Closing Pennsylvania's Pollution-Reduction Gap

---

Closing Pennsylvania’s Pollution-Reduction Gap Investing for Performance: “The 3 Ps” The Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams are a national treasure draining parts or all of six states and the District of Columbia. Its 64,000-square-mile watershed is home to more than 17 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. The birthplace of our nation, the Bay has a long history and legendary beauty. But that beauty has been marred. Much of the Bay system is fouled by nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution. All of us who live here suffer the consequences of pollution. Fish advisories, algal blooms, and warnings to stay out of the water after heavy rains are dramatic reminders that all is not right. Throughout the region, citizens, businesses, and governments recognize the problem, understand the solutions, and are committed to changing the status quo. In fact, since 1983 the region has tried to reverse the downward trend. While there has been real progress, the Bay is far from saved. The good news is that in 2010 Washington D.C., the six Bay states, and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint, a precedent-setting cooperative effort to restore the nation’s most productive estuary. The Blueprint includes nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution-reduction goals for each of the seven jurisdictions, state-written watershed implementation plans (WIPs) to achieve those limits, and two-year milestones to track progress toward long-term goals. EPA and the jurisdictions agreed to have practices in place by 2017 to achieve 60 percent of the pollution reduction and by 2025 to achieve 100 percent. In June of this year, EPA evaluated progress toward achieving the 2017 mid-point goals and found that while progress has been made, overall, the multi-state region is not on track to achieve its nitrogen pollution reduction targets. In particular, Pennsylvania is significantly off track, responsible for roughly 86 percent of the current nitrogen pollution reduction gap. This shortfall, largely due to slow implementation of plans to reduce agricultural pollution, threatens to undermine the entire restoration effort.

A Plan to Get Pennsylvania on Track Pennsylvanians rightly take great pride in their state’s natural resources, including its 86,000 miles of rivers and streams. Chief among them and running through the heart of Pennsylvania is the mighty Susquehanna, which, alone, provides 50 percent of the Bay’s fresh water and about the same amount of the pollution degrading the Bay proper. The river and the rest of the Commonwealth’s waterways are a source of drinking water; an economic engine; and places to paddle, fish, or swim. However, roughly 19,000 miles of rivers and streams in Pennsylvania are formally listed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection as impaired. Pollution from agricultural activities is identified as the leading source of stream impairment. The Commonwealth’s slow progress toward its Clean Water Blueprint commitments also threatens these local waterways and the communities they support. Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s administration recognized the problem and committed to a “reboot” of Pennsylvania’s efforts to reduce pollution. A key component of the reboot is enhanced compliance with state regulations governing manure management and sediment and erosion control on farms, with 10 percent of farms inspected annually.

“If Pennsylvania does not succeed, we’re not going to succeed. It’s as simple as that.” —Nick DiPasquale Director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office

The task seems daunting, with more than 33,600 farms in the Pennsylvania portion of the Bay watershed. And to date, although the Commonwealth has begun implementation of the “reboot” strategy, there have been no meaningful increases in funding to put practices on the ground, compounded by concerns and resistance from a few conservation districts tasked with on-farm inspections.

Investing for Performance: “The 3 Ps” In March, the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences and other partners hosted the Pennsylvania in the Balance conference in Hershey. More than 120 diverse stakeholders attended the event, where leaders in agriculture and the environment discussed solutions that could help increase a culture of conservation, including compliance; achieve water-quality goals for Pennsylvania’s rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay; and ensure profitable and productive agriculture. One of the conference’s conclusions was that limited resources should be used wisely and consider “the 3 Ps”— place, practices, and people. The conference also highlighted the need for additional investment of public and private funding. The “3 P” approach would ensure strategic use of funds to achieve the greatest nutrient and sediment reductions to benefit both local water quality and the Chesapeake Bay.

PLACE Building on the “3 Ps” prioritizing concept, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation used existing modeling tools—the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Chesapeake Assessment Scenario Tool (CAST)1 and the U.S. Geological Survey surface water-quality modeling tool known as SPARROW2—to identify the Pennsylvania counties where investments can be most wisely prioritized to achieve the greatest pollution-reduction return.

1 casttool.org 2 cida.usgs.gov/sparrow/map.jsp?model=54

2

C L O S I N G P E N N S Y LVA N I A’ S P O L L U T I O N - R E D U C T I O N G A P

C H E S A P E A K E B A Y F O U N D A T I O N | C B F. O R G

CBF used CAST to estimate county-level nitrogen loads and potential reductions from agriculture if Pennsylvania’s 2025 plan were fully implemented. SPARROW was used to evaluate counties and watersheds that deliver the largest amounts of nitrogen from agriculture on a per-acre basis. CBF used SPARROW in a way that allowed us to assess contributions of nitrogen to the Bay generated by agriculture within a particular area. Although nitrogen was chosen as the parameter for examination in this analysis, it is important to note that excess phosphorus and sediment also pollute the Chesapeake Bay and significantly degrade Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams. In fact, according to the Commonwealth’s Department of Environmental Protections, sediment is the leading cause of stream impairment in Pennsylvania. Fortunately, many agricultural conservation practices reduce all three pollutants. Of the 42 Pennsylvania counties within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, CBF identified five that contribute the highest loads of pollution from agriculture and also represent substantial opportunities for pollution reductions.

PENNSYLVANIA

Ag Pollution in the Susquehanna Basin: Challenges and Opportunities

TOP 5 4 1 3 5 2

TIER ONE

Rank

County

2025 Ag Nitrogen Reduction Goal (millions of pounds/year)

Nitrogen Pollution from Ag** (millions of pounds/year)

Miles of Waterways Impaired by Ag

Acres in Ag

Key Points ◼ Annual value of agricultural commodities produced in Lancaster County exceeds that of the state of Delaware and is 65% of the value in Maryland

1

Lancaster

6.17

13.71

647

385,306

◼ Home to much of the states Amish population, which is second in size only to Ohio ◼ More farms than any other county in Pennsylvania, with over 5,600 and an average size of 78 acres ◼ More than 250,000 acres in agriculture, or roughly 45% of the county

2

York

2.89

6.54

166

221,910

◼ Ranks 17th in NRCS 2009–15 PA Bay expenditures ◼ More than 2,000 farms averaging about 120 acres in size ◼ Ranks fourth in the state in overall cash receipts for crops

TIER TWO

3

Franklin*

2.02

3.96

260

240,184

◼ Roughly 53% of the county's land use is in agriculture, most of which is cropland ◼ Second only to Lancaster County in the number of acres in agriculture ◼ Ranks fourth in the state for the number of cows and calves

4

Cumberland

1.68

3.76

102

138,777

◼ Ranks 22nd in NRCS 2009–15 PA Bay expenditures ◼ Fastest growing county in Pennsylvania ◼ Ranks first in Pennsylvania in the production of fruits, tree nuts, and berries

5

Adams*

1.36

2.72

238

138,521

◼ Ranks first in the number of horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys ◼ About 30% of the county's nearly 1,200 farms are less than 50 acres in size

*Some water in these counties flows to the Potomac River. **Source: Chesapeake Bay Program CAST model

(Chart attached and available at cbf.org/PAtop5)

Drilling down further, our analysis demonstrates that focused investment in the five key counties—Lancaster, York, Franklin, Cumberland, and Adams—could dramatically accelerate efforts to get Pennsylvania back on track to meet the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint in the near term. For decades, many of these counties’ governments, farmers, and businesses have been leaders in the planning and implementation of preservation, conservation, and restoration efforts. This is particularly true in Lancaster County. 

3

C L O S I N G P E N N S Y LVA N I A’ S P O L L U T I O N - R E D U C T I O N G A P

C H E S A P E A K E B A Y F O U N D A T I O N | C B F. O R G

These five priority counties together include 20 percent of the Commonwealth’s farms, 34 percent of total agricultural product sales, and 40 percent of livestock product sales, according to the 2012 Census of Agriculture.3 They also contribute more than 30 million pounds per year of nitrogen pollution from agriculture to Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams, nearly half of the Commonwealth’s entire annual load of 63 million pounds. CBF’s analysis of agency data indicates that if the five priority counties met their 2025 Blueprint pollution-reduction commitments, the Commonwealth would achieve roughly a 14.1 million pound nitrogen reduction. That reduction would represent more than half of the entire state’s 2025 nitrogen-reduction goal. Fast action in these counties would also help the Commonwealth make significant progress against its most immediate challenge, the projected 2017 nitrogen-reduction shortfall of 16 million pounds, and would also result in reductions of phosphorus and sediment pollution, with substantial benefits to local water quality. For these five counties, we also present SPARROW model pollution estimates (on pound per acre per year basis) on a watershed scale. (County maps attached and available at cbf.org/PApriority) Focusing conservation in these areas would likely lead to even greater efficiencies, as would the use of “precision conservation”4 techniques such as flow path analysis and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to identify priority areas for the placement of particular practices on farms. Furthermore, these areas correspond to areas with high levels of agriculturally impaired streams, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. By focusing on these areas, local streams will also be improved.

PRACTICES In addition to geographic focus, any new resources should also be invested in the pollution reducing practices that will most effectively accelerate progress toward water-quality goals and bring farmers into compliance with state regulations. Based on Pennsylvania’s WIP, there are six conservation practices that, if fully implemented, will achieve more than 70 percent of the necessary nitrogen pollution reductions from agriculture.5 Importantly, these practices will also reduce the phosphorus and sediment runoff that damages local streams and rivers.

Relative Importance of Practices to 2025 Nitrogen-Reduction Goals

2% 3% 5%

2% 2%

Forested Buffer

6%

Cropland to pasture/hay/other

17%

Conservation Tillage Animal Waste Systems Adv Nutrient Management Cover Crops

7% 7%

Biomass Crops

24%

Grass Buffers Comm. Cover Crops

These practices include: conservation tillage; Wetland Restoration 8% advanced nutrient management; cover crops; Fencing animal waste storage systems; forested buffers; 8% 9% Precision Dairy Feeding and cropland conversion to pasture, hay, or Other Ag Practices other vegetation. There is also evidence that many of these practices are among the most cost-effective. For example, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) economists6 found that implementation of a combination of cover crops, nutrient management, and erosion controls (which includes strip cropping and riparian buffers) on Pennsylvania land that is vulnerable to nutrient losses and is adjacent to water would meet the Blueprint goals at a quarter of the cost of implementing the full suite of management practices on all cropland.

3 agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Census_by_State/Pennsylvania 4 chesapeakeconservancy.org/precision-conservation 5 Presentation by Jeff Sweeney, Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office, to the Verification Committee, Annapolis, MD March 13, 2013 entitled “WIP Relative Load Reductions Source Sectors BMPs” 6 Ribaudo, Marc, Jeffrey Savage, and Marcel Aillery. An Economic Assessment of Policy Options To Reduce Agricultural Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay, ERR-166, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, June 2014.

4

C L O S I N G P E N N S Y LVA N I A’ S P O L L U T I O N - R E D U C T I O N G A P

C H E S A P E A K E B A Y F O U N D A T I O N | C B F. O R G

PEOPLE The successful focusing of geography and practices will depend on strategic coordination and collaboration among existing federal, state, local, non-governmental, and private partners, as well as more efficient delivery of conservation programs. Increased support for outreach and technical assistance capacity—areas that are currently insufficient to keep up with existing demand in some locations—will also be crucial. Furthermore, implementation of the “reboot” strategy will also increase demand for more specialists to provide on-the-ground support for the implementation of conservation practices. Meeting the unique needs of each county’s agricultural producers will also be essential. For example, many in the Plain Sect communities do not participate in government cost-share programs. Having private sources of funding available for financial assistance may be critical to engaging these communities and expanding the implementation of key conservation practices. Other local audiences may need similarly tailored outreach approaches.

Call for Action At this time when resources are limited and pollution-reduction goals are not being met, it is critical that restoration funds are invested as efficiently as possible to achieve meaningful results. CBF calls on all stakeholders in Pennsylvania—federal, state, and local governments; nonprofit organizations; and private sector partners—to invest new restoration funds in the people, places, and practices that will achieve the greatest pollution reductions. By focusing additional outreach, technical assistance, and investment in producers in the five key counties and on the six practices identified in this analysis, new investments will jumpstart clean-up efforts in these locations and help get Pennsylvania back on track in meeting its Clean Water Blueprint commitments. This prioritizing effort will require new funds and programs and coordination and collaboration at all levels. CBF calls on federal partners, particularly USDA, to provide an initial, immediate commitment of $20 million to demonstrate the cost-efficiencies possible through this approach and urges state and local governments to provide additional outreach, technical assistance, and funding. The new funding will not complete the job, but it is an important start. The anticipated pay-off will be an opportunity for Pennsylvania to get on a more positive trajectory regarding its pollution-reduction commitments, resulting in cleaner local rivers and streams, and progress on restoring the Chesapeake Bay. These new investments also will create jobs and benefit local economies. If Pennsylvania fully meets its commitments across the watershed, a peer-reviewed economic analysis commissioned by CBF found that implementing the Blueprint would increase nature’s benefits in the Commonwealth by $6.2 billion annually through cleaner water, cleaner air, hurricane and flood protection, improved recreational opportunities, and more.

6 Herndon Avenue | Annapolis, Maryland 21403 888/SAVEBAY | (877/728-3229) | cbf.org

PENNSYLVANIA

Ag Pollution in the Susquehanna Basin: Challenges and Opportunities

TOP 5 4 1 3 5 2

Rank

County

2025 Ag Nitrogen Reduction Potential

TIER ONE

(millions of pounds/year)

Nitrogen Pollution from Ag**

(millions of pounds/year)

Miles of Waterways Impaired by Ag

Acres in Ag

Key Points ◼◼ Annual value of agricultural commodities produced in Lancaster County exceeds that of the state of Delaware and is 65% of the value in Maryland

1

Lancaster

6.17

13.711

647

385,306

◼◼ Home to much of the states Amish population, which is second in size only to Ohio ◼◼ More farms than any other county in Pennsylvania, with over 5,600 and an average size of 78 acres ◼◼ More than 250,000 acres in agriculture, or roughly 45% of the county

2

York

2.89

6.535

166

221,910

◼◼ Ranks 17th in NRCS 2009–15 PA Bay expenditures ◼◼ More than 2,000 farms averaging about 120 acres in size ◼◼ Ranks fourth in the state in overall cash receipts for crops

TIER TWO

3

Franklin*

2.02

3.954

260

240,184

◼◼ Streams drain into the Potomac or Susquehanna river basins ◼◼ Second only to Lancaster County in the number of acres in agriculture ◼◼ Ranks fourth in the state for the number of cows and calves

4

Cumberland

1.68

3.759

102

138,777

◼◼ Ranks 22nd in NRCS 2009–15 PA Bay expenditures ◼◼ Fastest growing county in Pennsylvania ◼◼ Ranks first in Pennsylvania in the production of fruits, tree nuts, and berries

5

Adams*

1.36

2.716

238

138,521

◼◼ Ranks first in the number of horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys ◼◼ Streams flow to the Potomac or Susquehanna river basins

*Some water in these counties flows to the Potomac River. **Source: Chesapeake Bay Program CAST model

PENNSYLVANIA

er County Incremental Delivered Agricultural Lancaster County Load of Nitrogen per HUC12 Priority Watersheds Hammer Creek Lititz Run

Middle Creek

Cocalico Creek/Conestoga River

Little Cocalico Creek/Cocalico Creek

Millers Run/Little Conestoga Creek

Little Muddy Creek

Upper Chiques Creek Lower Chiques Creek

Muddy Creek

Little Chiques Creek

Upper Conestoga River

Conoy Creek

Middle Conestoga River

Donegal Creek

City of Lancaster

Hartman Run/Susquehanna River

Headwaters Pequea Creek Muddy Run/Mill Creek

Cabin Creek/Susquehanna River

Eshlemen Run/Pequea Creek

West Branch Little Conestoga Creek/ Little Conestoga Creek

Pine Creek

Green Branch/Susquehanna River Lower Conestoga River Climbers Run/Pequea Creek Fishing Creek/Susquehanna River

Load NMap(lbs/acre/yr) Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) cida.usgs.gov/sparrow

Big Beaver Creek Conowingo Creek

Valley Creek/ East Branch Octoraro Creek Muddy Run/ East Branch Octoraro Creek West Branch Octoraro Creek Tweed Creek/Octoraro Creek

Locally Generated Ag Nitrogen Pollution (pounds/acre/year) 35.00–45.00 25.00–34.99 10.00–24.99 5.00–9.99 0.00–4.99

PENNSYLVANIA

k County Incremental Delivered Agricultural Load of Nitrogen per HUC12

York County

Priority Watersheds Hartman Run/Susquehanna River

York City

Cabin Creek Green Branch/Susquehanna River

Stoverstown Branch/Codorus Creek

Locally Generated Ag Nitrogen Pollution

Plum Creek/ South Conewago Creek

(pounds/acre/year)

d Load N (lbs/acre/yr)

5

10.00–24.99 5.00–9.99

Map Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) cida.usgs.gov/sparrow

Lower South Branch/ Codorus Creek

Kreutz Creek

Fishing Creek/ Susquehanna River

0.00–4.99

l ra ltu cu ri g A l ta n e m e cr In ty n u lin Co PENNSYLVANIA Load of Nitrogen per HUC12

Franklin County Priority Watersheds

Laughlin Run/Paxton Run

Rowe Run

Chambersburg Campbell Run/Back Creek Lower West Branch Conococheague Creek

Falling Spring Branch/Conococheague Creek

Muddy Run

N (lbs/acre/yr)

Locally Generated Ag Nitrogen Pollution (pounds/acre/year) 10.00–24.99

West Branch Marsh Run/Marsh Run Map Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) cida.usgs.gov/sparrow

Rockdale Run/Conococheague Creek

e Bay Foundation Map Created by The Chesapeak

5.00–9.99 0.00–4.99

ounty Incremental Delivered Agricultural oad of Nitrogen per HUC12 PENNSYLVANIA

Cumberland County Priority Watersheds

Big Spring Creek/Conodoguinet Creek

Wertz Run/Conodoguinet Creek Three Square Hollow Run/ Conodoguinet Creek

Carlisle

Laughlin Run/Paxton Run

Hogestown Run

Green Spring Creek Alexanders Spring Creek Mount Rock Spring Creek

bs/acre/yr)

Bulls Head Branch

Locally Generated Ag Nitrogen Pollution (pounds/acre/year) 10.00–24.99 5.00–9.99 0.00–4.99

Map Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) cida.usgs.gov/sparrow

Adams County Incremental Delivered Agricultural Load of Nitrogen per HUC12 PENNSYLVANIA

Adams County

Priority Watersheds

Conewago Creek

Gettysburg Locally Generated Ag Nitrogen Pollution

vered Load N (lbs/acre/yr)

ers 2015

(pounds/acre/year) 10.00–24.99 5.00–9.99 0.00–4.99

Map Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Data from USGS SPARROW Model (2011) cida.usgs.gov/sparrow

Waters 2015

Map Created by The Chesapeake Bay Foun

dation

Press Release Sept. 13, 2016 For Immediate Release Contact: B.J. Small, 717-234-5550 ext. 4203

CBF PRIORITIZES FIVE PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES TO JUMPSTART CLEANUP EFFORTS CBF Calls on Governments to Focus Efforts—USDA to Increase Funding (HARRISBURG, PA) -- The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is calling on Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to focus additional investments in five south-central counties to accelerate pollution reductions from agriculture. CBF analyzed federal agency data to identify these five priority counties that Pennsylvania’s Clean Water Blueprint is counting on to reduce the most agricultural pollution. Not surprisingly, the counties that emerged as top priorities also generate the most nitrogen pollution in the Susquehanna Basin. “While other Bay states are making progress in achieving their Clean Water Blueprint pollution reduction goals, Pennsylvania is far behind in meeting its commitments,” said CBF President William C. Baker. “By increasing efforts in these five counties and using the most effective conservation practices, the Commonwealth can efficiently and cost effectively jumpstart its lagging cleanup efforts.” The list is topped by Lancaster County, which is home to the most productive agricultural land in the Commonwealth but also delivers by far the most nitrogen pollution from agriculture. Next are York, Franklin, Cumberland, and Adams. These counties contribute more than 30 million pounds per year of nitrogen pollution from agriculture to the Chesapeake Bay annually. “Pennsylvania has identified more than 1,400 miles of rivers and streams in these five priority counties as being damaged by agricultural pollution,” said CBF’s Pennsylvania Executive Director Harry Campbell. “While efforts need to continue in all Pennsylvania watershed counties, by prioritizing new resources in these five counties the Commonwealth can greatly accelerate its restoration efforts.” CBF is calling on federal partners, particularly USDA, to provide an initial, immediate commitment of $20 million in new restoration funds, with a particular focus on the priority counties. The group also urges state and local governments to provide additional outreach, technical assistance, and funding. In March, Pennsylvania State University College of Agriculture and 120 diverse agriculture stakeholders agreed that resources should be invested in areas of high priority and agricultural practices with the most potential to reduce pollution.

SAVE THE BAY

Building on this concept, CBF used data from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify the individual watersheds that are producing the most nitrogen pollution to local streams and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. The practices that reduce nitrogen pollution, such as the planting of streamside buffers, will also reduce the phosphorus and sediment. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution degrade local streams and rivers, can harm aquatic life, and can cause risks to human health and drinking water. The new funding will not complete the job, but it is an important start. CBF’s analysis of agency data indicates that if the five priority counties—Lancaster, York, Franklin, Cumberland, and Adams—fully met their 2025 Blueprint pollution-reduction commitments, the Commonwealth would achieve roughly a 14.1 million pound nitrogen reduction. That would represent more than half of the entire state’s 2025 nitrogen pollution-reduction goal. “Fast action in these counties would also help the Commonwealth make significant progress against its most immediate challenge, the projected 2017 shortfall of 16 million pounds,” said CBF’s Campbell. “In addition to reducing pollution, increased federal funding will create jobs and benefit local economies.” Many Pennsylvania farmers have shown that they are willing to install conservation practices that reduce pollution. However, every year Pennsylvania farmers who want to install those practices are turned away because of a lack of resources available to assist them. Lancaster County dairy farmers Tim and Frances Sauder have applied for state and federal funding and would like to install seven acres of streamside buffer, add manure storage and a composting facility, and address polluted runoff that occurs when heavy rains overwhelm a culvert on the farm. “We made decisions on how we farm, in order to protect the watershed,” Tim Sauder said. The Sauders operate Fiddle Creek Dairy on 55 acres in Quarryville. The dairy is comprised of 15 cows and produces two kinds of yogurt. They have owned for farm for four years. “Our decisions really start with looking around and seeing what is sustainable here. What’s good for this land,” Frances Sauder added. “We want to farm in a way that’s good for all layers of life, the water, the land, the plants, and the human community. There’s no easy answer and we’re humbled by that.” The Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, including the EPA Administrator, the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, New York, Delaware, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, will be meeting on October 4 to identify restoration challenges moving forward. “There is a growing consensus that Pennsylvania must prioritize its efforts and this analysis provides a road map to do just that,” said Baker. “When Bay leaders gather in October, we expect them to take real action to reduce nitrogen pollution in Lancaster and other key Pennsylvania counties. If Pennsylvania does not meet its commitments Bay restoration efforts will fail.” If Pennsylvania meets its commitments, a peer-reviewed economic analysis commissioned by CBF found that implementing the Blueprint would increase nature’s benefits in the Commonwealth by $6.2 billion annually through cleaner water, cleaner air, hurricane and flood protection, improved recreational opportunities, and more.

###

Media Coverage News stories in print and electronic news sites Bay Journal Bloomberg BNA York Daily Record Chambersburg Public Opinion (both a news story and outdoor column) Gettysburg Times The Sentinel York Dispatch Lancaster Intelligencer Journal Lancaster Farming Delmarva Farmer E&E Daily The Luminary County Observer Radio and television WHTM-TV WFEZ-FM WGGI-FM WPGM-AM WKRZ-FM WBGM-FM WDMT-FM WGGY-FM WVIA-FM WBZU-AM WKRF-FM WTRN-AM WKZN-AM WILK-AM WVYA-FM Positive editorials York Daily Record York Dispatch Op-Ed Patriot News Letter to the editor Chambersburg Public Opinion Lancaster Intelligencer Journal Lancaster Farming