|
Providing
leadership and advocacy for the enhancement of fish and wildlife resources
for the benefit of all hunters, anglers and conservationists. Protecting our
2nd Amendment Rights SAVE Oppose HB
1657 Updated Letter from PA Council of Trout
Unlimited to Governor: Governor Edward G. Rendell 225 Main Capitol Building Dear Governor Rendell: The Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited is composed of nearly 13,000 members who are passionate about fishing for trout and clean, cold water. Because of our focus on cold water resources, we request that your Administration halt the proposal to divest about 1,600 acres of Rockview Penitentiary land in Centre County to Penn State University, Benner Township and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Spring Creek is one of the highest quality trout streams in Pennsylvania. Unlike most trout streams, Spring Creek is fed mainly from a limestone aquifer with many springs feeding into it along its length. This limestone geology is the reason why the fishery is of such high quality. Spring Creek is highlighted in national fishing magazines as one of the very top destination streams, not just in PA, but in the whole eastern United States, so it has high tourism value as well. According to a US Geological Survey study, the Spring
Creek Basin is experiencing some of the most rapid growth and development within
the Commonwealth. Rapid urbanization
has resulted in land-use changes and increased water use, which is affecting
the quantity and quality of storm water runoff, surface water, ground water,
and aquatic resources within the basin.
USGS points out that “The
ground-water-flow system is especially important in the Spring Creek Basin,
because ground water is the source of most water supplies and it sustains the
high-quality cold-water streamflow in Spring Creek[1].” Given the ongoing pollution, and the potential impacts of global warming, we are very concerned for the long-term survival of this great trout stream. Therefore, we strongly urge that this land be offered to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, for long term conservation. The PGC has offered to pay double what Penn State has agreed to pay. But what is most important to us is that the land will be treated differently if the Game Commission owns the property. Penn State has already mentioned constructing buildings, conducting production agriculture and research. All of these activities will introduce more sediment, fertilizer, pesticides and other pollutants into a stream that is already stressed. According to the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams Assessment[2], only 14% of Pennsylvania’s streams that were sampled were classified as being in good condition for fish. Over 70% were rated as fair or poor; 13% had no fish at all. Channel sedimentation and riparian habitat alteration were the major stressors. In contrast to the increased runoff of sediment and pollutants into Spring Creek which would be caused by Penn State’s planned intensive activities on this land, the Game Commission would manage the land in ways that would protect the health of the stream. The Game Commission has an excellent reputation for managing land. Many fine wild trout streams flow through Game Lands and they can be trusted to manage their land for the benefit of wildlife and fish. The Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited is a member of the Spring Creek Canyon Alliance and strongly supports the Alliance’s goal of having this land transferred to an entity that can be trusted to manage and hold land for the benefit of all our citizens. Reforesting the uplands as recommended by the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy will help protect this extraordinary trout fishery so that future generations can experience the thrill of catching wild brown trout within a 10 minute drive of a large population center. Having a quality fishery close to a large population center facilitates our ability to introduce young anglers to fishing. We owe it to them to do all we can to preserve this resource for future generations. Sincerely, Ken Undercoffer, President PA Council of Trout Unlimited cc Senator
Jake Corman, 34th District Representative
Kerry Benninghoff, 171st District 209
South Allegheny Street, Suite B Representative
Scott Conklin, 77th District 301
South Allen Street, Suite 102 Representative
Mike Hanna, 76th District Milesburg,
PA 16866 ……………………. TO: House State Government Committee RE: Comments On House Bill 1657 (Hanna) Greetings, For the reasons given below, I strongly
oppose House Bill 1657 (Hanna), which would transfer the Rockview
lands to Penn State and Benner Township. And I support the transfer of the
lands to an entity such as DCNR, the PA Game Commission, or a nature
conservancy, with the charge of managing these lands in a natural condition,
open for public enjoyment, in perpetuity. I. Governance
a)
The current legislation should be rejected on basic democratic principles.
This is public land, owned by the citizenry, but the divestment plan was
created in secrecy, without public input. At the public meeting announcing
divestiture, many citizens objected to the plan, but were told that the
future ownership of the land was not in question, that the issue had been
decided. Many of us found this shocking. As citizens, we should rebuff such
attempts at peremptory, autocratic governance, and require open, democratic
processes when making such important decisions. b) Rep. Hanna said that the
transfer of the land must occur first, then a conservation easement would be
negotiated later. This would be unacceptable in any private real estate
transaction, and raises further questions of governance and transparency. c) The overwhelming majority of
the citizens in this area are opposed to the transfer of the land to Penn
State and Benner Township, and support management for protection of natural
resources and public enjoyment. This is true not just of members of
conservation groups, but people from all walks of life and political
persuasions. This is clear simply from talking to a wide variety of local
people. The Centre County Commissioners recently voted to oppose the
legislation, further confirming this community’s broad consensus. If this
legislation was put up for a referendum, it would be defeated by a very wide
margin. Our representatives have the responsibility to respect the public’s
wishes. II. Spring Creek Conservation
A. Importance of Spring Creek 1) Spring Creek flows through
these lands, and conservation of these lands is very important for
maintaining the integrity of this amazing trout stream. Spring Creek is a
trout stream of unusually high quality due to its geologic characteristics,
i.e. its limestone aquifer which provides a more stable and fertile supply of
groundwater than on the great majority of trout streams. Spring Creek
currently has the highest wild trout population in PA. Few streams in the
whole eastern United States are comparable. 2) Spring Creek not only
provides great trout fishing recreation for the people of Centre County, but
for visitors from all over PA and beyond. Anglers from Pittsburgh annually
charter a bus and drive 3 hours to fish here, because there are no streams of
similar quality in western PA. Many anglers travel from OH, NJ, NY, MD, VA
and the New England states, and even from as far as Canada, just to fish
Spring Creek. This angling tourism benefits local businesses, including bed
and breakfasts, motels, tackle shops, restaurants, and guides. Both the
Centre County and the Bellefonte tourism information centers recognize the
importance of angling tourism, and feature Spring Creek in their promotions. 3) High quality trout streams
and trout fishing are an important part of the heritage of central PA and are
defining characteristics of the region. Just as Vermont has its maple syrup,
we have our trout streams. Spring Creek was a famous trout stream even in the
1800s. In many families in the region the trout angling tradition extends
back for generations, and many households have vintage tackle and old fishing
photos preserving these memories. We should make conservation of this
extraordinary stream a high priority, so that the stream and the fishing it
provides have a future, and not just a past. 4) With some care, the quality of
the Spring Creek can be maintained and it can continue to be a great asset to
our region. But trout streams can be severely degraded if they are neglected.
Many PA streams have already been degraded, making the remaining productive
streams all the more precious. B. Spring Creek Canyon,
Proposed Benner Township Ownership 1) Benner Township, like most
townships in PA, does not have a large budget and does not have natural
resource specialists. Everyone agrees that Spring Creek and The Canyon are
important, fragile resources, so it would be irresponsible to convey those
resources to an entity that does not have the capabilities to manage them
properly. It is unrealistic to expect any township to manage such a complex
natural environment. This is not the typical role of township governments. 2) The current township leaders
have promised that their goal is protect the natural resources. But as the
leadership changes in the future, attitudes can also change. If the Canyon is
owned by Benner Township, its future management will depend on the vagaries
of township politics. 3) In the future, township
preferences may shift towards a landscape of groomed grass lawns, with
extensive parking lots, sports facilities etc. within the floodplain of the
stream. Township lands along streams in PA are typically managed in this way,
not for the purpose of maintaining the natural integrity of stream/floodplain
systems. C. Uplands Flanking Spring
Creek Canyon, Proposed Penn State Agriculture Research Ownership 1) These uplands are directly
adjacent to Spring Creek Canyon. Intensive agriculture produces runoff of
insecticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and fine sediment (soil) and
these harmful materials would drain into Spring Creek. 2) There has been talk of a buffer
strip along the edge of the canyon, but such a “thin green line” would not
prevent polluted runoff from entering the stream. These uplands are
thoroughly dissected by swales and intermittent tributaries that drain
directly to Spring Creek. 3) These agriculture research
lands would include not just tilled fields, but also research buildings. Penn
State has acknowledged this. But just how many buildings there might be in
the future, no one knows, or has revealed to the public. Modern
agriculture uses many technologies, so agricultural research could include a
very wide range of activities. An ethanol research facility could be
considered agricultural research. So could a food processing plant. So could
a hydroponics facility. So could Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). They might decide to move Ag Progress Days from
Rock Springs to this more accessible location. So limiting uses to “agricultural research” would create no
truly meaningful limitations on uses of these lands. Penn State has said that
they will not sell the land to developers, but there would be little
limitation on their own development
activities. 4) The construction of
buildings, parking lots, access roads, and utilities would create soil
disturbances that would deliver more sediment to Spring Creek. 5) Stormwater
management is a very important consideration in stream conservation. This is
well established and is being incorporated into planning here in Centre
County, as well as nationally and internationally. The negative effects of
increased stormwater runoff are well documented.
Increased stormwater runoff causes an enlargement
of stream channels, creating wider channels, resulting in much shallower
water, with far inferior holding habitat for fish. The widening of the
channels increases solar warming of the water, which is detrimental to trout,
since they require cool water temperatures. As stormwater runoff increases,
recharge of groundwater through infiltration decreases. This decreased
groundwater recharge lowers water tables and results in lower quantities of
spring water flowing into streams. Naturally vegetated land has the lowest rate of runoff and the
highest rate of groundwater recharge. Farmed land has a higher rate of stormwater runoff than naturally vegetated land. And the
impervious surfaces of buildings, roads and parking lots have a still higher
rate of stormwater runoff. 6) There are no technical fixes
that can eliminate these harmful effects. Use of “best management practices” can
reduce these effects only to a limited degree. These lands are adjacent to
Spring Creek Canyon and if you farm them and construct buildings, water
pollution and stormwater runoff will be far higher
than if the land was naturally vegetated. There are no technologies that can
make farmed and developed lands a match for naturally vegetated lands in
supplying a stable, clean supply of water to a stream.
|
