Designation of Certain Species

[melody]

Marcellus Shale Industry Lobbies For New Endangered Species Laws

stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/09/10/marcellus-shale-industry-lobbies-for-new-endangered-species-laws/

September 10, 2013 | 5:36 PM
By Katie Colaneri

Pennsylvania’s shale gas industry is throwing its support behind new proposed legislation that would change the way creatures are added to the state’s endangered species list.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Jeff Pyle (R-Armstrong) and backed by Republican leaders, could knock down regulatory hurdles for drillers, while throwing up new ones for the two state agencies that oversee designations to the list.

Pyle, whose district includes the mining and hydraulic fracturing industries, argues the current system is slowing down economic development – especially in the growing oil and gas industry.

“I can tell you we’ve had Marcellus developments which are bringing great wealth to our area,” Pyle told StateImpact in a phone interview. “It’s letting people keep their farms and those, you don’t know until you walk face first into it that you’re in a bat habitat or a protected area for spadefoot toads, rattlesnakes.”



In an Aug. 26 letter of support for the bill, heads of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association wrote that the bill would “introduce consistency, transparency, and accountability to threatened and endangered species conservation while also allowing sustainable economic development across the Commonwealth.” (Read the full letter below.)

Right now, if a gas company wants to build a new drilling rig or construct a pipeline, the company has to go through a lengthy habitat review process to check for threats to rare or endangered wildlife in the area.

One part of Pyle’s bill would force the two state commissions that oversee the list – the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission – to prove the presence of endangered species, rather than requiring gas companies to conduct their own field studies first. It will also create a “centralized database” for industry to access information about these habitats. That information is currently blocked by the state’s Right to Know law to prevent poachers from hunting threatened animals.

As natural gas drilling expands in northeast Pennsylvania, well sites and pipeline routes are disturbing more and more timber rattlesnake habitats.
Scott Detrow / StateImpact Pennsylvania

As natural gas drilling expands in northeast Pennsylvania, well sites and pipeline routes are disturbing more and more timber rattlesnake habitats.

John Arway is head of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Arway said his agency has been criticized for how long the review process can take. “But the reality is, in the case of my commission, the anglers and boaters are paying for this service. The industry doesn’t pay for this service,” he said.

Kathryn Klaber, CEO of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, downplayed the industry’s role in pushing for the bill in an e-mailed statement, saying it would benefit “every industry that moves dirt – agriculture, home builders, municipal water authorities and utilities, manufacturing, road construction and energy development.”

Klaber praised the legislation for its transparency. But critics argue the bill will undermine the authority of the commissions by also giving the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the state legislature more control over endangered species designations. The Pittsburgh-Post Gazette reported it could also force the commissions to lose $27 million in federal grants.

“When you say another independent board, it’s really putting it more into another bureaucratic structure than it would be into a little more scientific structure,” said Rep. Steve McCarter (D-Montgomery).

Arway said the two commissions have been working on a new review system for the last five years, but they’ve run out of money to finish the project.

“Really, if industry wants an expedited process, they need to begin investing in this review tool that’ll help all of us.”

Read More: stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/09/10/marcellus-shale-industry-lobbies-for-new-endangered-species-laws/

[melody]

State ESA endangered
Editorial

thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/state-esa-endangered-1.1550034

Published: September 11, 2013

Some state lawmakers dutifully have introduced a bill to gut the state's Endangered Species Act to better suit the natural gas industry and other narrow interests.

The state law is distinct from the more widely known federal Endangered Species Act. It protects wildlife that is endangered regionally rather than nationally, such as the black-crowned heron, and provides for state management of some endangered species covered by the federal law. There are 88 species on the current state list.

Two state agencies, the Fish & Boat Commission and Game Commission, administer the state law based on science. They are the only state agencies that employ wildlife biologists.

Development interests have lobbied lawmakers for a way around the state law, which industry-friendly lawmakers plan to provide by submitting ESA findings to the Regulatory Review Commission. Rather than scientists and wildlife experts, political appointees would make the call.

The initiative has been couched in terms of simply creating more transparency, but the law includes a back-handed measure to gut the list. It requires a complete review of every listed species within two years. John Arway, executive director of the Fish and Boat Commission, told lawmakers last month that the time frame would be impossible to meet and would guarantee that at least some species would go unprotected.

The law works in the public interest. Lawmakers should abandon the effort to tailor it to narrow interests.

[melody]

Bills fail to protect endangered species

www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/574549.html

September 6, 2013

The Altoona Mirror


Anti-conservation lawmakers are taking aim at Pennsylvania's endangered and threatened species.

Pennsylvania HB 1576 and SB 1047 would diminish the Pennsylvania Game Commission's and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission's ability to protect endangered and threatened species in our state.

The commonwealth has a long and proud tradition of independent fish and game agencies. Politicians shouldn't mess with it.

These bills would send the Commission's endangered and threatened species lists to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC), an agency dominated by the legislature, for additional scrutiny.

The IRRC does not have scientific expertise or standards to evaluate species listing proposals. Proponents of the bill claim that this is just like asking for a second opinion on a medical diagnosis. That claim is absurd. Second opinions on a diagnosis are rendered by another physician, not by political appointees with no science background.

These agencies' biologists are better judges of the threats to wildlife than political appointees would be. The agencies make decisions regarding proposals for protecting rare, threatened, or endangered species in an open, transparent manner.

As if we needed more reasons to oppose these bills, their passage would likely mean the loss in up to $27 million in federal wildlife restoration funds, representing up to a third of the budgets of the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission.

These federal funds would be lost because managing threatened and endangered species in the fashion proposed by this bill would demonstrate our state's incompetence in wildlife management.

In addition, these bills could encourage more federal involvement in species protection. One of the criteria utilized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in determining whether to pursue listing of a species is the sufficiency of state resource protection laws. By curtailing the authority of the Commissions, this proposed legislation could prompt a more active federal role in species protection.

Juniata Valley Audubon asks that conservationists oppose Pennsylvania HB 1576 and SB 1047.

Stan Kotala, Juniata Valley Audubon, Tyrone

[melody]

An Editorial in a West Chester Paper:

Proposed endangered species change another example of foolish lawmaking

Posted: 09/12/13, 3:48 PM EDT

The propensity for foolishness among elected officials is never so on display as it is in Harrisburg, the home of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, whose members are incredibly efficient at passing pay raises for themselves but utterly deficient when it comes to bettering the lives of state residents.

Witness the latest example of perfidy to come out of the halls of the state House of Representatives. It has raised the hackles of reasonable state officials and environmentalists, and strikes us as just plain silly. But it is what passes for action in the state capital these days.

The proposed legislation by Republican state Rep. Jeff Pyle could significantly change the laws that protect threatened and endangered species in the state by giving something called the state Independent Regulatory Review Commission a role in the process of listing or de-listing threatened or endangered species. The Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission currently have exclusive authority for birds, animals, fish and other species.

Pyle said he’s concerned that the public has “no possible way to contest” decisions by the state commissions.

“A second set of eyes never hurts,” he said. Pyle said he was motivated to file the legislation when a local school district had to spend $61,000 to compensate for building in an area where a species of endangered bats live.

But Game Commission spokesman Travis Lau told the Associated Press that the state agency had “no involvement whatsoever” in that case and the $61,000 was for a federal endangered species program.

One environmental expert noted that the Independent Regulatory Review Commission “has no particular scientific background” to make decisions about threatened species, while the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission “have spent decades protecting fish and animals.” The legislation, he said, is “plainly an attempt to undercut the authority” of the two commissions to list species, and the very independence of those commissions may be what bothers politicians the most.

The state programs are separate from federal endangered species listings and are often used to manage species that are threatened in a particular region but perhaps not nationally. Pennsylvania lists 21 birds and animals as endangered and seven as threatened, along with about 60 fish, amphibians and invertebrates.

Carl Roe, the executive director of the Game Commission, told legislators last month that the new system could take longer, use up more staff time and jeopardize federal grants. He also said the legislation wasn’t addressing an existing problem since the Game Commission had only added only three species to the lists over the last 10 years.
Three in 10 years. That is the biggest flaw we see here. A legislator has decided, for minor reasons, to take up the time of the General Assembly advocating for a cure to a disease that no one ever gets.

[melody]

COMMENTARY: MARTIN T. CAUSER Changing endangered species system

www.timesleader.com/news/othercommentary/830519/COMMENTARY:-MARTIN-T.-CAUSER-Changing-endangered-species-system

September 14. 2013 12:43AM

I am writing to clarify information presented in a recent column (“House bill could be a fatal blow to endangered species,” Sept. 8) by Tom Venesky about the proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act.


The bill would require the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the state Fish and Boat Commission to go through the Independent Regulatory Review Commissionprocess to designate threatened or endangered species, or designate waters as wild trout streams.


While Venesky claims this could deal a “fatal blow” to endangered species, the reality is that two other state agencies that deal with endangered species and waterway designations — the departments of Environmental Protection and Conservation and Natural Resources — already are required go through IRRC to make those designations. In fact, every other state agency goes through IRRC to implement any and all regulations.


The IRRC process allows for review and acceptance of public comment before regulations are enacted, and that is the way it should work in a democracy. Decisions cannot be made in a vacuum; rather, state government must operate in an open forum in which Pennsylvania residents can participate and a system of checks and balances ensures both accuracy and accountability.


Venesky is concerned about providing proof that the designations are warranted. The Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission have been adamant in telling us that, through their staffs of scientists and biologists, they’re well equipped to make these decisions. So I don’t see why they would have difficulty providing evidence to support them.


The proposed legislation also calls for a review of species currently listed as threatened or endangered within a two-year period. This requirement would apply only to species identified on the state level. Species listed as endangered under federal law, including the Indiana bat cited in the article, would not be subject to such a review.


Venesky rightly states that endangered species designations can “help businesses and industries locate their projects in a responsible manner.” The problem is the Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission do not release information until well into the permitting process. That costs industry – which, by the way, employs our citizens and produces the various forms of energy upon which we so heavily rely – valuable time and money. House Bill 1576 would require the creation and maintenance of a database and offer limited access to information about habitats of threatened or endangered species for industries that might be looking to expand operations into an area.


Finally, the author takes issue with my statement that the process creates a hardship for business. I take issue with the author reprinting an inaccurate statement he lifted from my local newspaper. Had he contacted me directly, I would have explained that the hardship is caused more by the process than the regulation itself. I would have explained that we cannot afford to run jobs and business out of our state and instead must work toward a solution that allows for both a healthy environment and a healthy economy.


As so often happens, this bill is being portrayed as pitting our environment against our economy. But that is truly not the case. We don’t have to sacrifice jobs to save the environment, and we don’t have to sacrifice the environment to save jobs. Balance can be achieved when information is shared and all stakeholders have the opportunity to discuss the implications and potential solutions. That is the goal of House Bill 1576.


Martin T. Causer is Republican state representative in Bradford Co., and Chair of the House Game & Fish Committee.

[galthatfishes]

In simpler terms- "F" what the citizens and hunters and anglers want. "Industry" needs this, and hunters, wildlife and the environment don't make large campaign contributions.

Two sentences that sums up 9 paragraphs.

[melody]

The coming fight between gas drillers and environmentalists over PA’s endangered species


paindependent.com/2013/09/the-coming-fight-between-gas-drillers-and-environmentalists-over-pas-endangered-species/


By Eric Boehm | PA Independent

HARRISBURG – Most Pennsylvanians have probably never heard of the rabbitsfoot mussel.

Even fewer are likely to have encountered one of the small freshwater mollusks in the wild.


NOT A ROCK: It might not look like much, but the Rabbitsfoot Mussel is a protected species in Pennsylvania. Developers and gas drillers want to change that.

The rabbitsfoot is one of dozens of species on Pennsylvania’s state-level endangered species list, which figures to be the next front in the ongoing political battle between the state’s burgeoning natural gas industry and the environmental movement, which sees the gas drillers as a threat to the state’s natural beauty.

But for the drillers extracting gas from Pennsylvania’s rich Marcellus shale deposits, protected snakes, mussels, frogs and salamanders can stop even the most powerful of their machines.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and other industry groups are calling for the passage of House Bill 1576, which would remove all species now on the list — though they could be re-added later.

“This legislation aims to bring consistency and transparency to the review process to ensure that habitat and species are protected while not unnecessarily halting projects, economic development and job creation,” said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition.

In a letter to state lawmakers, the collection of gas-drilling lobbyists say the changes would ensure accountability — as well as that consistency and transparency — regarding how the state administers the lists by changing the regulatory process and requiring “empirical data and science” when deciding which species should be included.

That’s not sitting well with John Arway, executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.


MARCELLUS SHALE: Rich in natural gas, the Marcellus shale extends beneath a wide swath of northern and western Pennsylvania.

“We don’t advise them on how to drill gas wells, so we don’t expect them to advise us on how to protect the Massasauga rattlesnake,” he said, referring to one of the endangered species on a list maintained by the commission.

Two House committees will examine the proposal Tuesday during a joint hearing in Indiana County. The bill could get some attention during the upcoming legislative session that begins Sept. 23.

Sixty-two fish, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates are protected by the state’s Fish and Boat Commission as endangered species. A similar list maintained by the Pennsylvania Game Commission includes endangered mammals and birds.

These lists are distinct from the federal endangered species list maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency. While the EPA considers the population of certain species across the entire nation, the Pennsylvania lists take into account species’ populations within the state.

So an animal that might be common in the rest of the country, but rare in Pennsylvania, could qualify for the state list without having federal protection. And that’s how the bog turtle or the banded sunfish can shut down a proposed gas well.

Or a new development of homes or the construction of a new highway.

“Every industry that moves dirt — agriculture, home builders, municipal water authorities and utilities, manufacturing, road construction and energy development — is required to go through a comprehensive habitat review process prior to development activities,” Klaber said.

It’s not only the gas drillers pushing for the changes. The Pennsylvania Home Builders Association is also in support. State Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Indiana, the sponsor of the bill, said he wanted to introduce it after protected bats shut down a school construction project in his district.

But the state’s growing gas industry is the major reason frogs, turtles and mussels on the state endangered species list could soon get the boot.

They could be re-added to the list, but doing so would require a different procedure than the one used now. The Fish and Boat Commission would have to get approval from the state Independent Regulatory Review Commission — a sort of regulator for the regulators — before doing so.

The IRRC listens to concerns of people and businesses objecting to regulations passed by other state agencies. But for now, there is no appeals process for decisions about which animals end up on the endangered species list, leaving the home builders and gas drillers with little recourse if they are told a project cannot continue because of the blue spotted salamander or the Southern leopard frog.

But Arway said the proposed changes would make the process more political and give drillers greater access to the areas where protected species live.

He also worries about a provision that would require the commission to share the list with potential developers and other industries affected by it. Now, the list is kept secret for fear that poachers would target certain areas of the state if they knew commercially valuable species — like the bog turtle — were available there.

Boehm is a reporter for PA Independent and can be reached at [e-mail]. Follow @paindependent on Twitter for more.

[melody]

Pyle's endangered species bill spurs South Buffalo debate

Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, 12:06 a.m.
Updated 1 hour ago

triblive.com/news/armstrong/4721969-74/species-commission-bill#axzz2ex1RnQLZ


SOUTH BUFFALO — Testimony about a state House bill that could affect laws protecting endangered species across the state was considered during a joint hearing of the House Game and Fisheries Committee and House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee at Indiana University of Pennsylvania's Northpointe campus Tuesday.

The proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act, House Bill 1576, seeks to subject the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission to oversight by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission.

It would allow IRRC to add or remove species from a list of threatened or endangered species.

Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Ford City, is a sponsor of the bill, which has received support from interests including the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the coal industry and the Pennsylvania Builders Association.

Kittanning-based businessman Darrel Lewis of the Allegheny Mineral Corp. and Pennsylvania Aggregates and Concrete Association said he supports the bill, which “sets out a consistent framework for regulators and those who are regulated.”

He said time frames for studies of endangered or threatened species can cause major delays in development plans. With the delisting procedure, Lewis said, “this bill would eliminate those as an item to be considered in the process.”

Those opposing the bill argue it would shift the burden of proof to the Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission and tip the scale in favor of economic development at the risk of undermining efforts to protect endangered species and their habitats.

“It would reverse 40 years of conservation efforts,” said John Arway, executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

“Economics and politics shouldn't factor into whether a species is endangered,” Arway said.

George Jugovic Jr., general counsel of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), said his organization has the support of sportsmen and sportswomen in protecting native plants and wildlife in the state.

“We understand these are difficult decisions, and it's tempting to interject politics into the issue,” he said, but “streams, plants and animals do not vote.”

He urged state representatives to consider that the issue is not about protecting the last bat or the last salamander but that it's about the interdependence of all species and protecting habitat.

“Habitat destruction is the single biggest reason for species loss or extinction,” Jugovic said.

Arway argued that the effects of the act would be uncertain and that the language contained in it could be read from a variety of perspectives.

Pyle questioned Arway about how the habitat buffer range of an endangered species is determined.

It's not a cookie-cutter approach, Arway said.

“Some circles vary depending on the species,” he said. “A plant can't move, and a fish can swim farther than a turtle can roam.”

Pyle has taken issue in the past with the $61,000 bill Armstrong School District had to pay for a study to determine whether endangered bats lived on the site of a high school being built in Manor Township.

However, it was clarified during Tuesday's discussion that that was a federal requirement and would not have been affected by his legislation.

Pyle noted that he lives near Lock and Dam 6 pool on the Allegheny River, where dredging has ceased because a variety of rare mussels live there.

He pointed out that since big manufacturing industries like Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. have left, the area is economically depressed, and the old PPG site could benefit from Marcellus shale drilling, but that “a bazillion bats” can be seen coming out of the building to feed at dusk.

He asked how big the buffer zone circle would be to protect those bats.

“The circle hasn't been established,” said Carl Roe, executive director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

“You're proposing theoretical scenarios,” he said.

Pyle told the members of the Game Commission and Fish and Boat Commission and those opposing the legislation: “If you remove our ability to log, mine and drill, you're kicking us in the teeth.”

“What you call politicizing, I call protecting another species: homo sapiens,” said Pyle.

Chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee, Rep. Martin Causer, R-Bradford, said IRRC oversight would add “another set of eyes” to the review process.

Roe said the Game Commission has an oversight board that is a separate entity and provides independent reviews.

Imposing IRRC oversight would be redundant, Roe said.

“It would essentially mean a regulatory review commission would oversee the actions of another regulatory review commission,” he said.

Causer said there is nothing to support claims from the bill's opposition that federal funding would become unavailable if the legislation passed.

Brigid Beatty is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-543-1303 or [e-mail].


Read more: triblive.com/news/armstrong/4721969-74/species-commission-bill#ixzz2fGtZJHvN
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

[melody]

Pyle's endangered species bill debated at South Buffalo hearing

Mary Ann Thomas 724-226-4691
Staff Reporter
Valley News Dispatch
Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, 1:46 a.m.
Updated 2 hours ago

triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourallekiskivalley/yourallekiskivalleymore/4721993-74/state-endangered-species#axzz2ex1RnQLZ

The state's top environmental officials urged state representatives to not gut the state's endangered species law during a rare joint House committee hearing.

The proposed legislation could come up for vote in the next several months, according to the bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Ford City.

The hearing took place on Tuesday at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania campus in the Northpointe at Slate Lick business park in South Buffalo.

The proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act would remove the authority of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and the state Game Commission to exclusively designate endangered species in the state.

The act would add another layer of government, the state Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC), to help decide whether a bird, fish, reptile or other wildlife should be listed as threatened or endangered specifically in Pennsylvania.

Pyle said this was the second and likely the last hearing for the bill before the state's House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee and the House Game and Fisheries Committee.

Smarting from losing the dredging industry to the presence of endangered mussels in the Allegheny River, among other causes, Pyle said he is fighting for the economic interests of his economically beleaguered Armstrong County and other parts of the state.

He's been concerned about the state potentially listing the little brown bat as endangered and causing limitations to development and jobs.

Supporters of the legislation who submitted testimony included the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, the Marcellus Shale Coalition and the Pennsylvania Builders Association.

Issues debated during Tuesday's hearing included:

• Whether the proposed legislation could cause the state's Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission to lose a significant amount of federal funding.

• Whether the loss of a state endangered species status could potentially cause more federal control of what is protected in the state.

• How available should information be as to where endangered species are located. Businesses would save time and money if they knew more about endangered species presence in a given area. But if some of the more detailed information was made public, poachers could start killing endangered animals.

• Whether revoking the state's role in declaring and protecting endangered species could violate the state constitution.

• Verification of expertise for studies and surveys leading up to listing of endangered species.

However, what is not debatable is that no matter what the state decides, it won't change the protections for federal endangered and threatened species in the state.

Support and opposition of the bill included testimonies from industry and environmental groups.

Darrel Lewis, of the Allegheny Mineral Corp. in Kittanning, who took issue with the required wildlife surveys for endangered and threatened species: “The financial investment for those surveys is considerable, and it appears that serves no other purpose than to test the resolve of the company to bring good-paying jobs and benefits to communities seeking a steady employer.”

George Jugovic, Jr., chief counsel for the Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future or PennFuture, pointed out that the issue is not about saving a “pretty plant or a fuzzy critter.”

Jugovic brought his group's message home by referring to a recent case of a Pennsylvania woman dying of West Nile virus, which is carried by mosquitoes.

“A brown bat will eat a thousand mosquitoes a night,” he said.

“This is not about preserving the brown bat,” Jugovic said, “but preserving its relations to other animals.”

Jugovic and other environmentalists have stressed that the new bill would inappropriately bring politics and economics into deciding whether an animal should be listed as endangered.

Both executive directors of the Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission countered that it is the state Department of Environmental Protection that issues permits. And that's where economic and other considerations can be made.

But others took issue with some of the ambiguities of the current state law and what geographic areas are protected if state-listed endangered species are present.

“How do we decide how much habitat is enough?” asked Rep. Bryan Barbin, D-Cambria.

Mary Ann Thomas is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-226-4691 or [e-mail].


Read more: triblive.com/neighborhoods/yourallekiskivalley/yourallekiskivalleymore/4721993-74/state-endangered-species#ixzz2fGyhtxx8

[melody]

Phony protection: Pa. politicians seek power on endangered species

www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/phony-protection-pa-politicians-seek-power-on-endangered-species-703643/

September 17, 2013 12:07 am

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


When it comes to protecting endangered species, whom would you trust? Members of the Legislature, who know squat about conservation but a lot about campaign contributions from special interests, or the wildlife experts employed by state agencies that manage threatened and endangered plants and animals?

If you trust ideologically driven politicians more than the professionals, then House Bill 1576 is for you. The measure, which has 67 cosponsors, treats current regulations and the species they protect as a nuisance to economic progress.

The prime sponsor, Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-Armstrong, acknowledges that Marcellus Shale gas drillers would benefit from the bill. In a telling quote to the Post-Gazette, he said, "We're not trying to be mean to the animals. But what happens when protecting animals screws up our lives as humans?"

If enacted, this bill would do mischief to all concerned. It would require that only animals or plants considered endangered or threatened by the federal government be listed by the state, leaving no room for Pennsylvania to set its own standards.

It would limit the missions of Pennsylvania's Game Commission, Fish and Boat Commission and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, making their recommendations subject to review by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the political attentions of Senate and House committees. And it would require a central data base that would enable developers and, unwittingly, poachers and other trespassers to identify the locations of listed species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has already warned that the fish and game commissions may lose a combined $27.5 million in federal funding if the bill becomes law. Rep. Pyle was inspired to offer the measure when he was disturbed that a local school district had to pay thousands of dollars to reduce the impact of a building project on the habitat of an endangered bat. That's just perfect -- one of his school districts pays thousands of dollars more, but now his bill will cost the state millions.

Besides, Rep. Pyle's reaction was based on a misunderstanding. The school district mitigation was required by a federal decision; a state law, even the one he is proposing, would have had no effect on the case.

Which only adds to the folly of this proposal. Yet the threat from this bill to Pennsylvania wildlife is real. Leave the management of endangered species to the professionals. Politicians should keep their distance.


Read more: www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/editorials/phony-protection-pa-politicians-seek-power-on-endangered-species-703643/#ixzz2fHEIgJAq

[melody]

PFSC's Testimony at yesterday's hearing:


HOUSE GAME & FISHERIES and ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES COMMITTEES
Hearing on HB 1576 – Endangered Species Designation
September 17, 2013


Good morning Chairman Causer, Chairman Miller, and Members of the Committees. My name is Melody Schell. I’m here today on behalf of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding HB 1576, relative to Endangered Species designation, IRRC and regulatory oversight.

The Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs (PFSC) has a strong and proud history representing the best interests of our grass-roots members on conservation, hunting, fishing, 2nd Amendment and environmental issues since 1932. Our mission has always been to provide a statewide, united voice for the concerns of all sportsmen and conservationists; to insure their rights and interests are protected, and to protect and enhance the environment and our natural resources. PFSC’s membership is comprised of individuals, clubs (221), and statewide organizations (5), representing more than 70,000 sportsmen and sportswomen.

While few issues elicit a unanimous response from sportsmen, the mention of removing the Game Commission’s or the Fish and Boat Commission’s limited independence and submitting them to the IRRC process, has always resulted in a resounding “NO!” So even though our next board meeting isn’t until September 20th, based on past experience related to attempts related to placing the commissions under the IRRC process, and the feedback we are receiving from our membership and board members since introduction of this bill, we can say with utmost confidence, that this particular bill will also be opposed by an overwhelming majority of our membership base.

The current limited “independent” structure of our wildlife and fisheries resource agencies was set up by the legislature over a hundred years ago for a reason: To allow the agencies the ability to effectively manage our wildlife and fisheries resources using scientific data combined with input from the views of sportsmen, industry and other citizens, for the best long-term good of our resources. Being separate from IRRC and legislative control (not oversight) is a source of pride to sportsmen and conservationists, because it means our wildlife and fisheries management is recognized with the importance it deserves and it is understood it needs to be treated differently.

Following the 1973 enactment of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), your predecessors empowered the agencies to “promulgate rules and regulations governing the taking, catching, killing, and possession of endangered species.” They understood that protecting species at the state level is the most proactive way to prevent their extinction. Some comments have been made trying to allude it was an oversight that the Commissions were kept separate from the IRRC process. However, because of their great foresight, your predecessors set the process up this way specifically to protect not just T & E species, but our sporting heritage and our rich wildlife and fisheries resources from the threats of control by anti-hunters, ill-advised politicians, overzealous industry and others based solely on political whims, personal agendas or emotional public opinion polls.

Just as our founding fathers had the foresight to include our right to keep and bear arms in the constitution to prevent overbearing restrictions on gun ownership, your predecessors had the foresight to give the agencies this limited independence on wildlife management decisions to prevent exactly what some are currently now trying to do….politicize it.

The Game and Fish and Boat Commission’s regulatory process is already open and transparent. Whether or not the process is put through an additional layer of bureaucracy by adding the purview of IRRC, the legislature still retains final oversight over both agencies and every move they make. We see examples of this oversight all the time when members introduce legislation trying to mandate a specific wildlife management regulatory action based on comments and complaints by their constituents or their personal views when they don’t agree with a specific regulation or proposal.

To be eligible for federal Pittman-Robertson and Dingell Johnson grants, states have to have fish and wildlife agencies that have sole discretion over how revenue for fishing and hunting licenses are used. The agencies also have to have the authority to ensure "the conservation of fish and wildlife." Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provides for cooperation with States, and allows States to assume a degree of authority and control over endangered species matters. The state signed a cooperative agreement with the USFWS confirming this authority.

In order for States to be given this power, and the federal funding that comes with it, they must demonstrate they have the institutional capacity and legal authority to identify, list, and manage endangered species. If this infrastructure is dismantled, control will revert to the federal government. Changing the current procedures by adding IRRC to the process will be viewed by the USFWS as dismantling the current infrastructure and will thus void the cooperative agreement and open Pennsylvania up to more federal control and oversight regarding T&E species, and cause the potential loss in federal funding. The threat of lost funding alone is cause for serious concern and opposition to the bill, but there are other reasons as well.

Some have mistakenly claimed that no other state has separate, “independent” fish and wildlife agencies, so why should Pennsylvania? The misconception here is thinking that just because Pennsylvania has two separate agencies and the other states happen to have their fish and game agencies combined, sometimes within their sister resource agency like our DCNR, that this automatically makes them less “independent” when it comes to setting regulations for wildlife, aquatics and/or T & E species. Even though they are not “separate” agencies, most still have their own commissioner type systems that review and approve regulations; legislative oversight is no different than Pennsylvania’s. Examples: New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts are similar to Pennsylvania, having no additional oversight or legislative review process.

We often hear anecdotal reports of how the agencies are impediments to business or economic growth, however critics are hard-pressed to come up with specific examples, and when they do provide examples, the problems are almost always the result of a federal regulatory issue or a DEP permitting issue. The same is true for the reasons being given for why this legislation is needed. When looking into the details of the examples given, one finds most of those problems were related to federal issues as well. Rep. Pyle continually refers to a problem with a school and the extra costs because of protected bats. A letter to the school from the USFWS shows that this was a federal issue, and not a state issue, so nothing in this so-called corrective legislation would change that situation. Just because it may be agency staff providing the “boots on the ground” for the reviews, studies, etc., the guidelines are and will remain, federally mandated.

Other recurring complaints being expressed in comments in support of the legislation are about the “permitting process.” The permitting process is controlled by DEP. Putting the commissions under IRRC will not change the DEP permitting process or change federally mandated regulations and compliance mandates.

Some have asked, “What’s wrong with having one more set of eyes review it?” The short answer is, it depends on whose eyes you are referring to and how much extra red tape and time it will add to the process. Because we all know…the issue is never the issue. And this issue has nothing to do with having IRRC review the commissions’ T&E Species listings.

The bill also calls an updated centralized database. The commissions argue that the database would jeopardize wildlife because it would pinpoint their locations to poachers for the black market. Industry claims it does not cause a problem in other states. If this is true, we are willing to help work to implement a similar plan that is acceptable to all parties. Mr. Arway has stated that the agencies were already working on a more efficient review process, but they are severely hindered by a lack of funds, so without a way to pay for these upgrades, this legislation is just one more unfunded mandate.

We understand there has been some discussion regarding clarification on the intent of other sections of the bill related to “acceptable data” “re-designation,” “Pennsylvania specific species”, etc., and we look forward to the continued relative dialogue and corrective language, but we are still concerned about any additional financial burdens placed on the agencies without some mechanism to cover the added costs.

In summary, the PFSC opposes putting the Commissions under IRRC for any aspect of their regulatory authority. The commissions were purposely set up to be separate from IRRC to keep the politics out of wildlife and aquatics resource management, not just for game species but for all species. Requiring the IRRC process for T&E species is nothing more than the start of the chipping away at the already limited independence of the Commissions and is not supported by the sporting and conservation community.

Passing this bill would diminish scientific expert recommendations and replace them with bureaucratic and political control, thus further politicizing and limiting the ability of our agencies to effectively and efficiently manage and protect our wildlife and aquatic resources, T & E species and wild trout stream designations; and it would be a step in the wrong direction. Any changes to the current statute should not undercut the purpose of the law – which is to protect and restore the species so that protections can eventually be removed1 – not to turn an area into a wildlife museum where the last few numbers can live out their final days. This legislation appears to be nothing more than an attempt to undercut the authority of the two commissions, perhaps only because the very independence of those commissions may be what bothers politicians the most.

PFSC’s opposition to this legislation is not an attack on industry or an attempt to stifle jobs. The majority of our membership is comprised of blue collar workers struggling to make ends meet; but we still care about our resources and we want to find a balance that protects our environment, our resources, jobs and development. We recognize the need for responsible development and resource extraction, and the economic benefits they provide. We also recognize that development and resource extraction will leave a footprint on our environment. In light of these facts, we must continue to work together to minimize the impact to Penn’s Woods, whether it’s from extracting valuable resources, development, designating wild trout streams or hunting and fishing. We cherish the land and our resources, and we support and promote best management practices to ensure the continued protection of our land and natural resources. Sportsmen and women are stewards of our resources and our environment, and as your constituents, we ask that you do your duty to protect the interests of sportsmen, our resources and the environment, and oppose this legislation.

We would also like to present into the official record, copies of letters of opposition from PA NWTF, QDMA, PA TU, and the Red Rose Chapter of Izaak Walton League.

In closing, I leave you with this quote from Teddy Roosevelt: “Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”

Again, thank you for allowing PFSC the time to present their position on this legislation. PFSC looks forward to continued dialogue with the committees, industry and all parties involved, to find common ground on ways to improve the current system without destroying it entirely.




1 The proposed legislation defines critical habitat as only that area currently occupied by the species. The Federal ESA defines critical habitat in terms of the species’ historic range, which recognizes the vital role of conserving habitat in order to facilitate recovery of the species. The purpose of the ESA, is to assist in recovery and not just protect what is remaining. "Critical habitat." The specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a listed species designated in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.).

[Dutch]

We often hear anecdotal reports of how the agencies are impediments to business or economic growth, however critics are hard-pressed to come up with specific examples, and when they do provide examples, the problems are almost always the result of a federal regulatory issue or a DEP permitting issue. The same is true for the reasons being given for why this legislation is needed. When looking into the details of the examples given, one finds most of those problems were related to federal issues as well. Rep. Pyle continually refers to a problem with a school and the extra costs because of protected bats. A letter to the school from the USFWS shows that this was a federal issue, and not a state issue, so nothing in this so-called corrective legislation would change that situation. Just because it may be agency staff providing the “boots on the ground” for the reviews, studies, etc., the guidelines are and will remain, federally mandated.

Now...... we all know Jeffery Pyle wouldn't LIE would he? LMAO!

Nice job Mel!

[galthatfishes]

Very nice indeed!

[dennyf]

Yep and we expected nothin' less. I'll give her a few Waytogos and Attagirls tomorrow, when I see her.

[melody]

Protect and prosper: Pennsylvania needs to balance environmental protection with economic growth

Why the CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry supports the Endangered Species Coordination Act

September 22, 2013 12:06 am

By Gene Barr


Any Pennsylvania industry that is seeking permits for development or redevelopment projects is subject to the existing process of evaluating potential impacts on threatened and endangered species and their critical habits. Contrary to most recent headlines, this extends beyond natural gas drilling and other resource-extraction industries to include any industry that is required to get clearance to disturb land, such as the building, aggregates and concrete, and forest products industries.

The current process can often lead to unnecessary delays that increase the overall costs of these projects. Therefore, striking an appropriate balance between effective threatened- and endangered-species management and economic development is the impetus behind the bipartisan proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act (Senate Bill 1047; House Bill 1576).

The legislation would not diminish the authority of the Fish and Boat Commission or the Game Commission to list endangered species. It simply proposes to make these agencies' rules subject to the same regulatory review process followed by other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, when they designate threatened and endangered species.

This is an open, transparent and consensus-building process that allows all stakeholders the opportunity to provide input to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which is responsible for determining whether a proposed regulation meets certain criteria, including the protection of public health, safety, welfare and natural resources. Stakeholders do not just include businesses; they include environmental advocacy groups and the regulatory agencies themselves, not to mention the general public.

The IRRC has been reviewing DEP and DCNR regulations for decades and no one questions its expertise to do so. The regulatory review process would ensure that there is consensus-based science and data to support an action to designate species as threatened or endangered.

That's because it is short-sighted to suggest that only the Game and the Fish and Boat commissions have acceptable science and data at their disposal. Businesses and environmental advocacy groups also have data and should be allowed to present it when there is a proposed listing or de-listing of plant, wildlife or fish species as threatened or endangered. The IRRC process would allow that to happen in an open and transparent manner.

If the Game and the Fish and Boat commissions stand by the validity of the data used to make their determinations, and there is no reason to think otherwise, these agencies should have no concerns about having to make their case in the same manner as every other state regulatory agency.

Finally, to suggest, as some have, that the regulatory review process is designed to favor the business community is far from accurate. Because the rule-making process is based on stakeholder engagement and takes into account an array of factors and opinions, final regulations are not always in the best interests of the business community or any specific stakeholder. Most environmental regulations contain provisions that prove costly for certain industries even as other provisions might be acceptable to the business community.

Business and industry ask only to have the same input in the regulatory processes of the Game and the Fish and Boat commission as it is afforded with other agencies. Other stakeholders should welcome this opportunity as well. In fact, having threatened- and endangered-species designations subject to the Regulatory Review Act could strengthen such designations because they would be grounded on feedback from all stakeholders with an interest in the designation process.

The proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act is consistent with the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry's member-driven policy that environmental protection and economic development can and should coexist -- that there should be a balance between the two. Lawmakers can make sure that occurs by advancing this legislation.

Gene Barr is president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.
First Published September 22, 2013 12:00 am


Read more: www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/protect-and-prosper-pennsylvania-needs-to-balance-environmental-protection-with-economic-growth-704337/#ixzz2gi1OL8r8

[melody]

Bill Could Threaten Endangered Species, Federal Funding in PA

Tom Joseph, Public News Service-PA
www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/34614-2

(09/23/13) HARRISBURG, Pa. - A bill being proposed by Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania would be a crippling blow to endangered fish and wildlife and could jeopardize millions in federal funding the state receives to protect them, according to environmental and wildlife groups. The measure would give the state Legislature more authority over endangered species listings at the expense of the independent commissions which designate them now. It also would make it easier to place Marcellus Shale gas wells.

According to Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, the process for steering development around endangered species has worked well for two decades in the state, and the agenda here is clear.

"And now they want to push the endangered species laws aside so that they can just run willy-nilly over important and critical habitats for these remaining living resources, and I think that's a great tragedy."

Schweiger said when it comes to drilling of the Marcellus Shale formation deep underground, technology exists to keep it away from endangered species.

"They can do a lot with what they have, and particularly with horizontal drilling they don't need to go into these critical habitats to get the gas," he said. "Gas companies want to drill their wells as quickly and cheaply as possible, rather than spending the extra dollars to drill in a way that ensures habitats are protected."

Schweiger said natural gas entities are given more than enough leeway as it is, and a bigger picture, including future generations, needs to be taken into consideration.

"In fact, I think there's a constitutional question, because the Pennsylvania constitution clearly guarantees those rights to future generations, and the Legislature is failing to do that when it moves legislation like this, Schweiger charged.

Federal regulations require that state commissions have independent authority when it comes to designating endangered species, and without it Pennsylvania could lose $27 million in fish and wildlife restoration grant money.

Click here to view this story on the Public News Service RSS site and access an audio version of this and other stories: www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/34614-2

[melody]

Proposed endangered species balances stewardship and development: As I See It

www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/10/proposed_endangered_species_balances_stewardship_and_development_as_i_see_it.html

Any Pennsylvania business seeking permits for development or redevelopment projects –i.e., bridge work, highway construction, hospital or housing development design – must account for the impacts on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats.

This requirement applies to any industry that is required to get clearance to disturb land, such as the building, aggregates and concrete, forest products and resource extraction.

As these industries, as well as the state’s numerous smaller to mid-size engineering, planning, surveying and environmental remediation firms that work with the regulated community, can attest, the current process can often lead to unnecessary delays that ultimately increase the overall costs of these projects.

Therefore, striking an appropriate balance between effective threatened and endangered species management and economic development is the impetus behind the bipartisan proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act now before the state House and Senate.

The legislation proposes four improvements to the current process:

•Standardize the list and management of threatened and endangered species by establishing a consistent and transparent rulemaking process similar to that required of most other state agencies
•Consolidate information into a centralized database managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
•Grant access to information to those individuals required to consider the impacts or to those involved in conservation efforts
•Protect sensitive data by prohibiting the disclosure of the information to anyone not involved in a development or conservation project


There are some who believe shortsightedly that economic considerations should have no bearing on species protection or habitat preservation.

Supporters, including the Chamber, believe the legislation would bring efficiency, predictability, understanding and transparency to the process, fostering responsible development while maintaining appropriate species protection.

Unfortunately, the issue has gotten considerable negative attention recently as a result of misinformation and lack of understanding about the intent, scope and purpose of the proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act.

The legislation would not diminish the authority of the Fish and Boat Commission or the Game Commission to list endangered species. It simply proposes to make these agencies’ rule-makings subject to the very same regulatory review process followed by other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for its threatened and endangered species designations.

This is an open, transparent and consensus-building process that allows all stakeholders involved in a rule-making the opportunity to provide input to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which is responsible for determining whether a proposed regulation meets certain criteria, including the protection of public health, safety, welfare and the effect on natural resources. Stakeholders do not just include businesses; they include environmental advocacy groups and the regulatory agencies themselves, not to mention the general public.

The IRRC has been reviewing DEP and DCNR regulations for decades and no one questions its expertise to do so. The regulatory review process would ensure that there is consensus-based science and data to support an action to designate species as threatened or endangered.

Alleviating a major concern for some sportsmen groups, the legislation does not impact game species management, which includes regulations related to hunting and fishing seasons or bag and creel limits, etc.

The measure would only apply to threatened and endangered species and trout stream designations.

Finally, to suggest, as some have, that the regulatory review process is designed to favor the business community is far from accurate. Because the regulatory review process is truly based on stakeholder engagement, and does consider an array of factors and opinions in the rule-making process, final regulations are not always in the best interest of the business community or any specific stakeholder for that matter.

Most environmental regulations contain provisions that prove costly for certain industries even as other provisions might be acceptable to business. Business and industry only ask to have the same input in the PGC and PFBC regulatory process as it is afforded with other agencies.

There are some who believe shortsightedly that economic considerations should have no bearing on species protection or habitat preservation.

On the contrary, the regulated community and other supporters of the proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act believe that endangered species management and economic development can and should coexist—that there should be a balance between the two. Lawmakers can make sure that occurs by advancing this responsible legislation.

Sam Denisco is vice president of Government Affairs for the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.

[melody]

Word is Rep. Causer will bring the bill up for a committee vote November 13th. They have amendment language (approved by industry) to "fix" some of the issues with the bill, but have not shared the language with either agency or the conservation groups yet. The IRRC process will remain in the final language.

Both the House and Senate will be in recess till November 12th, so they will be in their home districts. Please take advantage of this and reach out to your local representative and senator, and ask that they not support the IRRC process portion of these bills. We can work on fixing the data base issues and related time frames for the permitting process without putting the designation process under IRRC. Trout stream listings already go thru DEP's review process, and the way endangered species are treated through the permitting process is also already under the purview of DEP. IRRC should have nothing to do with the scientific process in the listing designation process. This is nothing more than an attempt to make it almost impossible to ever list a species or designate a new trout stream.

This is all being pushed on the premise that the entire decision making process should be based solely on economic factors, and science and the protection of our resources should not have any influence.

[melody]

Anyone able to attend Rep. Causer's Town Hall meeting and let him know your thoughts on the proposals for increased legislative oversight (IRRC oversight) on wildlife management decisions, especially endangered species listings? If you know anyone from his district, please pass the info along to them.

You’re Invited to a Town Hall Meeting

links.pahousenews.com/q/F5IIROqs5eFNP6Jj3pAYoX9sAVcCE_4tWkmBgb01QXqqcZOQsY6RDzjB5

Please join me for a town meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 7, at the Emporium Volunteer Fire Department. I welcome the opportunity to talk with you about state and local issues impacting our communities. No RSVP is necessary to attend the town meeting. The fire department is located at 419 N. Broad St., Emporium.

[melody]

Media advisory

Bill that would weaken endangered species protection in Pa. topic of Nov. 7 news conference

HARRISBURG, Pa. (Nov. 5) – The top officials of the Pennsylvania Game and Fish and Boat commissions will join state Rep. Greg Vitali, Democratic chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, to discuss their opposition to H.B. 1576 during a news conference at 10 a.m. Thursday, Nov. 7 at the Capitol Media Center.

State House members, including Rep. Steve McCarter, D-Montgomery/Phila., will speak at the news conference, along with leaders of environmental and outdoors organizations.
Confirmed speakers include:
• Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Executive Director John Arway;
• Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe;
• PennFuture Chief Counsel George Jugovic and PennFuture Policy Director Steve Stroman;
• Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter Senior Director Jeff Schmidt;
• Trout Unlimited Eastern Water Project Director Katy Dunlap.

PFSC will also be participating.

The news conference is being held in advance of a vote on the bill by the House Game and Fisheries Committee. The vote is scheduled for Nov. 13.

The bill would take the ability to declare a species endangered or threatened from the Pennsylvania Game Commission, Fish and Boat Commission or Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and would transfer the decision-making process to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission and the legislature. IRCC is made up of five members, two each appointed by the legislative caucuses, and one by the governor.

The bill also would require that any species currently listed as threatened or endangered go through the IRRC process and the legislature within two years of the legislation being enacted to justify its continued designation.
Media coverage is invited.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Live audio access to the news conference is available by calling one of the following numbers five minutes before the start of the event: 717-787-9903, 9904, 9905, 9906, 9907, 9908, 9909 or 9910.

Media Contact:
Bob Laylo
House Democratic Communications Office
Phone: [phone]

[melody]

From Rep. Causer's office:


Amendment Explanation – HB 1576


Section 2. Definitions

• Amend bill, page 1 lines 11-13 and page 2 lines 1-2, changing the definition of “Acceptable data” to read as follows: Empirical, replicable and testable data as evidenced in supporting documentation, statistics, reports, studies or research.

o The definition of “Acceptable data” on which promulgated regulations are be based, is amended to be consistent with the definition used by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC). This was a concern raised by IRRC in its testimony to the committee on the bill.

• Amend bill, page 2 line 5 by removing the words “or listing”

o The definition of “Action” is amended by removing the reference to “listing”. This was a concern raised by IRRC. The word listing is not necessary as all listings are made as designations, promulgated by regulation.


• Amend bill, page 2 lines 14-15, changing the definition of “Centralized database” to read as follows: The database of listed species and critical habitat maintained in accordance with this act and other designated species or information.

o The definition of “Centralized database” is amended to add “other designated species” to ensure that information on species of special concern or rare species other than threatened or endangered species are included in the database, as is currently the case with the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index (PNDI). This was a concern raised by several of the conservation organizations.


• Amend bill, page 3 line 1 by deleting “Persons” and inserting on page 2 between lines 13 and 14 “Authorized persons”, with the definition placed there in alphabetical order. “Person” is changed to “Authorized persons” in all other relevant sections as well.

o The definition of “Persons” is changed to “Authorized persons” to clarify that confidential access to species information contained in the database is limited to those who are involved in land disturbances or other activities for which a permit is required and may impact listed species and their habitat, or those involved in resource management as determined by DCNR. This was a concerned raised by several organizations that assumed access to the database would be given to anyone who asked for the information.


Section 4. Designation Process

• Amend bill, page 4 line 2 by inserting after “Review Act.” As follows: Nothing under this subsection shall be construed to require the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission or the Pennsylvania Game Commission to comply with the Regulatory Review Act with respect to any rules or regulations other than those relating to threatened or endangered species or designation of wild trout streams.

o This language was deemed necessary to guarantee that the Commission’s compliance with the IRRC process was limited in scope and therefore not a threat to the independent actions of the agencies.


• Amend bill, page 4 by deleting lines 15-21 (referring to (d) Removal)

o The requirement for agencies to re-designate all currently listed species within a two year timeframe (Section 4d) is removed. This was a concern raised by the agencies, who felt it would be impossible to complete the necessary studies required for re-designation of all currently listed species within two years, or any specified time-frame.


Section 5. Designation determination and data

• Amend bill, page 5 line 2 by adding after “range” within the Commonwealth.
• Amend bill, page 5 lines 5-6 by deleting “throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”

o The parameters of the conditions for designations on Pennsylvania endangered species in Section 5(b) (1) are amended to clarify that the range consideration is for the species range within the Commonwealth, and not on a nation or global basis. For Pennsylvania threatened species, the language in Section 5(b) (2) is amended to reflect that the range condition for designation be only made when the species is likely to become a Pennsylvania endangered species within the foreseeable future. This was a concern raised by the agencies that the original bill language could be construed to allow only designations of species that are already federally listed.


Section 6. Permits and approvals

• Amend bill, page 5 line 15 by deleting “When” and inserting Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when.
• Amend bill, page 5 line 16 by adding “other than designating species” after the word “actions”.

o Section 6 of the bill (Permits and approvals) is amended because the word “actions” in the section could mistakenly include designations, which are included in the definition of “Action” in the definitions section of the bill. The amendment clarifies that the requirements of this section pertaining to the consideration of impacts to only listed threatened and endangered species, are specific to permits and approvals, and not to designations being made by regulation.

• Amend bill, page 5 line 18 starting at “Permits” deleting the lines from there through line 23, and replacing them as follows: If field surveys or other activities to determine or evaluate the presence of listed species or their habitats are conducted, the Commonwealth Agency with jurisdictional authority for protection of the species shall within 30 days of receiving survey results provide either clearance for the project, or detailed avoidance measures, detailed minimization measures or detailed mitigation measures to the applicant. A requirement of an applicant to perform a survey must be based on acceptable data indicating the likely presence of listed species in the area affected by the project.

o Section 6 is amended to provide that when permits, approvals, authorizations or regulations require authorized persons to conduct field surveys or other activities to determine or evaluate the presence of designated species or their habitats, the Commonwealth agency with jurisdictional authority for protection of the species shall within 30 days of receiving survey results provide either clearance for the project, or detailed avoidance measures, detailed minimization measures or detailed mitigation measures to the applicant. A requirement of an applicant to perform a survey must be based on acceptable data. The original bill language would have placed the onus of performing surveys to determine the presence of a species on the agencies, with no funding stream provided to do so. This was a concern raised by numerous organizations and the agencies. This change puts the onus back on the person who is affecting the land, but requires the agencies to respond in a reasonable time-frame.


Section 8. Access to Data

• Amend bill, page 6 line 19 by changing “persons” to “authorized persons”.
• Amend bill, page 6 line 28 by changing “persons” to “authorized persons”.
• Amend bill, page 6 line 30 by changing “persons” to “authorized persons”.
• Amend bill, pages 6 by removing line 30, and page 7 by removing lines 1-2.

o Language in Section 8 (c) (2) relating to disclosure of information by written approval is removed. The language is unnecessary as the bill already provides for specific use of information. A government requiring advanced written approval before allowing a person to make use of information could constitute “prior restraint”, and therefore potentially be open to constitutional challenge. This was a concern raised by the PA NewsMedia Association.


• Amend bill, page 7 lines 12-14, changing (e) Civil penalty to read – The department may impose a civil penalty of not less than $1000 nor more than $10,000 on any person who intentionally violates the provisions of subsection (c) or (d).

o The civil penalty for intentional unlawful use of sensitive database information under Section 8(e) is increased from not less than $250 nor more than $5,000, up to no less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000. This was a concern raised by some organizations that the civil penalty in the bill was not sufficient to be a deterrent to misuse of database sensitive information.

Section 9. Repeal

• Amend bill, page 7 lines 15-16 by deleting these lines (Section 9. Repeal) and inserting the following: Section 9. Use of certain funds. A Commonwealth agency that receives funds from the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (50 Stat. 917, 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.), or the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act (64 Stat. 681, 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.), is prohibited from transferring to another state agency revenues generated through the sale of hunting or fishing licenses for the administration of this act.

o The repeal language, Section 9 of the bill, is removed, as it is unclear what acts or parts of acts may inadvertently be repealed as a result. This was a concern raised by the agencies.

o Language is added to prohibit the use of licensing dollars or federal funds for implementation of the Act. This is done to further ensure that there will be no potential for loss of federal funding to the Game and Fish agencies through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act to the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. Sportsmen’s organizations, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had raised concerns that if designating authority or authority over distribution of sportsmen’s funds were taken away from the agencies, then the Commonwealth’s ability to receive federal funds could be impacted. The bill takes neither authority away from the agencies, and will now clearly prohibit the use of licensing dollars to further ensure there will be no loss of federal funding to the agencies.

• There are also several wording changes that are technical in nature, in order to make the bill read properly due to the primary amendments.

[melody]

LEGISLATORS, CONSERVATIONISTS CALL FOR HALT TO HB 1576
By Kimberly Hess, PLS
11/7/13

Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware), minority chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, was joined this morning by colleagues on the committee and conservation activists to call for a halt to the scheduled vote on House Bill 1576, which provides for the designation of endangered and threatened species.

Rep. Vitali spoke against the legislation, which is scheduled for a vote in the House Game and Fisheries Committee on November 13, and said it is the number one priority of the Marcellus Shale industry. John Arway, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), explained HB 1576 is “critically flawed” and, even if filed amendments are adopted, would serve as a “huge step backward in conservation history.” He said PFBC opposes any step to subject the designation of endangered or threatened species to review by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC). He also argued the legislation could lead to increased federal intervention. Arway stated the designation decisions regarding aquatic wildlife are made by the commission based on sound science and in an open process. He suggested to insert IRRC into the process would be “duplicative and unnecessary.”

Arway conceded the proposed amendment, which is expected to be adopted at the upcoming committee meeting, does improve the bill but as a whole the bill would still remain troublesome. He addressed claims that the commission’s process and decisions limit economic development and stated, “We are not the obstacle to development that some claim us to be.” He pointed out reviews by the commission average 15 days and the commission tries to be as cooperative and timely as possible. Arway noted the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) is responsible for the designation of endangered plant life and the Game Commission (PGC) is responsible for the designation of endangered mammals, and indicated their review and approval processes are similar in scope and timeliness.

Arway noted the commission is an independent agency and he is representing the commission’s board of directors and its mission to protect, enhance, and provide opportunities for anglers and boaters. He opined the bill conflicts with the commission’s mission. Rep. Vitali noted the Game Commission was also expected to attend the press conference, but at the last minute was unable. He said PGC has been a vocal opponent of the bill in the past.

Rep. Steve McCarter (D-Montgomery) said he is saddened by plans to move the bill out of committee. He remarked the bill was crafted and supported by the coal and gas industries to speed their path to profit at the expense of native species. He explained the bill endangers the delicate balance of forests, farmlands, trout streams, and habitats, and pointed out that it was made clear at the two hearings he attended that the protection of endangered species and habitat is critical.
Rep. McCarter noted the prime sponsor of the bill defends it as pro-jobs, and pro-people, but Rep. McCarter pointed out those same claims were made by the coal industry 100 years ago. He warned of the long-term costs of ignoring the environment and stated the bill takes the responsibility of protecting natural resources from the Game and Fish and Boat commissions “and hands the fate of endangered species to the IRRC process and the legislature.”

Jonathan Niles, Ph.D., a research professor of biology at Susquehanna University with emphasis on brook trout, reviewed the status of assessed waters in Pennsylvania and wild trout populations. He discussed joint efforts between research biologists like himself and the commission to assess the streams of Pennsylvania and reported almost 3,000 streams have been assessed since 2010 and 55 percent of those were found to have wild trout. He emphasized the importance of data being collected by experts and argued the decisions should not be made by those that do not have the expertise.

Josh First, of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, stated his opposition to the bill. He said taking species management away from the commissions will cost the state millions of dollars each year in federal funding, which is conditioned on those two agencies managing endangered and threatened species. He remarked the bill “is lousy for that reason alone” and said adding IRRC to the process simply creates more bureaucracy with no added value. As a landowner and businessman, First empathized with those looking to resolve conflicts more easily, noting he would like to see more cooperation, but opined that the bill does not improve upon that relationship and is missing the value of stewardship.

Katie Dunlap, Eastern Water Project Director for Trout Unlimited, acknowledged the efforts to improve the bill with amendments, but lamented those amendments that have circulated do not go far enough. She said the bill threatens the essence of Trout Unlimited's mission because it proposes to change wild trout stream listing process, a process she said works very well, and is clearly intended to limit protections by adding layers of bureaucracy and paperwork. Dunlap emphasized that a wild trout stream designation does not prevent a company from moving forward but merely requires additional measures to protect the waters. She also expressed concern that the bill will have a negative impact on the state’s economy as the state’s fishing traditions are threatened and anglers go elsewhere.

Jeff Schmidt, of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club, argued the proposed legislation is contrary to public interest. He cited the need to protect the components of the ecosystem, noting that they each provide valuable biologic services. Schmidt argued the current approval process is both open to the public and scientific, pointing out that the IRRC process can take as much as two years during which time a species could become extinct.

Schmidt said the bill is about whether the state agencies will have the tools they need to evaluate impacts and exempts applicants from conducting field studies to determine the impact. He stated such failure leads to environmental harm and the proposed amendments do not improve the bill enough for the Sierra Club to drop its opposition.

Steve Stroman, of PennFuture, stated the “bill is a dangerous and unprecedented attack on wildlife” and wildlife management agencies. He cited Pennsylvania’s long tradition of allowing independent agencies to manage wildlife and stated the bill would make this more difficult. He argued the bill would make the decision making process politicized and subject to a lengthy regulatory review process. He called on the legislature to let Pennsylvania’s nationally recognized wildlife professionals do their jobs.

Sarah Speed, Pennsylvania State Director for the Humane Society, stated the bill sets Pennsylvania up for having to go through the federal government instead of a state process. She opined ecotourism in Pennsylvania will be threatened by the bill and lamented sponsors of the proposal are not taking an adequate view of long range impacts. She cited a recent study which found more than 80 percent of Pennsylvanians feel the legislature should do more to protect animals.

Lastly, Rep. Rick Mirabito (D-Lycoming) remarked this issue is “a question of whether in 20 years the animals and plants we see today are going to be there.” He cited the legislature’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment and argued the bill is bad for rural Pennsylvania. He said his greatest concern is that the bill takes the decisions out of the hands of the experts and puts them into political process, which he believes will set up a disaster for rural Pennsylvania.
The legislators and advocates then answered questions from the media.

Tell us more about how the amendment alleviates some concerns?
Rep. Vitali explained two draft amendments are circulating and he believes A04284 by House Game and Fisheries Committee Chairman Martin Causer (R-McKean) will be offered next week, which he conceded does improve the bill somewhat because it alleviates the proving requiring a species to be relisted within two years. Arway added the amendment also redefines adequate data and defines that the range analysis must be within the border of the Commonwealth, but that is a major problem because leaves Pennsylvania with the federal list.

Can you explain why it is too difficult to get permits?
First explained that as a landowner who makes money off the timber and real estate, his experience with government is that it is “too much top-down command and control, listen to what we say, do what we say.” He called for a more cooperative approach, questioning “who is going to pay me” if he is not allowed to cut timber on buffer lands. He reiterated the bill does not do anything to streamline the process; “it makes it miserable for everyone.”

How do you know this is the number one ask of the Marcellus Shale industry?
Rep. Vitali replied he has had a personal conversation with a lobbyist from Marcellus Shale Coalition who has made such statements and he has also heard that from other people in the capitol.

How would the Marcellus Shale industry benefit? How many projects are turned away because of endangered species?
Rep. Vitali replied anything that impedes the speed of development is something the industry has an interest in, which is any development that requires a permit. He indicated he believes the industry would prefer to be able to drill wells wherever they would like without having to deal with requirements like protecting threatened and endangered species. Arway added that PFBC worked to get a portion of the Marcellus Shale impact fee and now receives $1 million each year, which means the industry now pays its way. He said the commission faced a tremendous burden when the industry first launched. In turn, he said, the commission turns around Marcellus Shale reviews in 15 days. He suggested not a lot of time or money can be saved with the legislation.

How does the current process work?
Rep. Vitali explained current law gives the commissions authority to designate threatened species, noting that DCNR is responsible for monitoring plant life.

Can you summarize the amendment?
Rep. Vitali replied the key to him is that the amendment deletes the requirement that a species be relisted within two years or it falls of the list. He noted the definition of acceptable scientific data changed to conform to the IRRC process and changes are made regarding the range of the Pennsylvania endangered species. Arway added the amendment retains the IRRC review process, which he believes is “most troubling” and does not bring value to the process. He opined the proposal is a “backdoor attempt” to limit the number of endangered species.

Is this bill the same as one proposed by Sen. Joe Scarnati (R-Jefferson)?
Arway replied this bill, as currently drafted, is quite similar to Sen. Scarnati’s SB 1047.

Can you estimate on how long the process would take under the bill?
Arway noted the IRRC process can take several months or several years. He indicated this means it could take months or years for a species to be listed or delisted.

What if a species is determined endangered after drilling beings on a site? Will the drilling have to stop?
Arway clarified such a determination would not be retroactive.

Rep. Jeff Pyle (R-Armstrong), the sponsor of the bill, says the bill addresses loss of federal money.
Arway explained the federal funding, which accounts for 25 percent of PFBC’s budget, is based on the excise tax on equipment and licenses sold. He said the federal government has raised concern about diversion, where the states lose control on how that money is spent. He said the concern is the bill takes away some of that control. First further explained that several decades ago hunters and fishermen self-imposed the excise taxes because they knew that money would go back into land and water stewardship. He remarked, “We did not do that for the money to be diverted and used by politicians.” He expressed concern that the diversion means Pennsylvania will no longer qualify to collect that money.

[To First] Have you been able to use your standing as a Republican to push any lawmakers to vote against the bill?
First replied he has not been asked to speak to Republican lawmakers, noting that his presence is not always welcome in his party because he is too independent.

How many species are listed by the PFBC?
Arway said PFBC has 62 species listed, which include fish and other aquatic life. He noted PGC and DCNR would have mammals and plant life listed as well.

At what point are listed animals and plants reevaluated?
Arway said such evaluations are conducted at PFBC on an as-needed basis. In such instances, he explained, an advisory committee evaluates data and provides recommendations.

[melody]

What they don't understand is.....it's not the IRRC board members we are concerned about! It's who controls those members and who gets final say! banghead


Committee readies for vote on endangered species bill

www.witf.org/state-house-sound-bites/2013/11/committee-readies-for-vote-on-endangered-species-bill.php

Written by Mary Wilson, Capitol Bureau Chief
11/7/13

Environmentalists are standing firm in their opposition of adding more oversight to the process of designating endangered species in Pennsylvania.

The proposal is scheduled for a House committee vote next week. Chairman Rep. Martin Causer (R-McKean County) plans to offer an amendment addressing objections from the state commissions they affect.

"There's strong support from the committee on it," Causer said, adding that the amendment he'll introduce was drafted with the help of the committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Gary Haluska (D-Cambria).

Developers of many stripes, including the natural gas industry, support the proposal, which would add oversight to the independent commissions that designate endangered species in Pennsylvania. The Fish and Boat Commission and the Game Commission would send their species designations through a state review board, which opponents point out is filled with political appointees. Designations would also be subject to approval from standing legislative committees.

Jeff Schmidt, with the Pennsylvania Sierra Club, said the plan will gut Pennsylvania's process for protecting wildlife.

"What's at stake here are the species, not simply some kind of inside the Beltway, arcane process that has no impact on the real world," Schmidt said at a press conference Thursday. "It will have a huge impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species going forward in time."

The commissions that control whether a species is labeled endangered also have the power to approve construction permits in areas where those species live. Industry lobbyists say the research behind those decisions should also be disclosed.

Democratic Representative Greg Vitali of Delaware County disagrees. "The database this bill would create would expose threatened, endangered species to poaching and other risks by exposing their specific whereabouts," Vitali said.

But the legislation's supporters call that a weak excuse for not disclosing research on endangered species.

"They don't want that... exposed," said Drew Crompton, spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, who has parallel legislation in his chamber to change the endangered species designation process. "If it becomes objective, then there's no leverage." Crompton said the state commissions that control endangered species listings approve permits to build, drill, or pave only after the agencies get something they want from the industry applicant.

In one instance, offered by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, the 'ask' was a $50,000 dollar wildlife study.

Both sides are equally vehement about the provision that would include a state review board in endangered species designations. The Independent Regulatory Review Board, as opponents point out, is made up of political appointees.

"They have no scientific staff," said Schmidt after the press conference. The head of the Fish and Boat Commission said IRRC's involvement would be "duplicative."

"I've never heard these accusations of IRRC as I'm hearing now," said Crompton. He scoffed at the idea the board couldn't review science-based decisions, saying its members "deal with these tough regulatory issues all the time."

Causer was similarly optimistic about IRRC's suitability to the task of approving endangered species designations. "I want there to be a defined process and I think IRRC does bring that process to the table," he said.

He said he doubts the Fish and Boat Commissions and Game Commissions tasked with labeling threatened and endangered species will have their decisions second-guessed.

"If they have the data," Causer said, "what do they have to hide?"

[melody]

Several more links to articles referencing yesterday's press conference:

www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/61669-its-environmentalists-vs-industy-as-pa-considers-revising-endangered-species-rules

philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/11/07/pa-groups-say-proposed-legislation-will-further-endanger-endangered-species/

www.abc27.com/story/23909923/environmental-groups-rip-bill-changing-endangered-species-process

www.publicnewsservice.org/2013-11-08/endangered-species-and-wildlife/endangered-species-bill-may-leave-plants-animals-in-pa-in-jeopardy/a35529-1

www.buckscountycouriertimes.com/news/local/endangered-species-bill-alarms-environmentalists-sportsmen/article_d40219a0-ae3c-5523-9d62-68c19cd8e6b9.html

www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-pa-endangered-species-1107-20131107,0,7389364.story

triblive.com/news/adminpage/5024218-74/bill-pennsylvania-state

thetimes-tribune.com/news/endangered-species-bill-faces-vote-1.1582232

[Deleted]

Who exactly would be on this Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC)? It sounds to me like this bill would be giving the foxes charge of the henhouse.