Month: September 2018

Via Neighbors for Crebilly:

BACKGROUND

Crebilly Farm in Westtown Township is one of the last large expanses of unspoiled, unprotected open space in eastern Chester County, Pennsylvania. It’s also land on which part of the Battle of the Brandywine was fought on September 11, 1777, with Hessian Jaegers – who were attempting a flanking maneuver of the American lines – taking artillery fire from the American position at Sandy Hollow near the Birmingham Friends Meetinghouse.

Yet despite this land’s historical importance, Toll Brothers has proposed a huge 317 unit housing development on these hallowed 325 acres where our forebears fought and died for our freedom.

UPDATE – Sept. 15, 2018

As you know, Neighbors for Crebilly has been permitted by Chester County Common Pleas Court to intervene in Toll Brothers’ appeal of Westtown’s denial of their conditional use application. Oral arguments in this appeal will made this Monday, September 17th at 1 pm in courtroom #1. Please join us if you can.

A quick word about Toll’s legal arguments which, as you can imagine, mock reality. Their lawyer, Greg Adelman, actually argued in a recent brief to the court that the Environmental Rights Amendment should not be applied to the “conditional use process,” a bizarre line of argument to say the least, and that our legal brief should be quashed. What Toll would have the court believe is that laws passed by the PA state legislature – including the PA municipal planning code of which the “conditional use” process is a part – must not be examined or questioned in terms of their impact on the environment.

In other words, the legislature, according to Toll’s lawyer’s flawed reasoning, can pass any law it chooses regardless of the harm it causes the environment, and the courts must not weigh in on those laws.

But outside Toll’s time-space distortion bubble, Courts strike down unconstitutional legislation all the time. As this conditional use application from Toll Brothers would permanently impair environmental and historic resources at Crebilly Farm, the Environmental Rights Amendment must take precedence over the conditional use process since the state Constitution supersedes all laws passed by the legislature.

That’s why the process of amending the constitution is so onerous: the amendment must pass the two legislative houses in two consecutive terms and then be approved by voters. Therefore, the unanimously-passed Environment al Rights Amendment (Article 1, Section 27) of our state constitution, outweighs  laws passed by the legislature. This amendment guarantees environmental protection for allpeople in the Commonwealth, including generations yet to come. So it is plainly ludicrous for Adelman to argue that the E.R.A. must not be considered in the conditional use process.

It was also curious that Adelman would cite as support for his argument any case from Commonwealth Court regarding the Environmental Rights Amendment since, in 2017, the PA Supreme Court threw out the Commonwealth Court’s three part “Payne Test” which had been that Court’s method of ignoring environmental protections afforded state citizens under the Constitution. Writing last year for the majority in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “Justice Christine Donohue said the prior interpretation of the amendment, which included a 3-part legal test and [which] was in place for four decades, ‘strips the constitution of its meaning.’ The opinion clearly defines the role of the state as trustee, which the court said is associated with fiduciary responsibilities.”  (Quoted from PA State Impact)

Unfortunately for Adelman’s argument, the Pennsylvania Environmental Rights Amendment occupies higher ground than the conditional use process which is merely part of a set of laws which are informed and governed by our state constitution.

NVEC Member Terry Melton attended the SCWAP Water Quality Technical Working Group Meeting on  September 6, 2018, at 7 p.m. at the Ferguson Township Municipal Building.

Spring Creek Watershed Commission Project Page

Terry filed the following report. Acronym key below.

Attendees:

• Janie French, Headwaters Charitable Trust
• Dennis Hameister, Chair, Spring Creek Watershed Commission
• Betsie Blumburg, Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps
• Caitlin Teti, SCWC
• Cory Miller, University Area Joint (Sewer) Authority
• Jim Gazza, Coca-Cola
• Deb Nardone, ClearWater Conservancy
• Dave Christine, Biologist, PA Fish and Boat Commission
• Ford Stryker, Spring Creek Chapter – Trout Unlimited
• Brian Walker, Bellefonte Water Authority
• Dave Swisher, PSU Office of Physical Plant
• Jessica Sprajcar, River Keepers
• Terry Melton, Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition

Janie began by explaining that the current “Centre Region Pollution Reduction Plan” (CRPRP) meets current MS4 requirements.

From the point of discharge, a 5-mile circumference is included in regulations. This plan was approved in 2017, therefore the data is quite current. The nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), total suspended solids (TSS) permitted under this plan meet the requirements of Chesapeake Bay EPA regulators. The EPA convened an expert panel to determine a global Best Management Practices (BMP) scheme that would work for any region, not just the Centre Region. Individual municipalities may have their own requirements that exceed these, but she feels the CRPRP is a well-done plan overall.

Two documents are part of the plan for this region. The plan was designed by an outside contractor. In particular, Table 1 (excerpted from the Chesapeake Bay report) lists impaired waters in the Spring Creek Watershed and the issues observed in each municipality.

• 9.6.18 SCWAP Maps w T. Melton Notes

In this CRPRP plan, various sites are expected to incorporate Best Management Practices (Map 2). Proposed BMPs are being imposed in designated regions of the highest priority (on the map, these are A#s); there are secondary sites with proposed BMPs (B#s), and other sites are having BMPs investigated at this time (C#s).

There is a 3-year time frame for these BMPs to be imposed.

Map 1 includes areas that are already regulated with BMPs and that are in the system, and have earned credits. There are currently areas that are not covered at all, and examination of these areas may be needed. These Maps are useful to suggest frameworks and strategies for Phase 2 of the SCWC update.

The primary question for the Sept. 6 technical group session was: Which source of data will work best for SCWC’s SCWAP update Phase 2?

For example, should we be using Water Resource Monitoring Program (WRMP) data, Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps data, water quality data from water providers, or wastewater quality reports?

Whereas “baseflow” is a good metric for quantity overall, what are the best metrics for quality measurement?

Some areas are already prioritized as high risk. Longitudinal data are the most useful, but is quality assurance and quality control of data a high priority?

What are the data metrics that are most important to the biology of the watershed? Consensus was that measurement of temperature, chlorides and chlorine might be top parameters. Nutrient levels are highly relevant, such as N, P, and TSS (levels of which are already being measured and must meet MS4 requirements). Cory Miller of UAJA wanted to measure the biology directly, such as numbers of fish/macroinvertebrates; Fish and Boat Commission measures primarily trout yearly.

The question was raised as to whether we are using data to make a plan or to decide how to make better data collection.

Cory Miller (UAJA) stated that we should be setting goals, such as “increase the number of trout” or “get stream off the impaired list;” start this by measuring the biology directly.

Dave Swisher (PSU Office of Physical Plant) pointed out that DEP won’t do a reassessment of the stream health parameters without a reason but the current need to update the SCWAP might be a sufficient reason. The assessment is formal, with many sites and abundant data collection and relies on their own scientists (will not accept data of other groups and collectors). They won’t take Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps data, for example.

Janie stated that the first combined group two weeks ago asked for a full DEP reassessment; she sent DEP the meeting minutes. Her take was that DEP is being standoffish at the moment. She is working with Tim Schaeffer (DEP Deputy Secretary for Water Programs) to try to get them more involved. Senior Corps data will still be useful to us.

Brian Walker (Bellefonte Water Authority) pointed out that the old DEP data is very outdated and that many improvements have been made since the previous report. Cory Miller (UAJA) noted that we have the option to use DEP monitoring locations to collect our own data. PA Fish and Boat Commission and others could cooperate to collect data and do studies and could use their protocols and perhaps student interns.

Ford Stryker (Trout Unlimited) asked if there are Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) imposed by DEP. If, for example, DEP did a reassessment and imposed new TMDLs this could negatively impact development potential.

Janie asked if wastewater treatment facilities are being challenged to decrease nitrogen output.

Cory Miller replied that nitrogen is a big focus now and that wastewater is much better than agricultural runoff in terms of nitrogen.

A bigger problem is on-lot septic systems (currently 3,100 in the Centre Region) and although Sewer Enforcement has been greatly stepped up in the last few years, the new plan should have something in it to address on-lot septic malfunction and monitoring. Cory noted that the calculation is that 25 lb per year of nitrogen is generated per system, and can be greater depending on the number of people in a household. He also noted that the amount of chlorine going into the watershed can be roughly calculated by measuring how many tons of salt are purchased for home softener systems.

In conclusion, the top metrics agreed upon for measuring water quality were: macroinvertebrates, temperature, chlorine, chloride, nutrients, sediment, dissolved oxygen (DO), and flow. There was agreement that quantity and quality are intertwined and that Senior Environmental Corps and WRMP data sets should be used.

The meeting concluded with a plan for both water quality and water quantity groups to meet again on September 20, 7 pm, Ferguson Township building.

Terry’s takeaway:

I felt this was overall a productive meeting but data needs to be collated from a number of sources (agencies) and put into a meaningful format to guide the group in designing a plan. At this time there is no plan to actually gather longitudinal and current data and assemble it into a central spreadsheet. I have a concern that nothing concrete is happening yet; though it is good to hear that a consensus on what metrics are most desirable, I wonder if it might benefit SCWC to retain a contractor to assemble and collate data from different locations to maintain a uniform data set that will provide a baseline for future decision-making.

Acronyms:

• BMP = Best Management Practices
• CCPaSEC = Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps
• CRPRP = Centre Region Pollution Reduction Plan/ MS4 Plan
• DEP = Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
• EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency
• N = Nitrogen
• NVEC = Nittany Valley Environmental Coalition
• P = Phosphorus
• PaFBC = Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
• SCTU – Spring Creek Chapter Trout Unlimited
• SCWAP = Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan
• SCWC = Spring Creek Watershed Commission
• TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load
• TSS = Total Suspended Solids
• UAJA = University Area Joint (Sewer) Authority

For prior coverage, see NVEC posts

• June 25 – NVEC Position Statement Re Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan
• July 24 – Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan Update;
• Aug. 28 – Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan (SCWAP) Update from David Roberts

SCWAP Water Quantity Technical Group Meeting August 30

By David Roberts

A meeting was held on August 30, 2018 by the Spring Creek Watershed Commission’s, Spring Creek Watershed Action Plan Phase 2 Water Quantity Workgroup to discuss the current state of the health of the watershed, to review current data, and to set parameters for analysis.

Janie French of Headwaters Charitable Trust facilitated the meeting by sharing data from the “Hydrological Setting of Spring Creek” and Centre Region Planning Agency estimates of impervious surfaces, and by guiding the discussion.

Participants from US Geological Survey, Susquehanna River Basin Commission and PA Department of Environmental Protection have relevant but somewhat inaccessible data and will be working to provide some collation of data on Spring Creek from their massive data banks.

The two work groups, water quantity and water quality, may try meeting as a single group following the Water Quality Workgroup meeting on September 6.

There were participants in the Water Quality group that probably had information on water quantity, and vice versa, so I think that is a good idea.

The water quantity group felt that biological indicators are a very important measure of water quality, so discussion of macro-invertebrate surveys should be one of the main topics of discussion for the Water Quality Workgroup.

Water quantity is also a very important factor for water quality.

There was some discussion that Spring Creek may be compared to the Valley Creek watershed at Valley Forge PA. The Valley Creek is sort of Spring Creek in miniature and has been critically degraded due to overdevelopment.

Spring Creek watershed may be approaching a tipping point with no return due to development. Control of development and direction of development into areas that have minimized impact to the watershed are essential to protect the health of the watershed.

There is a big question as to the actual area of impervious surfaces in our watershed.

One estimate places impervious surfaces at 15% of the total watershed area and another places it at about 8%. This is quite a discrepancy that must be resolved.

Impervious cover of 20% presents an unacceptable threat to the health of the surface water quality and is adverse to the survival of trout.

A DEP representative indicated that Spring Creek is approaching a critical point for water capacity during a 10-year drought condition given the size of the watershed and the growing population. A policy/risk assessment is needed to address the impact of severe drought. Drought is determined by the reduction of stream base flow below a certain level and by fluctuation of monitoring wells, all driven by the amount of precipitation within the watershed.

SRBC has some withdrawal limitations during drought conditions. Local use restrictions may also be needed during drought.

The SRBC has some data on surface and ground water withdrawal from the watershed, however the data is limited to large volume withdraw.

SRBC and DEP share data about water withdrawals, but again, some water usage is not measured such as from private wells.

Overall the withdrawal from private wells was not considered to be significant by most of the group, however hard data is not readily available. Private water usage may be estimated by determining population and applying an 80 gallon per day per capita usage figure for those not on a public water system.

Concern was raised that the location of water withdrawal must be considered along with the volume of withdrawal when evaluating impact of withdrawal on the surface waters of the watershed.

Beneficial reuse of water was discussed. PSU uses spray application of treated wastewater to return the water used by the University to the watershed. However evaporation and evapotranspiration release a portion of that water into the atmosphere.

It was estimated that PSU uses about 3 million gallons of water per day during the main school semesters. PSU is also moving toward beneficial reuse of wastewater for toilets and similar uses, however they apparently do not have approvals necessary to proceed at this time.

The USGS will be posting two reports on our watershed, a 2005 report and a 2015 report, to the Spring Creek Watershed Commission website.

The USGS reports are quite extensive and contain a large amount of data.

The Water Resources Monitoring Project will be posting their 2015 report which emphasizes thermal data and the role of geology in the watershed. Annual reports by the Water Resources Monitoring Project are available online.

There is still some question if there is adequate data and metrics to determine the available water quantity in the watershed. The actual amount of water stored and available in the groundwater basin will be especially important if extreme drought conditions are experienced due to climate change.

Concerning springs, although there is plenty of water quality data available there is not much flow data available. The flow data from the watershed is mainly from stream gauges and not spring gauges. The springs are linked inseparably to the health of Spring Creek and its tributaries.

The water quality of Spring Creek is very much impacted by stormwater which is tied closely to impervious surface problems. A confirmed figure on how much impervious surface is in the watershed is needed since there are estimates of from approximately 8% to 15+%.
The impact to water quality from both channeled runoff flow and thermal degradation is significant.

The temperature of Spring Creek runs about 60 to 65 degrees F and stormwater runoff can elevate the stream temperatures to over 70 F.

The second big problem from runoff is sedimentation which degrades the stream bottom’s habitats.
Also stream bank scouring is a big problem. The last big rain that flooded Spring Creek caused excessive bank erosion along Rock Road above the Spring Creek Canyon. There has been large deposits of rock placed along the banks since that storm to help stabilize the banks and more remediation is needed.

There was some discussion of Act 220, Water Resources Planning Act, and the lack of activation of some of the Act’s requirements.