The Most Important Day of the Year for Conservation Issues

Today, Election Day, is probably the most important day of the year for anyone concerned about conservation issues. Today is the day that each of us who are registered to vote have the ability to join together to shape the future debate on matters such as Smart Growth, protection of fisheries, endangered species preservation, and whether gas drillers should have to pay a tax on the volume of natural gas they produce (like they do in every state except Pennsylvania).

I think Election Day is pretty darn exciting. Aren't each of us somewhat honored when our peers ask for us our opinion about something (other than when telemarketers are doing surveys)? I love having the opportunity twice a year to go into a voting booth and cast my ballot for issues I think are important and for candidates who I think will champion the issues that I feel are important. 

Today is the day that each of us has the opportunity to go to the polls and vote for the candidate or candidates who are best aligned with our conservation ideals. How many people do you know who care deeply about environmental issues but fail to show up at the polls for every election? The percentages turnout of of registered voters vary by community around the country. In my municipality, it tends to range between 12-14%. Pretty poor.

I spent about an hour and a half this morning handing out campaign literature to voters arriving at a local polling station. I was hearing reports that turnout appeared to be pretty good (as of mid-morning) compared with recent general election years. The weather started out cold, but by midday now, it's party sunny and in the low 50's. So that could help boost turnout. It's sad that people in other countries would kill or die for the right to vote, and some of our own neighbors won't go vote if the weather seems inconvenient.

But I saw something this morning at the polling place that still has me scratching my head. Within 5 minutes of each other, I saw two cars pull in, each with a man and a woman. In both cases, the gentleman got out of the car and went inside to vote. Both women remained in their respective cars. One of them appeared to be doing her nails. The other one was reading a newspaper. These two women were 40 feet away from the door of the polling place, and they did not get out of the car and walk inside to vote. I don't get it.

It can be very time consuming and potentially frustrating to attend municipal and county commissioner meetings  a couple times a month to keep an eye on our elected officials and share our opinions with them. But two times a year, once in the spring and once in the fall, when we have the opportunity, the privilege, to cast our vote, why on earth would we not do so? Many folks complain that both major political parties have been taken over by extremists. That just means it's time for the average person to get out there to modulate who is getting elected to office. It's most crucial in local elections, because the local level is where the decisions are made that impact our daily lives. 

There are just under 7 hours remaining today to vote. If you have not done so yet, please get up, walk, bike, or drive to your polling place, and cast your vote. Because today is the day that your opinion matters the most.

Why Smart Growth is a Conservation Issue

Some readers who have heard the term Smart Growth might recall that the term somehow has something to do with zoning or deciding whether to build a new strip mall or similar sedentary activities.  And they might think, 'Why should I care about a new Walmart?  I just want to fish, or watch birds, or (fill in your favorite outdoor activity here).'

Stream Hugger has always been about interpreting conservation issues in a way that is relatable to the general public.  I hope this particular post will explain how certain land use decisions, even in already developed areas, can affect the environment in surrounding undeveloped areas.

Smart Growth is a land use principle that can be summed up in two words:  common sense. Instead of allowing unchecked sprawl in the hope of future prosperity and publicly funding infrastructure with no regard for its long-term costs, we need to call a time out.  Take a deep breath.  Get it through our heads that we are not in a big, imaginary race against the neighboring municipality to get built-out before they do so that we can get our share of the riches that developers always promise.  The ruse that we have to allow property owners to do what they want with their hundred-acre parcels in the name of "property rights" and "stimulating the economy" is hogwash, because every other property owner in that community has a right to not have their properties adversely affected by poorly vetted and illogical new development.

From the Smart Growth America website, "Smart growth means building urban, suburban and rural communities with housing and transportation choices near jobs, shops and schools. This approach supports local economies and protects the environment." Let's focus on how Smart Growth can protect the environment.

This big-box store has way more parking spaces than it needs,
which needlessly creates more stormwater runoff than it should.

Projects that are approved and built under Smart Growth principles tend to require less pavement than traditional projects. So more of the precipitation that falls on a parcel can soak into the soil to recharge groundwater rather than running off to a municipal stormwater system. For commercial developments, Smart Growth can mean requiring a realistic number of parking spaces rather than a cookbook number of parking spaces based soley on square-footage of the buildings. This reduction in parking space, as well as allowing new types of permeable paving options and encouraging green roofs, can result in significant decreases in stormwater runoff compared with traditional big-box development practices.

Smart Growth, however, is not just about what we build. It’s also about where we build.  Smart Growth encourages building more densely in already developed areas – building where the people already are. If we encourage development in areas in or near where people are already working, going to school, shopping, and playing, we can minimize the footprint of new development.  Concentrating the growth near existing uses helps to keep surrounding open spaces open so that they can continue to absorb and filter stormwater runoff as nature intended.

A recently published study showed that even modest increases in development density can significantly reduce water quality problems associated with development. The study, from the Chesapeake Bay watershed, found that when development was concentrated it required about half as much impervious surface as sparsely developed land and resulted in 43% less polluting runoff stormwater runoff.

By focusing development on already-developed areas we are also preserving wildlife habitat. Habitat loss is the main threat to 80% of the threatened and endangered species in the U.S. Focusing growth within an existing community, rather than outside of town on a greenfield, helps preserve wildlife habitat, protects water quality and avoids the costs associated with dispersed infrastructure.

Studies have found that smart growth development helps bird species flourish, with more birds and a greater diversity of species in smart growth areas than areas with dispersed development. Protecting open space, parks and farmland means strengthening existing communities, attracting businesses, and avoiding the costs associated with supporting dispersed infrastructure. Communities with well-maintained neighborhood parks and extensive park systems have been shown to consistently attract and retain businesses.

Smart growth offers aesthetic and economic advantages for our communities. And it can protect wildlife habitat and water quality in the undeveloped areas that we rely on for rest and relaxation. We need to demand that our municipal officials get on board with Smart Growth principles.

Does a Riparian Buffer Belong in a City Park?

Allentown’s Morning Call recently published an Op-Ed piece written by local blogger Michael Molovinsky, who has a passion for preserving historic structures in the city’s renowned Lehigh Parkway. Lehigh Parkway was the beneficiary of a number of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects during the 1930s, with various massive stone bridges, fountains, walls, and stairs remaining in various states of repair.  So there are plenty of historic structures in Lehigh Parkway for residents to take pride in and care for.  In my mind though, the most prominent feature of Lehigh Parkway is the Little Lehigh Creek, which the Parkway follows for about three miles through the city.

Little Lehigh Creek in Lehigh Parkway
(photo credit:  wikipedia.org)

In his Op-Ed, Molovinsky blasted a riparian buffer restoration project planned for Lehigh Parkway and denigrated the efforts of the Wildlands Conservancy, a local non-profit engaged in ecosystem restoration and preservation.  Wildlands obtained the necessary permits and outside funding to replant riparian buffers along the Little Lehigh in the Parkway. Volunteers from the Little Lehigh Chapter of Trout Unlimited, of which I am a member, will assist with replanting the buffers.

Molovinsky implied that Wildlands is a special interest group trying to hijack Lehigh Parkway for riparian buffer experiments that would compromise the public’s view of and access to the creek. He said that the function of a riparian buffer is to filter fertilizer from rain runoff and from entering the creek and lamented that current streamside buffers are nothing more than strips of weeds that block the view of and access to the creek.  This is a shortsighted accusation, however, because riparian buffer restorations have been proven to improve the health of streams.  A healthy riparian buffer of 50 feet or greater would typically include various native plants, shrubs, and trees. They would absorb stormwater runoff to mitigate flooding, shade the summer sun to keep the spring-fed waters cool, and provide habitat for various insect species that will be a food source for both fish and birds.  A properly restored riparian buffer would indeed be aesthetically pleasing rather than the weedy eyesore envisioned by Molovinsky.

Dog in Lehigh Parkway. Most, but not all, dog owners

clean up after their pooches.

(photo credit:  http://www.delawareandlehigh.org)

The neatly mowed stream banks that Molovinsky idealizes allow sediment and pollutants, including geese and dog feces, unchecked access to the Little Lehigh, which is a drinking water source for the city of Allentown and some of the surrounding areas west of the city.  A drinking water source for well over 140,000 people, and Molovinsky is worried about a riparian buffer impairing the view of the creek?

With designated pathways mowed through the riparian buffers, the public could still access the stream, the buffers could still perform their intended functions, and the diverse ecosystem that thrives in a healthy riparian buffer could re-establish itself.  A healthy riparian buffer begets a healthy stream.

In addition to his Op-Ed stand against riparian buffer restoration, Molovinsky's blog also trashed a related effort by Wildlands Conservancy to remove two dams in Lehigh Parkway. Wildlands had obtained the necessary permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), the state body in charge of dams, to remove these two dams. They had the green light from the city’s parks department to remove these dams, which cause the water to slow down and sediment to build up behind them.  But at the 11^th hour, Molovinsky tried to block removal of one of the dams, located just 18 feet downstream from the WPA-built Robin Hood Bridge, claiming without basis that removal would cause stream-bed scour that would undermine the bridge and cause it to wash out. Just days ago, however, following a public hearing by city council, Allentown’s mayor gave his approval for the dam removals after it became clear that Wildlands had done the proper engineering due diligence to rule out any adverse effects on the Robin Hood bridge from removal of the adjacent dam.  More obsolete dams have been removed in Pennsylvania than in any other state.  Why would PADEP have approved the dam removal if the effects on any nearby structures had not been properly evaluated?

Come on, Michael.  Environmental folks and history buffs need to work together to protect special places from the effects of over-development and urbanization.  We should not be at odds unnecessarily over things like removing detrimental dams and planting protective riparian buffers.

Joggers in Lehigh Parkway (photo credit: Express Times)

Nostalgia is tricky.  It can cause us to myopically yearn for a distant, simpler, and more picturesque time.  But 21^st century scientists and anglers recognize that riparian buffers and dam removals are the key to the health of any stream.  In environmental science, just as in medical science, we are fortunate to have advanced far beyond common practices of the mid-1900s.