia, Cumberland, Delaware, Huntingdon, Juniata, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lycoming, Mifflin, Montour, Perry, Philadelphia, Pike, Sullivan, Wayne and Wyoming.
Farmers in all affected counties have eight months from the Sept. 10 date of disaster declaration to apply for the loans, and each application will be considered based on losses, available resources and ability to repay.
Weed Killers and Your Garden
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?5244
EARTHTALK
Week of 07/11/10
Dear EarthTalk: Within my lawn I have over 100 citrus, mango and avocado trees. When I use Scott’s Bonus S Weed and Feed, am I feeding my new fruit any poison? Will the weed killer be taken up by the fruit?— Richard Weissman, Miami, FL
In short, yes and yes: You will jeopardize the health of your fruit trees and your yard in general if you use such products. Scott’s Bonus S Weed and Feed, as well as many other “weed-and-feed” fertilizers (Vigero, Sam’s, etc.), contain the harsh chemical herbicide atrazine, which excels at terminating fast-growing weeds like dandelions and crabgrass but can also kill other desirable plants and trees and damage your entire yard as toxin-carrying root systems stretch underground in every corner and beyond.
Howard Garrett, a landscape architect who founded the DirtDoctor.com website and is an evangelist for natural organic gardening and landscaping, points out that anyone who reads the label on such products will learn that even manufacturers don’t take their health and environmental effects lightly. Some of the warnings right there in black and white on the Scott’s Bonus S Weed and Feed packaging include precautions against using it “under trees, shrubs, bedding plants or garden plants” or in the general vicinity of any such plants’ branch spreads or root zones.
Scott’s also recommends not applying it by hand or with hand-held rotary devices or applying “in a way that will contact any person either directly or through drift.” And just in case you were thinking it was okay for the environment, Scott’s adds that “runoff and drift from treated areas may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas” and that the product is “toxic to aquatic invertebrates.”
Of course, homeowners aren’t the only ones who want lush plant or grass growth without weeds. Farmers have been using atrazine for decades all over the country, although not surprisingly concentrations are highest along the Midwest’s so-called Corn Belt. The herbicide consistently delivers slightly increased agricultural yields, but environmentalists wonder at what cost. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental research and advocacy non-profit, reports that atrazine exposure has been shown to impair the reproductive systems of amphibians and mammals, and has been linked to cancer in both laboratory animals and humans. Male frogs exposed to minute doses of the herbicide can develop female sex characteristics, including hermaphroditism and the presence of eggs in the testes. Researchers believe such effects are amplified when atrazine and other chemicals are used together.
As to safer alternatives, Garrett recommends organic fertilizers. “Synthetic fertilizers are unbalanced, often contain contaminants, have no carbon energy, contain far too much nitrogen and have few trace minerals,” he says. “Organic fertilizers, on the other hand, contain naturally buffered blends of major nutrients, trace minerals, organic matter and carbon. They have lots of beneficial life and, most important, they contain nothing that will damage the roots of your trees and other plants.” Some of Garret’s top choices include corn gluten meal (a natural way to prevent the growth of new weeds), THRIVE by AlphaBio, Garrett Juice, Ladybug, Medina, and Soil Mender. More and more choices are coming on the market all the time thanks to the growing popularity of organic gardening.
CONTACTS: Scotts; The Dirt Doctor; NRDC.