July 2011 Environmental Synopsis

8/6/2019 July 2011 Environmental Synopsis

1/8

A Legislative Service Agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

The Chairmans CornerRep. Scott E. Hutchinson, Chairman

(continued on page

July 2011

Vol. 12, No. 7

Published

Monthly

CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

ENVIRONMENTALSYNOPSIS

In This IssueThe Chairmans Corner..................................p. 1

Notes From the Director ................ ...............p. 2

Research Briefs ..........................................p. 3-6

The Importance of Conservation in

Reducing Water UsageWays to Reduce Oil Consumption andGreenhouse GasesThe Greening of North Americas CitiesGuiding Nutrient Discharge LimitsOn The Horizon .............................................p. 7

Committee Chronicles ..................................p. 7

Following up on last months article, I am pleased to an-nounce that the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Controland Conservation Committee (Committee) has released thelatestReport of the Legislative Forestry Task Force (task force),this one pursuant to House Resolution 429 of 2009. The reportcontains the results of the research, findings and recommenda-

tions of the task force, of which I am a member and chairman,and its 14-member Advisory Committee over the past two-yearlegislative session.

As noted last month, the task force was first established by resolution in 1994 and has continued its work ever since, either througha continuing series of resolutions or at the behest of the advisorycommittee and the task forces own members. The task force offeradvice to the Pennsylvania General Assembly on forest managemenand a number of its recommendations have resulted in either newlaws, regulations or best management practices designed to sustainPennsylvania forestry.

The task forces role is important because Pennsylvania forestscover some 17 million acres, not only providing jobs, but also providing environmental benefits, recreational and tourism opportunities,abundant mineral resources, and habitat for animals and plants. Theforest products industry employs more than 60,000 Pennsylvanians more than 2,200 forest product companies, which run the gamut frosawmills to fine cabinet-making shops.

The task force took up five priority issues in the 2009-2010 legislative session. Theare:

the impacts of forest buffer zones in Pennsylvania;

the role of state forests in carbon sequestration;

the development of the Marcellus Shale gas reserve and its impact on Pennsylvnias state forests;

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) proposed Boiler MaximumAchievable Control Technology standards; and


2/8

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P. 2

CRAIG D. BROOKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

___________________________________________________

The Biomass Research and DevelopmentInitiative is a joint effort of the

U.S. departments of Agriculture and Energy

___________________________________________________

NOTES FROM THE DIRECTORT

he U.S. Department of Agriculture and theDepartment of Energy are working togetherto support the Biomass Research and Devel-

opment Initiative (BRDI) which funds research and de-velopment in advanced biofuels, bioenergy and high-value biobased projects. The BRDI program will fund$30 million over three to four years that will supportresearch and development of alternative renewablefuels and environ-mentally sustainable

sources of renewablebiomass.This funding is in

addition to the exist-ing Bioenergy Pro-gram for AdvancedBiofuels (BPAB). The program, established under the2008 Farm Bill, provides production-based paymentsfor eligible advanced biofuels producers. Earlier thisyear USDA announced that more than 120 advancedbiofuel producers in 33 states had been awarded pay-ments under the program.

Funding for BPAB in 2012 is expected to increase.According to USDAs 2012 budget proposal, themandatory funding level for the program in 2012 is$105 million. The respective funding levels for 2010and 2011 were set at $55 million and $85 million. Thisincluded awards and payments for:

biofuel derived from cellulose, hemicellulosesor lignin;

biofuel derived from sugar or starch (other thancorn kernel starch);

biofuel derived from waste material, includingcrop residue and other vegetative waste material);

biogas, including landfill gas and sewagewaste treatment gas; and

butanol or other alcohols produced throughthe conversion of organic matter from renewable bio-mass.

For fiscal year 2011 and 2012, applicants for BRDfunding must propose projects that integrate scienceand engineering research in the following three technical areas that are critical to the broader success ofalternative biofuels production:

feedstock development and activities thatimprove biomass feedstock and their supply, includ-ing harvest, transport pre-processing and storage

necessary to producebiofuels and biobased

products;

biofuels andbiobased productsdevelopment that willsupport cost-effective

technologies to increase the use of cellulosic biomasin the production of biofuels and/or biobased prod-ucts; and

biofuels development analysis that will develanalytic tools that improve the sustainability, environmental quality, cost effectiveness, security and ruraleconomic development of renewable biomass tech-nology.

Subject to appropriation, USDA plans to invest upto $25 million with DOE contributing $5 million for thyears BRDI. This funding is expected to support fivto 10 projects over the next three to four years. Morinformation about the programs is available at:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/.


3/8ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P. 3

RESEARCH BRIEFSEach month, the committees staff

researches and prepares a number of briefs on

several topics relevant to the Joint Conservation

Committees mission.

Very often, these briefs include references to reports

and further research on the topics so that readers

may pursue issues on their own.

Please Note: The information and opinions expressed in the Research Brief articles do not necessarily represent theopinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the

Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Decline in Colorado River

Water Usage Tied to Rise in

Conservation-- Tony M. Guerrieri, Research Analyst

W

ater conservation efforts in the SouthwesternUnited States over the past two decades

appear to be paying off, according to a reportby the Pacific Institute. The report, Municipal Deliveriesof Colorado River Basin Water, highlights how municipali-ties are using less water per capita than they were 20 yearsago, likely a measure of increased efficiency and conserva-tion.

The report documents changes in population and waterdeliveries for 100 municipal and regional water authoritiesin the seven southwest states and northern Mexico thatdeliver and use water from the Colorado River and its majortributaries. It examines not only deliveries of surface waterdiverted from the Colorado River (including water exported

from the basin) but use of groundwater pumped fromwithin the river basin.

The Colorado River carries approximately 15 millionacre-feet (MAF) of water a year, with large fluctuations.An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover oneacre of land to a depth of one foot. The Colorado Riverserves as the main water supply in the Southwestern U.S.Water taken from the basin now meets some or all of theneeds of people living both within and outside of the actualbasin. In fact, about 70 percent of the people that receivewater from the basin live outside the basin in cities such asCheyenne, Denver, and Albuquerque to the east and Salt

Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana to the westof the basin.

Municipal water deliveries which include deliveries tohomes and businesses, but do not include deliveries to ag-riculture, energy production, or mining entities compriseabout 15 percent of total Colorado River use (agriculturaluses account for 70 percent of basin water usage). Moreo-ver, the report notes that at least 40 percent of the waterauthorities draw from the river returns as treated wastewater. But, the report suggests, as the fastest-growing

segment of water use, municipal deliveries drive demandfrom additional water supplies and place pressure on ariver system that is over-allocated and facing a supply-demand imbalance.

According to the report, the number of people in theSouthwest U.S. and Mexico who depend on Colorado Rivbasin water has increased by more than 10 million peoplefrom 1990 to 2008, to a total of almost 35 million. Much

of this increase occurred in fast-growing cities within thebasin such as Las Vegas and Phoenix. Some cities, especially in Arizona and Utah, have more than tripled in sizesince 1990.

___________________________________________

Increased efficiency and conservation

are given much of the credit for less pe

capita water use than 20 years ago

___________________________________________

Total water deliveries by the 100 municipal and regionwater authorities increased from about 6.1 MAF in 1990to about 6.7 MAF in 2008. The volume of Colorado Riverbasin water deliveries by these authorities also increasedby about 600,000 acre-feet over this period, from 2.8 MAto 3.4 MAF, rising from 46 percent to 51 percent of totaldeliveries.

According to the report, almost every one of the mu-nicipal and regional water authorities experienced declinein per capita deliveries from 1990 to 2008. SouthernCalifornia regional water authorities delivered four percenless water in 2008 than they had in 1990, despite deliver-

ing water to almost 3.6 million more people. Twenty-eighwater authorities in five different states experienced thispattern of reduced water deliveries in the face of growingpopulation, although in varying degrees. Per capita waterdelivery rates declined dramatically in Albuquerque (34 pecent); southern Nevada (31 percent); Phoenix (30 percentand San Diego County (29 percent).

Such declines are also a national trend. Cities acrossthe U.S. have gotten more efficient and are using less water than in 1975. This is a significant achievement, demo



strating that water demand can be successfully delinkedfrom growth, the report states.

Although several factors have contributed to the dropin per capita consumption, the report concludes thatchanges to federal and state water conservation standardshave played a key role.

The Pacific Institute is a nonpartisan water-resourcepolicy group based in Oakland, California. The report,

Municipal Deliveries of Colorado River Basin Water, isavailable at: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/co_river_mu-nicipal_deliveries/crb_water.pdf .

Report Says Transportation

Law Offers Way to Reduce Oil

Use, Greenhouse Gases-- Craig D. Brooks, Executive Director

Areport by the Pew Foundation says that policy-

makers could achieve mandated greenhousegas emission reductions and reduce oil con-

sumption from the transportation sector through a com-bination of existing policies and targeted changes in thefederal surface transportation act signed in May 2011. Thereport, Saving Oil and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions through U.S. Federal Transportation Policy, includeseight legislative proposals aimed at curbing fossil fuelconsumption and climate-warming emissions, including afederal excise tax on fuel.

The report analyzes greenhouse gas emission reduc-tion opportunities in current law and includes recommen-

dations for legislative changes that could be addressedwith the Federal Surface Transportation Authorization andthe Highway Trust Fund. It also highlights existing trans-portation laws and programs that could be used to reducegreenhouse gases and energy use.

The report notes that transportation strategies for re-ducing greenhouse gas emissions can be grouped into fiveareas: promoting energy-efficient vehicles; increasing theuse of low-carbon fuels; reducing vehicle miles traveled;improving transportation system efficiency; and reducingemissions from construction, maintenance and other activi-

ties of transportation agency operations.Specifically, the report outlines the following legisla-

tive proposals that could help reduce oil consumption andgreenhouse gas emissions from transportation:

change the structure of the federal excise tax onfuel to ensure sufficient revenue and provide incentives foroil savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions;

enable and provide incentives for state and localgovernments to expand transportation pricing;

fund a major performance-based program to en-

courage innovations in transportation planning that save oand reduce greenhouse gas emissions;

provide significant funding, incentives and insti-tutional support to dramatically increase carpooling andvanpooling;

establish national, state and/or metropolitan oilsavings or greenhouse gas emission targets and a procesand technical assistance to meet them;

fund coordination between transportation and lanuse planning; establish incentives or requirements for state and

local governments to expedite the transition to energy-efficient vehicles and low-carbon fuels; and

establish a research and data collection program save oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

From a transportation perspective, the report suggestthat the U.S. Department of Transportation needs to betteevaluate the effectiveness of existing programs, focus discretionary awards more on greenhouse gas reduction andoil savings and clarify that federal funding eligibility critercan include greenhouse gas reductions.

Transportation agencies also need to partner with theelectric power sector to promote and plan for a shift toplug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, the report say

More information is available at http://www.pewcli-mate.org/publications/federal-surface-transportation-authrization.

San Francisco: The Greenest

City in North America-- Tony M. Guerrieri, Research Analyst

San Francisco, the City by the Bay, is the green-est city in North America, according to a reportcommissioned by Siemens Corporation and

conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The reporUS and Canada Green City Index, assesses and com-pares 27 major U.S. and Canadian cities on environmentaperformance and policies across nine categories carbonemissions (CO2), energy usage, land use, green buildingspublic transportation, water use, waste management, airquality and environmental governance.

Within the nine categories are 31 individual indicators 16 of which are quantitative (such as CO2 emissions,electricity consumption, prevalence of public transportatiand levels of air pollutants) and 15 qualitative assessmenof cities environmental policies, aspirations and ambition(such as a city s commitment to consuming energy pro-duced from green and local sources, the extent to whichit promotes the usage of public transportation, and thestringency of its environmental strategy).

With a rating of 83.8 out of a possible 100, San Fran-


5/8

Learn More at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.u

To learn more about the JoinLegislative Air and Water PollutioControl and Conservation Committee, simply pay a visit to our website

Website visitors will find information such as thEnvironmental Issues Forums schedule; the Envronmental Synopsismonthly newsletter; Committemembers; current events; Committee reports; stafcontact information; Committee history and missionand links to other helpful sites.

The website address is http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us

Stop by the website often to keep up with Committeinformation and events. We hope you enjoy it.


Dont forget to Visit Our Website

cisco ranked first overall in the report due to an impressiveperformance across the board, with a top five ranking insix of the nine categories. San Franciscos strongest areais waste, where it led the pack with efforts such as beingthe first U.S. city to mandate composting and recycling forresidents, food establishments and events in 2009.

The city also claimed second place in buildings, trans-portation and air, bolstered by strong green building andenergy efficiency building standards, the second longestpublic transportation network, and low levels of all pollut-ants measured in the report.

____________________________________________

Two Pennsylvania cities are included in

the green cities report:

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh

____________________________________________

New York (79.2), Seattle (79.1), Denver (73.5) and Bos-ton (72.6) rounded out the top five U.S. cities, according tothe report. The least green are the Midwestern cities ofCleveland (39.7), St. Louis (35.1) and Detroit (28.4).

The American cities that scored well tend to be fairlywealthy and thus able to afford new projects. However,when wealth was taken into account, the report indicatesthat five Canadian cities, including Vancouver (second over-

all) and Toronto (ninth), outperform their U.S. counterparts.

The report broke down the rankings by the nine catego-ries. The top three in each category are:

CO2: Vancouver (91.4), Miami (90.1) and New York

(89.4);

Energy: Denver (86.0), Boston (82.4) and San Fran-cisco (81.1);

Land Use: New York (93.0), Minneapolis (80.1) andOttawa (75.0);

Building: Seattle (98.2), San Francisco (85.6) andWashington, D.C. (79.3);

Public Transportation: New York (76.6), San Fran-

cisco (67.0) and Vancouver (66.6);

Water: Calgary (94.1), Boston (91.8) and New York(88.8);

Waste: San Francisco (100), Seattle (83.1) and LosAngeles (81.9);

Air: Vancouver (95.1), San Francisco (91.9) and NewYork (89.2);

Environmental Governance: Denver, New York anWashington (tied with 100 each).

The report also includes in-depth city portraits thatreveal the strengths and weaknesses of each urban centewhile also highlighting initiatives and projects from whichother cities can learn.

Two Pennsylvania cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh,are included in the report. Philadelphia ranks 13th overal

with 66.7 points. Its best rankings are in the categories oenvironmental governance, where it places fifth, and airquality, at sixth.

Philadelphias weakest ranking is in the water categorat 23rd, largely because it has one of the highest leakagerates, according to the report.

Pittsburgh ranks 23rd overall in the report with 56.6points. The report notes that although the city is in thelower half of the rankings for most categories, it has somnotable strengths it can build on.

In the buildings category, for example, largely throughrobust policies on Leadership in Energy and Environment

Design (LEED) certification, Pittsburgh achieves its highecategory rank, fourth. Public transit supply is also relativestrong, as are the citys efforts on recycling.

The 27 cities selected were chosen to represent anumber of the most populous metropolitan areas in theUnited States and Canada.

Siemens has developed green city indices for EuropeLatin America, and Asia. This was the companys first foNorth America.

The report, U.S. and Canada Green City Index, isavailable at: http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-06-northamerican/northamerican-gci-report-e.pdf.


6/8

Want To Go E-Synopsis?You can receive the Environmental Synopsiselectronically if you dont want to wait for the

mail to be delivered or you want to save paper.If readers would like to change the method in which they receive the Synopsisfrom mailed

hard copy to an e-mailed version, please contact Geoff MacLaughlin at 717-787-7570, or by e-mail at [email protected] requesting to be removed from the mailing list andadded to the e-mail list. Remember to provide your e-mail address.

Readers are also reminded that the Synopsisis available on the committee website eachmonth after the Synopsisprinting. The website address is http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us.


Printed on

Recycled

Paper

EPA Guidance to Assist States,

Regions in Setting Nutrient

Discharge Limits-- Craig D. Brooks, Executive Director

T

he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) isdeveloping guidance to help state and regionalpermitting authorities develop water quality-

based pollutant discharge limits and permit conditions toreduce nutrients from municipal and industrial wastewatertreatment facilities. The guidance, expected to be final inMay 2012, will build on a recommended framework formanaging nutrients. The framework recommends thatstates prioritize watersheds for nutrient reductions andthat targeted priority sub-watersheds be identified withinmajor watersheds for nutrient and phosphorus reductions.The guidance recommends establishing numeric goals forloading reductions for each priority sub-watershed.

One aspect of the framework is to ensure the effective-

ness of point source permits in these targeted priority sub-watersheds for municipal and industrial wastewater treat-ment facilities that contribute to significant nitrogen andphosphorus loadings. The guidance being developed byEPA will help state and regional permitting authorities withthe framework. The framework recommends that statesestablish a work plan and phased schedule for developingnutrient criteria for various classes of waters.

____________________________________________

State and regional permitting authorities

could get help from the EPA in developing

water-quality based pollutant discharge

limits and permit conditions to reducenutrients from municipal and industrial

wastewater treatment facilities

____________________________________

According to EPA, clarifications are needed for devel-oping water quality-based effluent limitations for nitrogenand phosphorus. There are few national technology-basedstandards for nutrients for industrial dischargers and no

national technology standards for nutrients for publicallyowned treatment facilities. Consequently, effluent limi-tations for nutrients in permitting rely on case-by-casetechnology-based limitations, individual state treatmentrequirements or implementation of water quality standardthrough water quality-based effluent limitations.

The guidance is expected to address how to developwater quality-based effluent limitations for nutrients. Fac

tors could include concentrations versus mass limits, anappropriate average period, seasonal limits, mixing zonesand critical flow conditions. Some of the questions thatEPA may address in the guidance are:

What alternatives exist when permit limits are solow that they cannot be reliably achieved by current tech-nology?

What is the importance of data collection and moeling when dealing with nutrient pollution?

How can water quality trading and watershed-based permitting be a useful tool in addressing nutrientpollution?

According to EPA, the process for determining theneed for, and where necessary, calculating water qualityeffluent limitations for nutrients, present unique issues thare not fully addressed by the existing guidance containein EPAs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemPermit Writers Manual and in technical support documenfor water quality-based toxics controls.

These issues lack numeric criteria for nutrients in statwater quality standards and permitting procedures thatusually focus on fast-acting, toxic pollutants rather thanpollutants such as nutrients, which typically have much

different reaction times and often long-term effects. Somstates have developed treatment standards that gener-ally apply a uniform requirement to point sources within acertain category, such as publically-owned treatment facities, or within a particular watershed. However, accordingto EPA, few permitting authorities have developed nutri-ent standard permitting procedures for developing waterquality-based effluent limitations for nutrients that addresthe unique issues presented by these particular pollutants


7/8

COMMITTEECHRONICLES . . A REVIEW OF SOME

MEMORABLE COMMITTEE

EVENTS


ON THEHORIZON . . . A LOOK AT UPCOMING EVENTS Thursday, August 18, 2011, 9 a.m., Borough Council Chamber Room, Hamburg

Municipal Center, 61 N. Third Street, Hamburg, PA Public Hearing on mandatory wastecollection.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 10 a.m., Room G-50, K. Leroy Irvis Building, CapitolComplex, Harrisburg, PA Follow-up public hearing on mandatory waste collection.

Check the Committee website at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us for events that may be added to the schedule

On June 13th, the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution, Control and Conservation Committee (Committeeheld the most recent of its Environmental Issues Forums, this one focusing on electric vehicle charging stations.

The audience heard from U-Go Stations of Philadelphia, a company working with Oak Energy Partners, andinvolved in the development of an electric vehicle public charging station infra-structure. The companys plan is that as electric vehicles increase in number,vehicle owners will be able to plug-in and charge their vehicles at stationslocated at prime, public locations.

Picturedat right, isan exampleof one ofthe modelsof charg-ing stationsavailable.

Atleft, is thecompanyspanel of speakers at the forum (left to right):U-Go Counsel Sharif Street, Managing PartneDavid J. Soens, and company Partner MickeyMcLaughlin.



CJC

oint LegislativeAir and WaterPollution Control and

onservation

ommittee

How toContact

The JointConservation

Committee

Phone:717-787-7570Fax:717-772-3836

Location:Rm. 408, Finance Bldg.

Internet Website:

http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us

Mail:Joint Conservation CommitteePA House of RepresentativesP.O. Box 202254Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

the role and utilization of woody biomass in alternative energy production.

The task force conducted five meetings, listening to presentations from anumber of experts on the above issues. After discussion and deliberation, the taskforce and the advisory committee developed a number of recommendations to ad-dress each of the issues above.

A list of the presenters and summaries of the issues, the presentations and the

discussions about each issue are contained in the report. The report also lists therecommendations of the task force in regard to each issue. Some recommenda-tions are aimed at state and federal agencies, laws and regulations, and others atforestland owners, educational institutions and private organizations.

Also included in the report is a summary of a 2009 public hearing held by theCommittee in collaboration with the task force on green building certification stan-dards. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the impact of cer-tification systems, like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)standards, on the timber industry.

____________________________________________________________________

To read or download the latest Report of the Legislative Forestry

Task Force, visit the Committees website at

http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us

____________________________________________________________________

I mentioned it last month, but it bears repeating that the task force will be takingup a new set of issues in this legislative session, as set forth in House Resolution309. The resolution has been reported out of the House Environmental Resourcesand Energy Committee and is awaiting action on the House floor when the Housereconvenes in September.

HR 309 enumerates five new task force topics:

the impact of cash flow and working capital shortages on forest productcompanies and future forestry activities;

the impacts of Marcellus shale drilling-related road postings, both state andlocal, on forest product companies;

the policies for and training of individuals engaged in gas-related land clear-ing on Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) lands,focusing on the benefits of having land clearing operators for the Marcellusindustry held to the training standard mandated for loggers;

the impacts of declining state support for forestry and forest products-relat-

ed research; and

the current and future impacts of invasive forest pests on Pennsylvaniasforests.

The Legislative Forestry Task Force is an important part of the Committee, andplays an important role in the growth and nurturing of sustainable forestry and theforest products industry in Pennsylvania. I urge readers interested in the future ofPennsylvania forests and the forest products industry to read the task force reportand its recommendations.

Documents

July 2011 Environmental Synopsis