Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Joins in Filing Petition for Dedelegation of MD NPDES Program

This morning, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Michael Helfrich joined the other 11 Waterkeepers Chesapeake of Maryland in an action to have Maryland Department of Environment's NPDES pollution and permitting program reviewed by EPA for compliance with the Clean Water Act.

The 12 Waterkeeper programs in Maryland have worked for years to have our concerns addressed by MDE. The response from MDE has been either denial of the department's shortcomings, or blame of the state legislature for lack of funding. Neither of these positions excuses the department from their legal obligations under the Clean Water Act. It is our goal in this filing to bring MDE's NPDES program into compliance, thus improving our chances of success during these fresh federal efforts to bring the Chesapeake Bay back to a healthy state. An EPA review of the program should outline the need for appropriate funding of the program by the state of Maryland, as well as some systemic problems that could be improved without additional funding.

In effect, we are asking for an audit of a program that has not been evaluated in 20 years. Statements by the EPA Administrator lead myself and other Waterkeepers to believe that this is the appropriate time for such an audit. In a recent interview with The Times-Picayune, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said, “Many of these state programs are 20, 30 years old, and we might even need to hit the reset button and say, ‘OK, we're going to hold you to a standard. If you're doing your job, great, but if you're not, we're going to be here going inside until you are’”.

“It's EPA's job to oversee,” Jackson continued. “We often say we’re partners, but we’re also delegating our authority to a state, and of course, ultimately that means your ultimate answer would be to take it back,” she said, indicating the EPA’s willingness in extreme situations to revoke a state’s authority to administer federal pollution laws.

Conowingo Sediment, Conowingo Dam Relicensing and Sediment Task Force

We continue to work through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing. We have made our comments to the federal government that Exelon is responsible for the artificial storage of sediments and pollutants, and they should be held responsible for studies to address the buildup of materials AND the threat of a repeat of the “catastrophic pulse” that nearly killed the Chesapeake Bay in 1972.

On October 29, scientists and agency staff from the Army Corps of Engineers, Susquehanna River Basin Commission, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PA Department of Environmental Protection, MD Department of the Environment, PA Fish and Boat Commission, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Research Consortium met to discuss potential next steps for federal involvement. The meeting also included two representatives of conservation groups, the Nature Conservancy and myself. In addition, Exelon Corporation, whose Conowingo Dam project area retains most of the sediment of concern, had their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License relicensing team in attendance (5 to 6 members present).

Outcomes of Meeting:

1. The group that met voted to recommend these three broad study topics for further focus:

• Evaluate basin-wide (Susquehanna) sediment transport (SIAM model) and management from all sediment sources including: land, channel, and legacy sediments.
• Evaluate costs, benefits, and feasibility of many alternatives, plus environmental impacts (innovative reuse, dredging, watershed options, sand bypassing, resource recovery).
• Study impact of storm events and the effect on grain size, and timing and magnitude of scour events and impacts.

2. Questions (needs) put forth by Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper

• Economic analysis of losses to the Chesapeake Bay and communities upon a repeat of the Tropical Storm Agnes scouring of Conowingo Dam.
• Cost of 100% applications of Best Management Practices to reduce contribution of sediment and nutrient loads from the Susquehanna watershed.
• How much sediment needs to be removed to reduce catastrophic pulse damage, and to increase trapping capacity at Conowingo Dam?
• Expert review of SRBC Pub 239, sediment characteristic and toxicity review.
• Will upriver BMPs meet our needs? (Part of answer is that it will take 50 years after 100% BMP implementation to stop input.)

Riverkeeper Air Patrol

This weekend we had our first Riverkeeper Air Patrol. Many thanks to Tim Drager and his sons who took me on patrol around northern Lancaster. Tim is a pilot with LightHawk, a non-profit group of pilots that supplies free flight time for environmental watchdogs. I took over an hour of video of agricultural operations, construction sites, power plants, and wonderful views of our Susquehanna. We even got to see the top side of a soaring bald eagle, though I couldn’t get it on video. But we got a lot of good footage, and new knowledge regarding facility operations, and runoff flow patterns in the limestone geology of Lancaster. Stay tuned for video releases and future flight reports.

Updating www.LowerSusquehannaRiverkeeper.org

Next week we will be updating many of the Current Issues pages on our website. Please check back over the holidays for important updates.

Thanks for another incredible year, and have a wonderful holiday season.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion