Post by galthatfishes on Dec 27, 2012 7:49:24 GMT -5
DEP fails to treat the PGC and PFBC as partners
This is a last reminder; you have until Monday, December 31 to submit
your comments regarding DEP’s revised [b]PA Natural Diversity Index [/b]Policy.
You may use our comments as “talking points”, if you wish
Species of special concern are at risk because DEP’s new PNDI Policy would allow that agency to ignore the advice of other agencies, such as the Game Commission and the Fish Commission.
Your comments are needed to convince DEP to change their draft to a policy that protects habitat and the species that depend on it.
Read the draft document at
www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-91339/400-0200-001.pdf
Forest Coalition Comments to DEP - Feel free to use them
Dear Ms. Allan,
The DEP Draft PNDI Policy should be much clearer – and much stronger.
Please consider the following comments:
Page 4:
Under “Environmental Review Tool Questions”, we do not understand “results . . .are based on the answers provided”. If the sentence is not needed, delete it. Muddy language has no place in a policy statement.
Page 5:
Under “PNDI Receipt”, there is no time limit mentioned. There should be a time-limit imposed of one or two years, after which a new PNDI must be required.
Page 6:
Under “Special Concern Species”, you are ignoring the expertise of your sister agencies. A final determination regarding species of special concern should be via a concurrence of DEP and whatever other Jurisdictional Agency is involved ( ex. PFBC for cold-blooded, PGC for mammals & birds).
In the sentence regarding consultation with the appropriate specialist / biologist, the words “if necessary” should be removed. Your sister agencies should be your equal partners and equally involved.
Page 7:
The reference to “an exemption from a PNDI search” should be removed.
We want no shortcuts when dealing with potential impacts to Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species or Species of Special Concern. The most up-to-date data must be used. If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.
Under the application for permit renewals section, the reference to an exemption if there is “no significant change” is too muddy and must be removed. An applicant might have a vastly different opinion of what is meant by “significant change” than the PFBC or PGC. The biologists from those agencies are the experts and should have an equal vote in determining what constitutes “significant change”, not the applicant.
Pages 8 & 9 :
Statements which are not 100% true in all cases should be removed.
Too-broad statements have no place in policy.
Similar to our comments re page six, the appropriate Jurisdictional Agency must be apprised whenever Threatened or Endangered species are present.
The statement “DEP will confer with the Jurisdictional Agency” seems to be a typo. Did you mean “DEP will concur”? Policy should required concurrence. “Confer” is meaningless and an insult to your sister agencies.
Under Potential Impacts, the statement “DEP has a strong preference for Clearance Letters to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements, although DEP may use its discretion to make its permit decisions.” contains a “weasel clause”. There should be no statements which allow the rules to be “bent”. The last 11 words “although DEP may use its discretion to make its permit decisions.” should be removed.
Page 10:
The statements including “DEP must make its own independent determination during the permit application review” and “DEP is the final decision-making authority . . .” This places your sister agencies as minor partners. The Jurisdictional Agencies must concur regarding T&E species as well a re Species of Special Concern.
Written comments should be submitted to:
Patricia Allan, Department of Environmental Protection,
Policy Office, 16th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105
Or by email to: RA-EPTG_Comments@pa.gov
Call 717-783-8727 if your e-mail is rejected
===========================================
One who speaks out is louder than 10,000 who remain silent
R. Martin Coordinator www.PaForestCoalition.org
Mission: Good Stewardship of our Public Lands
This is a last reminder; you have until Monday, December 31 to submit
your comments regarding DEP’s revised [b]PA Natural Diversity Index [/b]Policy.
You may use our comments as “talking points”, if you wish
Species of special concern are at risk because DEP’s new PNDI Policy would allow that agency to ignore the advice of other agencies, such as the Game Commission and the Fish Commission.
Your comments are needed to convince DEP to change their draft to a policy that protects habitat and the species that depend on it.
Read the draft document at
www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-91339/400-0200-001.pdf
Forest Coalition Comments to DEP - Feel free to use them
Dear Ms. Allan,
The DEP Draft PNDI Policy should be much clearer – and much stronger.
Please consider the following comments:
Page 4:
Under “Environmental Review Tool Questions”, we do not understand “results . . .are based on the answers provided”. If the sentence is not needed, delete it. Muddy language has no place in a policy statement.
Page 5:
Under “PNDI Receipt”, there is no time limit mentioned. There should be a time-limit imposed of one or two years, after which a new PNDI must be required.
Page 6:
Under “Special Concern Species”, you are ignoring the expertise of your sister agencies. A final determination regarding species of special concern should be via a concurrence of DEP and whatever other Jurisdictional Agency is involved ( ex. PFBC for cold-blooded, PGC for mammals & birds).
In the sentence regarding consultation with the appropriate specialist / biologist, the words “if necessary” should be removed. Your sister agencies should be your equal partners and equally involved.
Page 7:
The reference to “an exemption from a PNDI search” should be removed.
We want no shortcuts when dealing with potential impacts to Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species or Species of Special Concern. The most up-to-date data must be used. If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.
Under the application for permit renewals section, the reference to an exemption if there is “no significant change” is too muddy and must be removed. An applicant might have a vastly different opinion of what is meant by “significant change” than the PFBC or PGC. The biologists from those agencies are the experts and should have an equal vote in determining what constitutes “significant change”, not the applicant.
Pages 8 & 9 :
Statements which are not 100% true in all cases should be removed.
Too-broad statements have no place in policy.
Similar to our comments re page six, the appropriate Jurisdictional Agency must be apprised whenever Threatened or Endangered species are present.
The statement “DEP will confer with the Jurisdictional Agency” seems to be a typo. Did you mean “DEP will concur”? Policy should required concurrence. “Confer” is meaningless and an insult to your sister agencies.
Under Potential Impacts, the statement “DEP has a strong preference for Clearance Letters to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements, although DEP may use its discretion to make its permit decisions.” contains a “weasel clause”. There should be no statements which allow the rules to be “bent”. The last 11 words “although DEP may use its discretion to make its permit decisions.” should be removed.
Page 10:
The statements including “DEP must make its own independent determination during the permit application review” and “DEP is the final decision-making authority . . .” This places your sister agencies as minor partners. The Jurisdictional Agencies must concur regarding T&E species as well a re Species of Special Concern.
Written comments should be submitted to:
Patricia Allan, Department of Environmental Protection,
Policy Office, 16th Floor, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, PA 17105
Or by email to: RA-EPTG_Comments@pa.gov
Call 717-783-8727 if your e-mail is rejected
===========================================
One who speaks out is louder than 10,000 who remain silent
R. Martin Coordinator www.PaForestCoalition.org
Mission: Good Stewardship of our Public Lands
