The leaders of Chesapeake Bay region governments are holding an annual meeting today (June 3) in Baltimore with EPA officials, and I’d like to put the following three facts at the top of their agenda for discussion:
As part of a new “milestone” system designed to increase state accountability to meet Bay cleanup goals, Pennsylvania committed last year to put 473,801 acres of farmland into pollution-reducing nutrient management plans between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011. A third of the way through that period, the state had only met about 5 percent of its milestone goal, according to data from the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program.
Maryland set a milestone goal of increasing its acres of farmland planted with runoff-pollution absorbing cover crops by 280,000 acres during that same period. Later, the state reduced that goal to 145,000 acres, and still met only 19 percent of that target, according to 2009 figures from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Virginia set a milestone of fencing livestock out of streams on 89,500 acres of farmland over this period, but has met only 13 percent of that goal, according to 2009 numbers from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker revealed these facts during a press conference today at the Annapolis city dock with an alliance of environmental advocates. He explained that these are a few examples of how the Bay area states are still not meeting all of their commitments to reduce pollution.
“Even the most recent milestones, just set recently… are behind schedule,” said Baker, speaking at a podium with a sign declaring “Bay Leaders Demand Action By the States Now!”
The states must create specific action plans this year to meet a new pollution diet for the Chesapeake that is being drafted by the federal and state governments. Baker said that Congress also needs to pass legislation called the Chesapeake Clean Water Act that would put strict pollution limits into law, impose penalties on states that fail to keep their promises, and provide federal money to help with pollution reduction efforts.
“At tomorrow’s meeting (of the Bay region officials), let’s demand commitment to the milestones, to the watershed implementation plans, to the Chesapeake Clean Water Act, let’s demand a commitment to leadership,” Baker said. “There is hope. Look what’s happened to the blue crabs in the last two years.”
The coalition of Bay advocates assembled in Annapolis by former Maryland state senator Gerald Winegrad represented an impressive array of scientists, advocates and former elected officials –- some with differing viewpoints -- who came together to present a united front.
The group, called “Senior Scientists and Policy Leaders for the Bay,” presented a letter to the Bay region governors that had been signed by 56 people, including former Maryland Governors Harry Hughes and Parris Glendening, former Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources W. Tayloe Murphy Jr., authors Howard Ernst and Tom Horton, and Robert Schott, aquatic biologist supervisor at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, among many others.
The people who signed the letter urge the state governments and Washington DC to adopt several specific actions –- such as requiring all sewage treatment plants to meet strict permit limits for nitrogen -- into the watershed implementation plans being developed now to meet a new pollution budget for the Bay. For more details, read the letter below.
The signatories also agreed to this sweeping statement: “After 26 years of effort, the formal Bay Program and the restoration efforts under the voluntary, collaborative approach currently in place have not worked and current efforts are insufficient and are failing.”
The letter calls on the regional governments to transition from this collaborative approach to “a more comprehensive regulatory program that would establish mandatory, enforceable measures for meeting the nutrient, sediment, and toxic chemical reductions needed to remove all Bay waters from the Clean Water impaired waters list.”
Winegrad (pictured at left) said that the group plans to lobby the governors and make their case, using the letter as a guide.
“This is the beginning of our campaign to go to each of the Bay states, to meet with the governors, and their Bay cabinets, and to ask that the politics of postponement be ended,” Winegrad said. “The time to act is now. They (should) support the establishment of a pollution diet known as TMDLs. That must not be delayed, because we are seeing foot-dragging.”
Given the shortcomings in past state promises for Bay cleanup, such a strong call to action –- by such a diverse group of experts and advocates -- is badly needed.
The meeting of the Chesapeake Executive Council will be held tomorrow at the Living Classrooms Foundation headquarters, 802 S. Caroline Street in Baltimore. Scheduled to attend are Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell, Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty, Deputy EPA Administrator Robert Perciasepe, and Maryland state Senator Thomas “Mac” McLain Middleton, chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission.
By Tom Pelton
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the Winegrad letter that reflects the views of the 56 listed signatories:
SENIOR SCIENTISTS AND POLICY LEADERS FOR THE BAY
June 2, 2010
To Bay State Governors and the Mayor of Washington, DC:
Our group of senior Bay scientists and policy makers has unanimously concluded that after 26 years of effort, the formal Bay Program and the restoration efforts under the voluntary, collaborative approach currently in place have not worked and current efforts have been insufficient and are failing. Water quality is declining or not improving in much of the Bay and its rivers, and living resources continue to decline. An EPA Bay program analysis concluded that the Bay was severely degraded and that under current programs, it would be 2034 before the agreed upon nitrogen reduction goal was achieved and 2050 for the phosphorus goal.
Despite commitments in 2000 to do so, the states, have failed by a wide margin to meet the 2010 deadline for pollution reduction goals necessary to restore the Bay. This means that most of the Bay’s waters fail to meet basic Clean Water Act requirements precipitating the setting of TMDLs.
Because of this failure, our group urges your state and all the Bay states and the EPA to transition from the voluntary collaborative approach in place for 26 years to a more comprehensive regulatory program that would establish mandatory, enforceable measures for meeting the nutrient, sediment, and toxic chemical reductions needed to remove all Bay waters from the Clean Water Act impaired waters list. These measures should be under existing laws and regulations, as well as under new regulations or legislation that may be necessary to achieve the pollution reductions necessary for Bay restoration. These measures must be undertaken in a definitive, regulatory manner with enforceable deadlines with the certainty of penalties.
We, the more than 50 individuals signing onto this statement, include residents of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. We have unanimously concluded and recommended for your adoption the 25 action items below through your Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP). We all have concluded that your state and each Bay state needs to fully implement the 25 measures below to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Together our group represents an extraordinary assemblage of Bay leaders from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania many of whom were instrumental in initiating the Bay restoration in 1983 that led to the first Bay Agreement and the development of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. We are particularly concerned over the failure to achieve the significant and necessary reductions in nonpoint source pollution loads and meet the caps set for nutrients and sediment. We urge you to take the aggressive actions detailed below in nutrient and sediment loading from agriculture and development. These action items must be included in your WIP. Without these the Bay is doomed.
We are concerned over resistance to EPA actions to establish meaningful TMDLs by the end of this year to and to adopt Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) as scheduled to achieve these TMDLs. Clearly, enhanced regulatory measures for nutrient loading from CAFOs, AFOs, and nutrient and sediment loading from new and existing development are needed. Better controls of other nutrient and sediment flows from farms and the retrofitting of existing developed lands also are essential to remove the Bay’s waters from the Clean Water Act’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
The EPA and the Bay states have repeatedly failed by wide margins to achieve the agreed upon nutrient and sediment reductions necessary to restore the Bay, particularly from agriculture and from existing and new development. This is due to a failure to adopt the necessary measures to accomplish these reductions. While we fully support increased federal funding for direct, verifiable reductions from nonpoint sources, we are more convinced than ever that the current mostly voluntary approach to agricultural pollutants, especially animal waste, has not and will not succeed without mandatory, enforceable regulations. At best, the agricultural sector has only achieved one-half of the agreed-upon nutrient and sediment reductions after 26 years of funding enhancements. Further, pollutants flowing from developed lands are the only major pollution source that has been increasing, not decreasing, and it is clear that the states are not doing all that is necessary to control development and the resultant significant increases in impervious surfaces. There also has been a failure to retrofit existing developed areas for better stormwater control as called for in the Tributary Strategies.
The EPA’s Inspector General issued a report in September 2007 noting that impervious surfaces added over the previous five years resulted in an annual increase of one million pounds of nitrogen flowing to the Bay, impeding Bay restoration. Again in July 2008, researchers with the EPA's Inspector General Office cited several serious problems hindering the Bay's cleanup, including uncontrolled land development and the limited implementation of agricultural conservation practices. The Inspector General’s Office noted that in some cases, there are no clear regulatory programs to control these major nonpoint sources of pollution.
Therefore, we urge the you to fully support the Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (released May 12) under the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order (13508) and to exert the necessary leadership in taking the bold budgetary, regulatory, and enforcement actions detailed below that are necessary to restore the Bay.
The first actions you are urged to take are: 1) fully support the establishment of TMDLs so as to meet the current schedule for TMDLs to be finalized by the end of this year—this process is ongoing; and 2) submit a detailed Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) that includes the 25 measures detailed below to accomplish the nutrient and sediment load limits by the September 1, 2010 due date and to assure these are finalized by the end of the year. We urge you to meet these schedules and deadlines and end the politics of postponement that have crippled Bay recovery efforts.
Because of our deep concerns over the failure to achieve the significant and necessary reductions in nonpoint source pollution loads from agriculture and development, we urge you to include in your state’s WIP definitive measures that would deal with agriculture and developed lands with the following 21 mandatory measures. Without these the Bay is doomed:
NECESSARY MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL POLLUTANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN WIPS.
1) Discrete, performance-based targets for nutrient and sediment reductions from all nonpoint sources to improve water quality, including all BMPs, should be required in your WIP, and assessments of those BMPs and reduction targets should be required to be conducted by independent third-party entities to assure effectiveness and proper implementation.
2) Your state’s WIP should include requirements to implement measures, including BMPs, throughout each waterway segment in your state of the 92 designated by the EPA for the entire Bay watershed. These are necessary to achieve the nutrient and sediment TMDLs by a date certain to meet “reasonable assurance” expectations. Your state’s WIP should include detailed sanctions for any source that fails to meet the TMDL limits and two-year milestones. The primary proposed Federal punitive measure to address failure to achieve two-year milestones appears to be a further reduction in the waste load allocation for point sources. Point source controls are expected to achieve their allotted nutrient reductions by about 2012. It appears illogical and unfair to punish this sector if it meets the targeted caps while leaving nonpoint sources without any realistic and certain sanctions. It would be much more effective for the state to develop regulatory sanctions against nonpoint sources with assured enforcement.
3) Reducing nonpoint source loads from agricultural operations, including any necessary new regulations and better enforcement, should be part of your WIP. These must include readily enforceable mechanisms. The required “reasonable assurances” that your state will meet nonpoint source load limits dictate strong, verifiable measures to reduce agricultural nutrients and sediment loads. Assuring monitoring efforts at a reasonable scale for nonpoint source pollutants from agriculture is essential. The monitoring results should be available to the public. The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) needs to be publicly reported at a parcel scale.
4) Your WIP should include a significant expansion of the CAFO designation to cover all but the smallest AFOs. All agricultural lands receiving manures from any AFO should be treated as a regulated entity/activity. It is equally important that assessment and accountability of all CAFOs and all other federal and state regulated agricultural activities be increased. Current state programs do not provide adequate assurance that the CAFO permits, particularly related to land application, and other state regulations of agricultural activities are being enforced. Enforcement must be assured.
5) Your state should adopt requirements in its WIP for all land disposal of animal waste/manure that parallel Maryland’s regulations under the Maryland Department of Environment for the land disposal of human sludge from advanced wastewater treatment facilities. These requirements should include the provisions already extant for human sludge that require the incorporation of all animal waste/manure into soils within 24 hours of application on land, soil tests to assure the land is not phosphorus saturated, and that prohibit application on steep slopes, highly erodible soils, frozen ground, and in riparian buffers of up to 200 feet. See the Maryland human sludge disposal regulations at COMAR 26.04.06.09 (http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/26/26.04.06.09.htm).
6) Your WIP should require that on any agricultural lands that receive human sludge and/or animal waste/manure, cover crops should be mandatory for a minimum of one year after application. Even with the use of cover crops, sludge and animal waste/manure should be required to be injected or incorporated into soils within 24 hours of application. Further, the practice of human sludge or animal waste/manure application to fields with excessive phosphorus levels must be stopped. The WIP should require reducing phosphorus levels to agronomic requirements and soil tests before all applications of human sludge and/or animal waste/manure. These latter measures must be required to assure that phosphorus is not applied where not needed.
7) Greater accountability and verification of performance of agricultural BMPs is essential and must be required in your WIP.
8) Your WIP should mandate whole-farm water quality plans for all agricultural lands including the next generation of nutrient management, with clear targets, a reasonable implementation schedule, progress checks, and enforcement. This is critical to restoring the Bay and should be mandatory.
NECESSARY MEASURES FOR DEVELOPED LAND POLLUTANTS TO BE INCLUDED IN WIPS.
9) While reducing agricultural nutrients and sediment loadings may be the immediate challenge as farm pollutants are the greatest source of loadings and the most cost-effective to reduce, offsetting the effects of population growth and development by 100% is essential to maintaining any progress made by other sectors. Your state WIP should include measures to expand MS4 jurisdiction over more developed lands, better septic system requirements, and improved growth control measures as these are essential and your WIP should require completely offsetting growth related loads elsewhere in each watershed in your state.
10) A requirement is critically needed for no net increases in stormwater discharge rate, volume, and pollutants for all new development for a 5-year storm. Current state stormwater laws clearly do not accomplish this and your WIP should require and enforce a no net increase in rate, volume, and pollutant loads from all new development. This will require mandatory on-site containment through environmental site design.
11) Your State WIP should include improved water quality retrofit requirements for MS4 permits and for all developed lands including road construction or reconstruction, and all such MS4 permits should be required to meet the no net increase in rate, volume, and pollutants rule. For re-development, to the maximum extent practicable, no net increase in rate, volume, or pollutants should be required for a 5-year storm and offsets required where this no net increase requirement cannot be met. Your WIP must include funding mechanisms to provide reasonable assurances that such urban retrofit will be accomplished.
12) Your state’s WIP should include provisions for improved water quality through systematic urban retrofits of large areas of developed lands such as shopping centers, large industrial sites, and other large impervious surfaced areas in private ownership, with mandatory measures and timelines for such retrofits.
13) Measures to reduce or eliminate fertilizer usage on residential lawns, golf courses, and public lands should be included in your state’s WIP, including measures to prohibit phosphorus in fertilizers sold for maintenance of such properties.
14) Your WIP should ensure that all federal and state facilities and public lands in the watershed undertake stormwater retrofits to meet TMDL allocations and state 2-year milestones. The federal and state facilities and lands should follow guidance developed by EPA pursuant to Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act and Section 502 of Chesapeake Bay Executive Order (13508). All new government construction should meet a requirement for no net increase in rate, volume, or pollutants for a 5-year storm.
FOREST LAND PROTECTION AND INCREASED FORESTED BUFFERS SHOULD BE IN WIPS.
15) Your state’s WIP should require a no net loss of forest coverage in each Bay watershed of the [XXX92] waterway segments to achieve the nutrient and sediment TMDLs by a date certain to meet “reasonable assurance” expectations. Your WIP also should contain detailed measures to expand forested buffer coverage to at least 85% of all the shores of the Bay and its tributaries.
16) Your state’s WIP should target funds, such as from Maryland’s Program Open Space and Maryland’s Agricultural Preservation Foundation, for the fee simple or easement purchase of sensitive lands such as forests and wetlands on private lands and farm lands, especially those bordering the Bay and its rivers. Acquisitions should take into consideration State Wildlife Action Plans and Green Infrastructure maps that have been updated to reflect the implications of climate change and expected sea level rise.
WIPS SHOULD INCLUDE SEPTIC SYSTEM NUTRIENT REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS.
17) Your WIP must include provisions that require all new and replacement on-site waste disposal systems (OSWDS) in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to be systems that utilize the best available technology (BAT) for nitrogen removal.
18) Your state WIP should include requirements for implementation of a mandatory septic inspection program for existing systems, with a requirement for a best available technology (BAT) system for nitrogen removal in failing systems.
19) Your WIP should contain requirements to evaluate existing clusters of septic systems for connection to centralized sewage treatment that uses Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR).
AIR EMISSIONS NEED TO BE REDUCED THROUGH WIPS.
20) Your WIP should contain provisions for better control of air emissions by better regulating and enforcing emission controls from all sources in your state.
21) All new stationary sources of air emissions in your state that contribute increased nitrogen to the Bay should be offset and your WIP must include provisions for accomplishing this offset.
We now turn to point source pollutants and recommend the following measures for inclusion in your WIP:
BETTER CONTROLS NECESSARY TO REDUCE NUTRIENTS FROM WWTPS IN WIPS.
22) All Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) should be required to meet nutrient discharge limits of no more than 3.0 mg/l Nitrogen and 0.3 mg/l Phosphorus in the WIP.
23) Your state WIP should allocate WWTP pollution loads based on 2010 wastewater flows, assuming a concentration of 3.0 mg/l of nitrogen and 0.3 mg/l of phosphorus. Any increased nitrogen or phosphorus loads with flows beyond 2010 actual flow levels must be offset with equal or greater reductions from other sources.
24) Your WIP must aggressively address and fund infrastructure upgrades to prevent and treat combined sewer overflows.
25) Your WIP should adopt measures to assure that existing Clean Water Act and other water quality laws are fully enforced, including at all WWTPs.
We all firmly believe that the 25 items outlined above are essential if there is to be any reasonable assurance that the nutrient and sediment reductions necessary to restore the Chesapeake Bay will be achieved under the current planned timelines. It will never be easier or less expensive than now. We are hopeful that your state will adopt the above measures in your Watershed Implementation Plan and begin a new period where the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources are not subjected to the continuing death by a thousand cuts and are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
We believe these changes are essential to ensure the Bay’s restoration and urge you to meet the WIP and TMDL deadlines set for this year and to turn back any attempts to delay these.
We respectfully request a meeting with you and your Bay Cabinet leaders where representatives of our group could discuss our visions for Bay restoration with you and your staff. Please contact former Maryland State Senator Gerald W. Winegrad to arrange for such a meeting. Thank you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Harry R. Hughes
Former Governor of Maryland (1979-1987)
24800 Pealiquor Road
Denton, MD 21629
Wayne T. Gilchrest
U.S. Congressman (1991-2009)
13501 Turner’s Creek Road
Kennedyville, MD 21645
Senator Joseph D. Tydings, J.D.
U.S. Senator (1965-1971)
1825 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Senator Bernie Fowler
Maryland State Senator (1983-1995)
P.O. Box 459
Prince Frederick, MD 20678
Delegate C. Richard D'Amato
Former Member Maryland House of Delegates (2003-2007) VP, Synergics Wind Energy
6 East Lake Drive
Annapolis, MD 21403
Walter Boynton*, Ph.D., Professor
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
1 Williams Street
Solomons, MD 20688
Senator Brian E. Frosh
Chair, Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee
Former Chair, Senate Environment Subcommittee (1995-2003)
Miller Senate Office Building, 2 East Wing
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
William C. Dennison*, Ph.D., Vice President for Science Applications
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Horn Point Laboratory
Cambridge, MD 21613
Romuald N. Lipcius*, Ph.D., Professor of Marine Science 2009 Kavli Fellow, National Academy of Sciences, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William & Mary
1208 Greate Road
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
Russell Brinsfield, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 401
Vienna, MD 21864
Gerrit-Jan Knaap*, Ph.D. , Professor
Urban Studies and Planning
Executive Director, National Center for Smart Growth
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742
Thomas W. Simpson*, Ph.D., President and Executive Director, Water Stewardship, Inc
222 Severn Ave
Annapolis, MD 21403
Tom Horton*
Author and Adjunct Professor
Salisbury University
6633 Oak Ridge Dr
Hebron, MD 21830-1180
Brad Heavner, State Director
Environment Maryland
3121 St. Paul St. #26
Baltimore, MD 21218
Howard Ernst*, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Political Science
United States Naval Academy
Annapolis, Maryland
Frederick Tutman, Patuxent RIVERKEEPER® 18600 Queen Anne Road
Rear Barn
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
Robert J. Etgen*, J.D.
Executive Director, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
P.O. Box 169
Queenstown, MD 21658
Fred Kelly, Severn River RIVERKEEPER®
329 Riverview Trail
Annapolis, MD 21401
Ms. Cindy Schwartz, Executive Director
Maryland League of Conservation Voters
9 State Circle, Ste 202
Annapolis, MD 21401
Debra Bowman, Executive Director
Central Pennsylvania Conservancy
401 E. Louther St., Suite 308
Carlisle, PA 17013
William R. Worobec*,
Commissioner, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
240 Reservoir Road
Williamsport, PA 17701
Robert. A. Bachman*, PhD
Commissioner, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission
675 Blue Lake Road
Denver, Pa. 17517-9520
Joseph P. Hepp*, Aquatic Biologist
Department of Environmental Protection,
Southcentral Region
909 Elmerton Ave.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Michael R Helfrich
Lower Susquehanna RIVERKEEPER®
Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna, Inc.
324 W Market St
York, PA 17401 Robert Jay
Clouser, Owner of Clouser's Fly Shop.
101 Ulrich St.
Middletown, Pa.
Parris N. Glendening*
Former Governor of Maryland (1995-2003)
President Smart Growth Leadership
1707 L Street, NW Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20036
Torrey C. Brown, M.D.
Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (1983 -1995); Maryland House of Delegates (1971- 1983); Chairman, Environmental Matters Committee (1979 -1983)
The Warehouse at Camden Yards, Suite 675
323 W Camden Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Senator Gerald W. Winegrad, J.D.
Maryland State Senator (1983-1995), Delegate (1978-1983)
Adjunct Professor, UM School of Public Policy
1328 Washington Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
Senator Paul G. Pinsky
Chair, Senate Environment Subcommittee
James Senate Office Building, Room 220
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources (2002-2006); Virginia House of Delegates (1982-2000)
King Copsico Farm
Mount Holly, Virginia 22524-0218
William M. Eichbaum*, Vice President
Marine and Arctic Policy
World Wildlife Fund U.S.
(Former Assistant Secretary for Environmental Programs, MD Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene--1980 to 1987)
1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20090-7180
Robert J. Orth*, Ph.D., Professor of Marine Science
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
School of Marine Science
College of William and Mary
1208 Greate Rd
Gloucester Pt., VA 23061
Jack Greer*, Ph.D., Director
Assist. Director, Maryland Sea Grant College
UM Environmental Finance Center (1992-2004)
4321 Hartwick Road, Suite 300
College Park, MD 20740
Thomas R. Fisher*, Ph.D., Professor
University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science
Horn Point Laboratory
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
Keith D. Campbell*
2850 Quarry Lake Drive
Baltimore, Maryland 21209
Richard Pritzlaff, President
The Biophilia Foundation
61 Cornhill Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
William C. Baker*, President
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Philip Merrill Environmental Center
6 Herndon Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21403
Daniel W. Colhoun, Owner/Operator
Sportsmen Hall Farm
16301 Trenton Church Road
Upperco, Maryland 21155
Chris Trumbauer, Riverkeeper
West/Rhode RIVERKEEPER®
4800 Atwell Road, Suite 6
Shady Side, MD 20764
Tony Caligiuri, Regional Executive Director
Chesapeake Mid Atlantic Office
National Wildlife Federation
706 Giddings Avenue, Suite 2B
Annapolis, MD 21401
Diana L. Muller, South River RIVERKEEPER® South River Federation
2830 Solomons Island Rd., Suite B
Edgewater, MD 21037
Brian Chalfant*, Water Program Specialist / Aquatic Ecologist
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
400 Market Street, P.O. Box 8467
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8467
Dr. Edward Bellis*, Professor Emeritus of Biology
The Pennsylvania State University
107 Bloom Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
John E. Williams, PhD
Professor of Biology (Retired)
1385 Spring Road
Summerville, PA 15864
John C. Rossi*, President, Overview Anglers Club
(Susquehanna River)
105 Beagle Club Rd.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Ken Okorn*, Board of Directors of the Central
Pennsylvania Conservancy and Member, Cumberland Valley Trout Unlimited
12 Brandywine Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Eliza Smith Steinmeier, Executive Director
and Waterkeeper
Baltimore Harbor WATERKEEPER
4901 Springarden Drive, Suite 3A
Baltimore, MD 21209
Ned Gerber, Habitat Ecologist/Director
Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage
P. O. Box 1745
Easton, MD 21601
H.W. Weider, Convener/Director Susquehanna River Heartland Coalition for
Environmental Studies
J.R. Tolbert, Advocate
Environment Virginia
212 West 7th Street #125
Richmond, VA 23224
Russell B. Stevenson, Jr.*
Chesapeake Legal Alliance
733 Dividing Road
Severna Park, MD 21146
Erika Staaf, Clean Water Advocate
Penn Environment
1831 Murray Avenue, Suite 219
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Ted Onufrak, President
The Pennsylvania Federation of
Sportsmen’s Club
P. O. Box 21
Mingoville, PA 16856
100 N. Academy Ave.
Danville, PA 17822
Stephen Barry*
Coordinator Environmental/Outdoor Education
Anne Arundel County Public Schools
Arlington Echo Outdoor Education Center
975 Indian Landing Road
Millersville, MD 21108
Jan Jarrett, President & CEO
Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future
610 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Robert J. Schott, Aquatic Biologist Supervisor
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
909 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, PA 17110
*THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENT THE PERSONAL VIEWS OF THE SIGNATORIES MARKED WITH AN * AND NOT NECESSARILY THE VIEWS OF THEIR EMPLOYERS OR ORGANIZATIONS.
What an impressive list of signers and more importently 25 straight forward measuresable goals that would make a differance. One can only hope.....
Posted by: John Koontz | 06/03/2010 at 09:22 AM
I often ride the VRE and as i stare out the window, I look into the ditches that run along side the train tracks and ultimately run into the rivers. How about making the railroad owners clean up those ditches on a periodic bases. I'm sure that could help some. It can be gross. I see that and I say "no wonder the Potomac is so dirty." - Wendy Gilkerson
Posted by: Wendy Gilkerson | 06/06/2010 at 10:31 PM
I hope you're feeling back to nomarl soon!It's a difficult decision to decide which route to take, and some authors are doing both, which is another interesting angle. It takes time to build an audience, and that's the same whether you're traditionally or independently published. I remember reading 7-8 years ago, Don't quit your day job until you've published 6-7 novels. I didn't fully realize it at the time, but I think that was referring to building a solid base of fans that will always want your next book. One downside of being an indie author is you can obsessively check stats (not that I would do such a thing), and in the traditional world, you only see that information periodically. I hated writing queries too. Looking back, what I hated was trying to lure an agent rather than appealing to readers. But in the end, it was good practice because now I have to write book descriptions and provide info to reviewers, etc. I'm going to blog in the next few weeks about one aspect of the query letter that continues to haunt me. How's that for a teaser?
Posted by: Vinicius | 07/13/2012 at 01:42 PM