July 2011 Vol. 12, No.

7 Published Monthly

The Chairmans Corner

Rep. Scott E. Hutchinson, Chairman

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS

Following up on last months article, I am pleased to announce that the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee (Committee) has released the latest Report of the Legislative Forestry Task Force (task force), this one pursuant to House Resolution 429 of 2009. The report contains the results of the research, findings and recommendations of the task force, of which I am a member and chairman, and its 14-member Advisory Committee over the past two-year legislative session. As noted last month, the task force was first established by resolution in 1994 and has continued its work ever since, either through a continuing series of resolutions or at the behest of the advisory The Chairmans Corner..................................p. 1 committee and the task forces own members. The task force offers advice to the Pennsylvania General Assembly on forest management, Notes From the Director ...............................p. 2 and a number of its recommendations have resulted in either new Research Briefs ..........................................p. 3-6 laws, regulations or best management practices designed to sustain The Importance of Conservation in Pennsylvania forestry. Reducing Water Usage The task forces role is important because Pennsylvania forests Ways to Reduce Oil Consumption and cover some 17 million acres, not only providing jobs, but also providGreenhouse Gases The Greening of North Americas Cities ing environmental benefits, recreational and tourism opportunities, Guiding Nutrient Discharge Limits abundant mineral resources, and habitat for animals and plants. The On The Horizon .............................................p. 7 forest products industry employs more than 60,000 Pennsylvanians in more than 2,200 forest product companies, which run the gamut from Committee Chronicles ..................................p. 7 sawmills to fine cabinet-making shops. The task force took up five priority issues in the 2009-2010 legislative session. They are:

In This Issue

the impacts of forest buffer zones in Pennsylvania; the role of state forests in carbon sequestration;

J C C

Air and Water Pollution Control and onservation ommittee

oint Legislative

the development of the Marcellus Shale gas reserve and its impact on Pennsylvanias state forests; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) proposed Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards; and
(continued on page 8)

A Legislative Service Agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly

NOTES FROM THE DIRECTOR

CRAIG D. BROOKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR For fiscal year 2011 and 2012, applicants for BRDI he U.S. Department of Agriculture and the funding must propose projects that integrate science Department of Energy are working together and engineering research in the following three techto support the Biomass Research and Develnical areas that are critical to the broader success of opment Initiative (BRDI) which funds research and dealternative biofuels production: velopment in advanced biofuels, bioenergy and highvalue biobased projects. The BRDI program will fund feedstock development and activities that $30 million over three to four years that will support improve biomass feedstock and their supply, includresearch and development of alternative renewable ing harvest, transport pre-processing and storage fuels and environnecessary to produce mentally sustainable ___________________________________________________ biofuels and biobased sources of renewable products; The Biomass Research and Development biomass. Initiative is a joint effort of the This funding is in biofuels and U.S. departments of Agriculture and Energy addition to the existbiobased products ___________________________________________________ ing Bioenergy Prodevelopment that will gram for Advanced support cost-effective Biofuels (BPAB). The program, established under the technologies to increase the use of cellulosic biomass 2008 Farm Bill, provides production-based payments in the production of biofuels and/or biobased prodfor eligible advanced biofuels producers. Earlier this ucts; and year USDA announced that more than 120 advanced biofuel producers in 33 states had been awarded pay biofuels development analysis that will develop ments under the program. analytic tools that improve the sustainability, environFunding for BPAB in 2012 is expected to increase. mental quality, cost effectiveness, security and rural According to USDAs 2012 budget proposal, the economic development of renewable biomass techmandatory funding level for the program in 2012 is nology. $105 million. The respective funding levels for 2010 and 2011 were set at $55 million and $85 million. This Subject to appropriation, USDA plans to invest up included awards and payments for: to $25 million with DOE contributing $5 million for this years BRDI. This funding is expected to support five biofuel derived from cellulose, hemicelluloses to 10 projects over the next three to four years. More or lignin; information about the programs is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/. biofuel derived from sugar or starch (other than corn kernel starch); biofuel derived from waste material, including crop residue and other vegetative waste material); biogas, including landfill gas and sewage waste treatment gas; and butanol or other alcohols produced through the conversion of organic matter from renewable biomass.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 2 .

RESEARCH BRIEFS
Decline in Colorado River Water Usage Tied to Rise in Conservation
-- Tony M. Guerrieri, Research Analyst
ater conservation efforts in the Southwestern United States over the past two decades appear to be paying off, according to a report by the Pacific Institute. The report, Municipal Deliveries of Colorado River Basin Water, highlights how municipalities are using less water per capita than they were 20 years ago, likely a measure of increased efficiency and conservation. The report documents changes in population and water deliveries for 100 municipal and regional water authorities in the seven southwest states and northern Mexico that deliver and use water from the Colorado River and its major tributaries. It examines not only deliveries of surface water diverted from the Colorado River (including water exported from the basin) but use of groundwater pumped from within the river basin. The Colorado River carries approximately 15 million acre-feet (MAF) of water a year, with large fluctuations. An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot. The Colorado River serves as the main water supply in the Southwestern U.S. Water taken from the basin now meets some or all of the needs of people living both within and outside of the actual basin. In fact, about 70 percent of the people that receive water from the basin live outside the basin in cities such as Cheyenne, Denver, and Albuquerque to the east and Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana to the west of the basin. Municipal water deliveries which include deliveries to homes and businesses, but do not include deliveries to agriculture, energy production, or mining entities comprise about 15 percent of total Colorado River use (agricultural uses account for 70 percent of basin water usage). Moreover, the report notes that at least 40 percent of the water authorities draw from the river returns as treated waste water. But, the report suggests, as the fastest-growing

Each 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 the opinions or positions of the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, nor those of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
segment of water use, municipal deliveries drive demands from additional water supplies and place pressure on a river system that is over-allocated and facing a supplydemand imbalance. According to the report, the number of people in the Southwest U.S. and Mexico who depend on Colorado River basin water has increased by more than 10 million people from 1990 to 2008, to a total of almost 35 million. Much of this increase occurred in fast-growing cities within the basin such as Las Vegas and Phoenix. Some cities, especially in Arizona and Utah, have more than tripled in size since 1990.

____________________________________________ Increased efficiency and conservation are given much of the credit for less per capita water use than 20 years ago ____________________________________________
Total water deliveries by the 100 municipal and regional water authorities increased from about 6.1 MAF in 1990 to about 6.7 MAF in 2008. The volume of Colorado River basin water deliveries by these authorities also increased by about 600,000 acre-feet over this period, from 2.8 MAF to 3.4 MAF, rising from 46 percent to 51 percent of total deliveries. According to the report, almost every one of the municipal and regional water authorities experienced declines in per capita deliveries from 1990 to 2008. Southern California regional water authorities delivered four percent less water in 2008 than they had in 1990, despite delivering water to almost 3.6 million more people. Twenty-eight water authorities in five different states experienced this pattern of reduced water deliveries in the face of growing population, although in varying degrees. Per capita water delivery rates declined dramatically in Albuquerque (34 percent); southern Nevada (31 percent); Phoenix (30 percent); and San Diego County (29 percent). Such declines are also a national trend. Cities across the U.S. have gotten more efficient and are using less water than in 1975. This is a significant achievement, demon-

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 3 .

strating that water demand can be successfully delinked from growth, the report states. Although several factors have contributed to the drop in per capita consumption, the report concludes that changes to federal and state water conservation standards have played a key role. The Pacific Institute is a nonpartisan water-resource policy group based in Oakland, California. The report, Municipal Deliveries of Colorado River Basin Water, is available at: http://www.pacinst.org/reports/co_river_municipal_deliveries/crb_water.pdf.

Report Says Transportation Law Offers Way to Reduce Oil Use, Greenhouse Gases
report by the Pew Foundation says that policymakers could achieve mandated greenhouse gas emission reductions and reduce oil consumption from the transportation sector through a combination of existing policies and targeted changes in the federal surface transportation act signed in May 2011. The report, Saving Oil and Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through U.S. Federal Transportation Policy, includes eight legislative proposals aimed at curbing fossil fuel consumption and climate-warming emissions, including a federal excise tax on fuel. The report analyzes greenhouse gas emission reduction opportunities in current law and includes recommendations for legislative changes that could be addressed with the Federal Surface Transportation Authorization and the Highway Trust Fund. It also highlights existing transportation laws and programs that could be used to reduce greenhouse gases and energy use. The report notes that transportation strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be grouped into five areas: promoting energy-efficient vehicles; increasing the use of low-carbon fuels; reducing vehicle miles traveled; improving transportation system efficiency; and reducing emissions from construction, maintenance and other activities of transportation agency operations. Specifically, the report outlines the following legislative proposals that could help reduce oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from transportation: change the structure of the federal excise tax on fuel to ensure sufficient revenue and provide incentives for oil savings and greenhouse gas emissions reductions; enable and provide incentives for state and local governments to expand transportation pricing; fund a major performance-based program to en-

courage innovations in transportation planning that save oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; provide significant funding, incentives and institutional support to dramatically increase carpooling and vanpooling; establish national, state and/or metropolitan oil savings or greenhouse gas emission targets and a process and technical assistance to meet them; fund coordination between transportation and landuse planning; establish incentives or requirements for state and local governments to expedite the transition to energyefficient vehicles and low-carbon fuels; and establish a research and data collection program to save oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. From a transportation perspective, the report suggests that the U.S. Department of Transportation needs to better evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs, focus discretionary awards more on greenhouse gas reduction and oil savings and clarify that federal funding eligibility criteria can include greenhouse gas reductions. Transportation agencies also need to partner with the electric power sector to promote and plan for a shift to plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, the report says. More information is available at http://www.pewclimate.org/publications/federal-surface-transportation-authorization.

-- Craig D. Brooks, Executive Director

San Francisco: The Greenest City in North America

an Francisco, the City by the Bay, is the greenest city in North America, according to a report commissioned by Siemens Corporation and conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The report, US and Canada Green City Index, assesses and compares 27 major U.S. and Canadian cities on environmental performance and policies across nine categories carbon emissions (CO2), energy usage, land use, green buildings, public transportation, water use, waste management, air quality 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 transportation and levels of air pollutants) and 15 qualitative assessments of cities environmental policies, aspirations and ambitions (such as a citys commitment to consuming energy produced from green and local sources, the extent to which it promotes the usage of public transportation, and the stringency of its environmental strategy). With a rating of 83.8 out of a possible 100, San Fran-

-- Tony M. Guerrieri, Research Analyst

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 4 .

cisco ranked first overall in the report due to an impressive performance across the board, with a top five ranking in six of the nine categories. San Franciscos strongest area is waste, where it led the pack with efforts such as being the first U.S. city to mandate composting and recycling for residents, food establishments and events in 2009. The city also claimed second place in buildings, transportation and air, bolstered by strong green building and energy efficiency building standards, the second longest public transportation network, and low levels of all pollutants measured in the report.

Environmental Governance: Denver, New York and Washington (tied with 100 each). The report also includes in-depth city portraits that reveal the strengths and weaknesses of each urban center, while also highlighting initiatives and projects from which other cities can learn. Two Pennsylvania cities, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, are included in the report. Philadelphia ranks 13th overall with 66.7 points. Its best rankings are in the categories of environmental governance, where it places fifth, and air quality, at sixth. Philadelphias weakest ranking is in the water category, at 23rd, largely because it has one of the highest leakage rates, according to the report. Pittsburgh ranks 23rd overall in the report with 56.6 points. The report notes that although the city is in the lower half of the rankings for most categories, it has some notable strengths it can build on. In the buildings category, for example, largely through robust policies on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, Pittsburgh achieves its highest category rank, fourth. Public transit supply is also relatively strong, as are the citys efforts on recycling. The 27 cities selected were chosen to represent a number of the most populous metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada. Siemens has developed green city indices for Europe, Latin America, and Asia. This was the companys first for North America. The report, U.S. and Canada Green City Index, is available at: http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/ events/2011/corporate/2011-06-northamerican/northamerican-gci-report-e.pdf.

____________________________________________ Two Pennsylvania cities are included in the green cities report: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh ____________________________________________
New York (79.2), Seattle (79.1), Denver (73.5) and Boston (72.6) rounded out the top five U.S. cities, according to the report. The least green are the Midwestern cities of Cleveland (39.7), St. Louis (35.1) and Detroit (28.4). The American cities that scored well tend to be fairly wealthy and thus able to afford new projects. However, when wealth was taken into account, the report indicates that five Canadian cities, including Vancouver (second overall) and Toronto (ninth), outperform their U.S. counterparts. The report broke down the rankings by the nine categories. 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 Francisco (81.1); Land Use: New York (93.0), Minneapolis (80.1) and Ottawa (75.0); Building: Seattle (98.2), San Francisco (85.6) and Washington, D.C. (79.3); Public Transportation: New York (76.6), San Francisco (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 Los Angeles (81.9); Air: Vancouver (95.1), San Francisco (91.9) and New York (89.2);

Dont forget to Visit Our Website

Learn More at http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us
To learn more about the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, simply pay a visit to our website. Website visitors will find information such as the Environmental Issues Forums schedule; the Environmental Synopsis monthly newsletter; Committee members; current events; Committee reports; staff contact information; Committee history and mission; and links to other helpful sites. The website address is http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us. Stop by the website often to keep up with Committee information and events. We hope you enjoy it.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 5 .

EPA Guidance to Assist States, Regions in Setting Nutrient Discharge Limits

he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing guidance to help state and regional permitting authorities develop water qualitybased pollutant discharge limits and permit conditions to reduce nutrients from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. The guidance, expected to be final in May 2012, will build on a recommended framework for managing nutrients. The framework recommends that states prioritize watersheds for nutrient reductions and that targeted priority sub-watersheds be identified within major watersheds for nutrient and phosphorus reductions. The guidance recommends establishing numeric goals for loading reductions for each priority sub-watershed. One aspect of the framework is to ensure the effectiveness of point source permits in these targeted priority subwatersheds for municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities that contribute to significant nitrogen and phosphorus loadings. The guidance being developed by EPA will help state and regional permitting authorities with the framework. The framework recommends that states establish a work plan and phased schedule for developing nutrient criteria for various classes of waters.

-- Craig D. Brooks, Executive Director

national technology standards for nutrients for publically owned treatment facilities. Consequently, effluent limitations for nutrients in permitting rely on case-by-case technology-based limitations, individual state treatment requirements or implementation of water quality standards through water quality-based effluent limitations. The guidance is expected to address how to develop water quality-based effluent limitations for nutrients. Factors could include concentrations versus mass limits, an appropriate average period, seasonal limits, mixing zones and critical flow conditions. Some of the questions that EPA may address in the guidance are: What alternatives exist when permit limits are so low that they cannot be reliably achieved by current technology? What is the importance of data collection and modeling when dealing with nutrient pollution? How can water quality trading and watershedbased permitting be a useful tool in addressing nutrient pollution? According to EPA, the process for determining the need for, and where necessary, calculating water quality effluent limitations for nutrients, present unique issues that are not fully addressed by the existing guidance contained in EPAs National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Writers Manual and in technical support documents for water quality-based toxics controls. These issues lack numeric criteria for nutrients in state water quality standards and permitting procedures that usually focus on fast-acting, toxic pollutants rather than pollutants such as nutrients, which typically have much different reaction times and often long-term effects. Some states have developed treatment standards that generally apply a uniform requirement to point sources within a certain category, such as publically-owned treatment facilities, or within a particular watershed. However, according to EPA, few permitting authorities have developed nutrient standard permitting procedures for developing water quality-based effluent limitations for nutrients that address the unique issues presented by these particular pollutants.

____________________________________________ State and regional permitting authorities could get help from the EPA in developing water-quality based pollutant discharge limits and permit conditions to reduce nutrients from municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities ____________________________________

According to EPA, clarifications are needed for developing water quality-based effluent limitations for nitrogen and phosphorus. There are few national technology-based standards for nutrients for industrial dischargers and no

Want To Go E-Synopsis?
You can receive the Environmental Synopsis electronically 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 Synopsis from mailed hard copy to an e-mailed version, please contact Geoff MacLaughlin at 717-787-7570, or by email at gmaclaughlin@jcc.legis.state.pa.us requesting to be removed from the mailing list and added to the e-mail list. Remember to provide your e-mail address. Readers are also reminded that the Synopsis is available on the committee website each month after the Synopsis printing. The website address is http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us.

Printed on Recycled Paper

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 6 .

 Thursday, August 18, 2011, 9 a.m., Borough Council Chamber Room, Hamburg Municipal Center, 61 N. Third Street, Hamburg, PA Public Hearing on mandatory waste collection. Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 10 a.m., Room G-50, K. Leroy Irvis Building, Capitol Complex, 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 THE HORIZON . . .
A REVIEW OF SOME MEMORABLE COMMITTEE EVENTS

A LOOK AT UPCOMING EVENTS

On June 13th, the Joint Legislative Air and Water Pollution, Control and Conservation Committee (Committee) held 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, and involved in the development of an electric vehicle public charging station infrastructure. The companys plan is that as electric vehicles increase in number, vehicle owners will be able to plug-in and charge their vehicles at stations located at prime, public locations. Pictured at right, is an example of one of the models of charging stations available.

COMMITTEE CHRONICLES . . .
At left, is the companys panel of speakers at the forum (left to right): U-Go Counsel Sharif Street, Managing Partner David J. Soens, and company Partner Mickey McLaughlin.

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 7 .

the role and utilization of woody biomass in alternative energy production. The task force conducted five meetings, listening to presentations from a number of experts on the above issues. After discussion and deliberation, the task force and the advisory committee developed a number of recommendations to address 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 the recommendations of the task force in regard to each issue. Some recommendations are aimed at state and federal agencies, laws and regulations, and others at forestland owners, educational institutions and private organizations. Also included in the report is a summary of a 2009 public hearing held by the Committee in collaboration with the task force on green building certification standards. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the impact of certification 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 taking up a new set of issues in this legislative session, as set forth in House Resolution 309. The resolution has been reported out of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee and is awaiting action on the House floor when the House reconvenes in September. HR 309 enumerates five new task force topics: the impact of cash flow and working capital shortages on forest product companies and future forestry activities; the impacts of Marcellus shale drilling-related road postings, both state and local, on forest product companies; the policies for and training of individuals engaged in gas-related land clearing on Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) lands, focusing on the benefits of having land clearing operators for the Marcellus industry held to the training standard mandated for loggers; the impacts of declining state support for forestry and forest products-related research; and the current and future impacts of invasive forest pests on Pennsylvanias forests. The Legislative Forestry Task Force is an important part of the Committee, and plays an important role in the growth and nurturing of sustainable forestry and the forest products industry in Pennsylvania. I urge readers interested in the future of Pennsylvania forests and the forest products industry to read the task force report and its recommendations.

How to Contact The Joint Conservation Committee

Phone: 717-787-7570 Fax: 717-772-3836 Location: Rm. 408, Finance Bldg. Internet Website: http://jcc.legis.state.pa.us Mail: Joint Conservation Committee PA House of Representatives P.O. Box 202254 Harrisburg, PA 17120-2254

ENVIRONMENTAL SYNOPSIS / JULY 2011 / P 8 .

J C C

Air and Water Pollution Control and onservation ommittee

oint Legislative