PennFuture, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Decry Plan to Abandon Severance Tax on Marcellus Shale, Sell off State`s Public Lands to Drillers

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Announces Lawsuit against
DEP for Lax Permitting

HARRISBURG, Pa.--(Business Wire)--

Jan Jarrett, president and CEO of Citizens for Pennsylvania`s Future
(PennFuture), and Matthew Royer, attorney for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, today called on the Pennsylvania legislature to abandon plans to sell off the state`s public lands to multi-national drilling companies tapping the Marcellus Shale formation and instead institute a tax on the natural gas removed anywhere in Pennsylvania. Their remarks came one day after the Chesapeake Bay Foundation filed a legal challenge to erosion and sediment control permits issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for drilling
activities on Tioga State Forest.

"This is just one of several a legal challenges we have filed because DEP is not doing its job to make sure our State Forests and other stream and wetland resources are protected from the environmental impacts of drilling," said Royer. "Instead of protecting the environment, DEP is rubber stamping permit applications without any formal review. DEP`s permit review process consists of simply making sure all the paperwork is in the permit application. Unbelievably,
they are not conducting any environmental review of the plans that drilling companies are required to submit in order to minimize environmental impacts. Pennsylvania`s precious water resources-our rivers, streams, and wetlands-are at risk due to the lack of thorough DEP oversight.

...

"Abandoning the severance tax on natural gas and immediately opening up hundreds of thousands of acres of state land to gas drillers is a giveaway to multi-national energy corporations directly at the expense of Pennsylvania taxpayers," said Jan Jarrett. ...

"If Pennsylvania does not assess a severance tax we are allowing the industry to foist the costs of drilling onto taxpayers - wear and tear on local roads, the costs of environmental regulation and oversight, damage to natural resources, strains on policing and emergency services.
That`s an insult to Pennsylvania taxpayers," continued Jarrett.

Read the complete article from Reuters HERE.

In a subsequent report from Reuters, Jon Hurdle writes:
The foundation argues that restraints on drilling companies were weakened when the DEP told county conservation districts in March that they no longer had authority to review permit applications for erosion and sediment control. They are urging the agency to restore the local oversight of drilling applications.

The DEP's new policies violate environmental laws including the federal Clean Water Act, the appeal alleges.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

DEP ROLLBACK OF CLEAN WATER PROTECTION FROM MARCELLUS SHALE DRILLING CALLED ILLEGAL AND IRRESPONSIBLE

(HARRISBURG, PA) -- Members of the Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water, a coalition of organizations dedicated to protecting Pennsylvania’s water resources, issued the following statements today after DEP recently stripped County Conservation Districts of their duties to review erosion, sediment, and stormwater control plans for natural gas well drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale formation. DEP additionally instituted an expedited stormwater permitting process that does not allow for public participation or meaningful agency review of permit applications.

36 member organizations of the Campaign for Clean Water co-signed a letter sent today to DEP Acting Secretary John Hanger condemning DEP’s actions. (see below)

“DEP’s actions are complete give-aways to the oil and gas industry. DEP acted without any public notice or opportunity to comment, and in so doing have increased the likelihood of more sediment pollution to Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams. In taking these actions, DEP has ignored its own core values of environmental protection and public transparency.”
Maya van Rossum, The Delaware Riverkeeper

“At a time when DEP is admittedly understaffed to deal with the rush of Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania, it makes no sense whatsoever to strip the Conservation Districts of their duties and give them to DEP staff that lack their level of experience in erosion and sediment control. Many local communities have already been heavily impacted by drilling. The public is looking for more oversight, not less.”
Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania State Director, Clean Water Action

“Pennsylvania and federal law requires well drilling sites to adequately control stormwater and prevent erosion and sediment pollution to our rivers and streams. We believe a fast-track permitting scheme that eliminates technical review of erosion, sediment, and stormwater plans is illegal under federal and state environmental laws.”
Matt Royer, Staff Attorney, Pennsylvania Office, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

(following is the letter sent to DEP)

PENNSYLVANIA CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN WATER
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1650
Philadelphia PA 19107
215-545-0250

March 31, 2009

John Hanger
Acting Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Acting Secretary Hanger:

We were dismayed to learn of the new directives issued by DEP on March 18, 2009 related to review of Chapter 102 and 105 permits associated with Marcellus Shale gas activities. DEP’s actions to suddenly strip County Conservation Districts of their delegated duties without notice and public comment and to institute, through revisions to permit forms, a permitting process that does not allow for public participation or meaningful agency review of permit applications is illegal, irresponsible, and a violation of DEP’s public duties as a public resource protection agency of the Commonwealth.

DEP’s mission is to “protect Pennsylvania’s air, land and water from pollution” and “work as partners with individuals, organizations, governments and businesses to prevent pollution and restore our natural resources.” DEP has established five core values to guide its work:

Public Service. To “serve the public in a fair, efficient, responsive, open and honest manner.”

Protection. To protect “the air, land and water of the Commonwealth” and “promote measurable environmental improvement, cooperation, innovation and sustainable development so future generations may share our wealth.”

Teamwork. To recognize that DEP’s “responsibilities are great and our numbers are few” and that DEP’s goals “can only be accomplished if we work cooperatively and support each other in the achievement of our common purpose.”

Communication. To “encourage the broadest two-way communication possible with all our constituencies by involving the public in decision-making opportunities” and “disseminating information through all means possible.”

Pollution Prevention. To “promote the goal of zero discharge” and “stop pollution before it starts.”

For the reasons discussed below, these recent actions violate every one of DEP’s core values.

The lack of transparency and public involvement in development of the process is contrary to DEP’s stated mission and values.

As a public agency, DEP must remain committed to transparency and full public involvement of major policy, guidance, and regulatory initiatives. Despite espousing these principles in its mission and values statement, DEP has not asked the public to comment on the decisions to strip Conservation Districts of their delegated duties and to revise, through permit form revisions, the permit review process for the oil and gas industry. This proposal was not shared with important advisory committees made up of public stakeholders, including the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) or even the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), a statutorily-created advisory committee tasked with providing independent oversight of DEP’s operations and policies.

While DEP’s draft proposed permit-by-rule for the entire stormwater construction program was shared with these committees, it was widely criticized as unworkable and fraught with many of the same Clean Water Act issues that now confront DEP’s current permit process applicable to oil and gas activities. Yet, apparently, DEP has chosen to ignore these criticisms and institute a permit-by-rule process through the back door to facilitate Marcellus Shale development activity.

County Conservation Districts are valuable local resource agencies with which DEP should be partnering to ensure it can fulfill its regulatory duties.

Development of the Marcellus Shale formation has the potential to benefit local economies in rural Pennsylvania. It also has the potential to drastically change the landscape and impact the forests, mountains, farms, and streams of some of the most pristine areas of the Commonwealth. For decades, County Conservation Districts have provided grassroots-directed local support and expertise to ensure protection of Pennsylvania’s soil and water resources. Since being delegated duties of administering elements of the Chapters 102 and 105, Conservation Districts have performed admirably in ensuring that earth disturbance and water resource encroachments associated with new activities are protective of our rivers and streams.

There has been no evidence presented that there are persistent and systemic problems with County Conservation District review and permit processing under Chapters 102 and 105. Thus there is absolutely no justification for unilaterally stripping Conservation Districts of such delegated duties, particularly when DEP should be partnering with as many agencies as possible to ensure that environmental regulations continue to be implemented in the face of increasing Marcellus Shale development activity.

DEP lacks the staff to take on these new duties and effectively administer the E&S and stormwater permitting program.

By your own admission in response to questioning during testimony before the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, DEP lacks adequate staff to fully implement the oil and gas program in the face of increasing activity. While we understand that DEP has hired new employees in recent months to address this staffing shortfall, there is still not enough staff at DEP to administer all necessary regulatory duties.

It will take months before these new employees are established and trained. The professionals with the most training and experience in reviewing erosion and sediment control plans and inspecting BMPs in the field are those at the County Conservation Districts.

In light of these facts, it makes no sense whatsoever for DEP to take on more duties by stripping County Conservation Districts of delegated duties under the Chapter 102 and 105 programs with which Districts have considerable experience. We fear that, if administering of these permitting programs remain in DEP hands, shorthanded and inadequately trained DEP staff will not have the time or experience to conduct adequate review of plans, and permits will be approved and projects constructed that will not be protective of waters of the Commonwealth. In addition, we fear that few experienced DEP staff will be in the field to oversee the operations of gas drillers.

This process is illegal under the Clean Water Act and 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92 and 102.

Current state regulations clearly require all oil and gas activities that disturb five acres or more to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(a). In addition, the Ninth Circuit recently vacated EPA’s rulemaking exempting construction associated with oil and gas activities from NPDES permitting. NRDC v. EPA, 526 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2008). As a result of this court decision, the limitation that Section 402(l)(2) of the Clean Water Act places on NPDES permit requirements for oil and gas operations does not apply where stormwater runoff is contaminated by contact with sediment. Stormwater runoff contamination by contact with sediment will, as a matter of course, result from any and all construction activities associated with oil and gas operations. Moreover, the need for NPDES permits to control sediment contamination from stormwater runoff on oil and gas sites is applicable to both Phase I and Phase II facilities, and thus should be required for all operations 1 acre or greater. The Ninth Circuit noted that, due to contact with sediment:

the runoff generated while construction activities are occurring has potential for serious water quality impacts . . . [and] [e]ven small construction sites may have a significant negative impact on water quality in localized areas. Over a short period of time, construction sites can contribute more sediment to streams than was previously deposited over several decades.

NRDC v. EPA, 526 F.3d at 597 (citing 55 Fed. Reg. at 48033-34). Further, it noted that “EPA long recognized that oil and gas construction sites were prime candidates for NPDES permitting in light of what EPA referred to as ‘serious water quality impacts’ caused by construction stormwater discharges polluted with sediment.” Id. at 607.

Pennsylvania requires an NPDES stormwater permit for oil and gas activities that disturb five acres or more. 25 Pa. Code 102.5(a). And, in light of NRDC v. EPA, Pennsylvania should require all oil and gas operations greater than one acre to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. Accordingly, it is illegal for DEP to continue to regulate E&S and stormwater discharges from oil and gas sites using the Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit ESCGP-1. Moreover, in light of the regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Streams Law, and Chapters 102, 92, and 93, DEP cannot legally regulate E&S and stormwater through a mere “Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Control Module” to well drilling permits.

DEP’s new permitting scheme, therefore, violates state and federal law in several respects. As we have explained in our many comments on DEP’s proposed permit-by-rule for the stormwater program, a process that lacks public opportunity to comment on NPDES permit applications and does not allow enough time for meaningful agency review of stormwater and E&S plans violates the Clean Water Act. Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d, 486, 498 (2nd Cir. 2005); Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater v. EPA, 541 U.S. 1085, 124 S. Ct. 2811 (2004).

In addition, the process is illegal pursuant to Chapter 92, the state regulations governing NPDES permits. DEP’s scheme allows for general permit coverage under ESCGP-1 in High Quality (HQ) and Exceptional Value (EV) special protection watersheds. However, 25 Pa. Code §§ 92.81(a)(8), 92.83(b)(9) do not allow coverage under general NPDES permits in HQ or EV watersheds. Rather, individual permits are required.


To conclude, in taking this new direction for the stormwater and Chapters 102 and 105 programs as related to Marcellus Shale development, DEP has violated legal requirements, bypassed the public comment process, and refused to work with willing local partners to ensure that the Pennsylvania’s wealth of clean water resources are protected while natural gas development proceeds at record pace. We urge you to retract the memo dated March 18, 2009, implement the NPDES stormwater program for oil and gas activities as required by federal and state law, and continue to partner with County Conservation Districts to deliver this program.

Sincerely,

Julie Vastine
Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM)

Liz Garland
American Rivers

Matt Royer
Chesapeake Bay Foundation

James Morawski
Chester County Trail Club


Deb Smiko
Chestnut Ridge Trout Unlimited

Myron Arnowitt
Clean Water Action

Leonard Hess
Conemaugh Valley Conservancy
Kiski-Conemaugh River Basin Alliance

Tracy Carluccio
Delaware Riverkeeper Network

Deborah Goldberg
Earthjustice

Alan C. Gregory
Friends of the Nescopeck

Barry Lewis
GreenTreks Network, Inc.

John Hoekstra
Green Valleys Association


Ingrid Cantarella-Fox
Horse-Shoe Trail Club

Terry Wentz
Juniata Valley Audubon Society

Thyra Sperry
Keystone Trails Association

Michael R. Helfrich
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper

Bev Braverman
Mountain Watershed Association

David Masur
PennEnvironment

Chuck Marshall
Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund

R. Martin
Pennsylvania Forest Coalition

Deborah Nardone
Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited

Bryn Hammarstrom, RN
Pine Creek Headwaters Protection Group

John Linkes
Roaring Run Watershed Association
Kiskiminetas Watershed Association

Laura Jackson
Save Our Allegheny Ridges

Thomas Au
Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter
Peter Wray
Sierra Club Allegheny Group

Mark Fiorini
Sierra Club Kittatinny Group

Gary Thornbloom
Sierra Club Moshannon Group

Jack D. Miller
Sierra Club Otzinachson Regional Group

Pat Beaudet
Sierra Club Southeastern PA Group

Jim Nelson
Valley Forge Chapter of Trout Unlimited

Joan Jessen
Washington County Watershed Alliance

Elizabeth Berkowitz and Jennifer Borneman
Wild Asaph Outfitters

Krissy Kasserman
Youghiogheny Riverkeeper