Coming soon: Weigh in on your municipality’s MS4 permit

Since PennFuture and the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reached a settlement to improve Pennsylvania’s program for preventing stormwater runoff from polluting our streams and rivers, there have been many new and enhanced opportunities for public engagement in the municipal stormwater permitting process. 

This summer, DEP sought comments from the public about the draft general permit for discharges into municipal separate stormwater systems, known as PAG-13.

Yet another opportunity is on the horizon for Pennsylvanians to engage in the municipal stormwater permitting process. Some MS4 municipalities in the commonwealth will be submitting Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Strategies to DEP. Citizens can request a copy of DEP’s review letter for their municipality’s TMDL Strategy from the department. 

Do you live in a MS4 community? 

For those of us who aren’t engineers or environmental planners, PennFuture, Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust are offering assistance to clarify and simplify the stormwater permit process for watershed and conservation groups as well as for citizens who wish to participate in borough or township planning processes.

Our presentation will cover:

• What the settlement in the MS4 case means for you
• Opportunities to get involved in your municipality's stormwater planning process, including:
• When and how you can participate  — and why it's a key opportunity for citizens to give public input
• What to look for in permit applications, including pollutant reduction plans and TMDL plans   

MS4 Public Participation Presentation

The Tookany/Tacony-Frankford Watershed Partnership, PennFuture, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and the Pennypack Ecological Restoration Trust invite you to to learn about how you can work with your community to improve water quality.

Monday, November 16

4:30 – 7:00pm

Jenkintown Library

460 Old York Road, Jenkintown, PA 19046

Questions & RSVP to Jon Musselman | jon@ttfwatershed.org | 215.744.1853

Katie Bartolotta is southeastern Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @KatieBartolotta.

VICTORY for clean water in Pennsylvania -- again!!

The plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay has survived a second attempt to quash it. This is a big win, not just for the Bay and the ongoing efforts for its restoration but also for the Pennsylvania streams and rivers that are being cleaned up as part of that restoration work.

In 2013, Federal Judge Sylvia Rambo rejected the arguments made by big agricultural and developers' lobby groups that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had exceeded its authority when it developed the Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load), or pollution diet, in 2010. These same deep-pocketed lobby groups appealed this decision -- and lost again.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Rambo’s decision and ruled that the Bay TMDL is fully authorized by the Clean Water Act. This victory makes it clear that Pennsylvania and the other Bay states should continue -- even accelerate -- the work they have done to reduce water pollution.  

Pennsylvania has thousands of miles of polluted streams and rivers where residents cannot fish or swim or enjoy the economic and environmental benefits of clean water. After two failed legal challenges, we can only hope that more time and money won’t be wasted on legal challenges as there’s a lot of work to be done and money could be better spent on outreach and education, technical assistance to farmers, and implementation of conservation practices.

PennFuture, along with other environmental groups, was an intervener in both cases.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

The how tos of stormwater for citizens

Whether it's runoff from melting and polluted snow this winter, or rainwater from a summer thunderstorm, stormwater in our communities affects us all. PennFuture, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council (PEC), and the Brandywine Conservancy are collaborating to help clarify and simplify the stormwater permitting process for watershed and conservation groups and citizens – and make public participation in your borough or township's planning process easier. 

• MS4 Public Participation Presentation  
• Wednesday, March 25, 2015 from 6:00-7:30 p.m.
• Brandywine River Museum, 1 Hoffman's Mill Road, Chadds Ford, Pa. 19317

This targeted educational program is designed to help citizens become more involved in municipal stormwater management. PennFuture recently reached a legal settlement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in an Environmental Hearing Board appeal: PennFuture v. DEP and Upper Gwynedd Township, Docket No. 2013-105-L. The settlement will change the way that municipal separate storm sewer systems, known as MS4s, receive permits in Pennsylvania.

Our presentation will cover:

• What the settlement in the MS4 case means for you
• Ways for your organization and its members to get involved in the DEP's process for updating the general permit for MS4s 
• Opportunities to get involved in your municipality's stormwater planning process, including:
• When and how you can participate  — and why it's a key opportunity for citizens to give public input
• What to look for in permit applications, including pollutant reduction plans and TMDL plans   

Have questions about the MS4 Public Participation Presentation - Brandywine? Or is your organization interested in a similar presentation? Contact Mike Helbing at helbing@pennfuture.org.

Kate Gibbons is northeastern Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Wilkes-Barre.

A dip in pollution levels is good news for the Chesapeake Bay

I believe that by now, readers of this blog know the Chesapeake Bay is polluted and they know why it’s polluted.

Recently, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) released water quality monitoring data from 2013. The data was collected from nine river monitoring stations upstream from the Bay. These stations are located along the Appomatox, Choptank, James, Mattoponi, Pamunkey, Patuxent, Potomac, Rappahannock and Susquehanna Rivers. 

The data shows the amount of nutrient and sediment pollution from these nine major watersheds remained below the 25-year average for 2013. The USGS found that 160 million pounds of nitrogen entered the Bay, down from the average of 212 million pounds; 10 million pounds of phosphorus entered the Bay, compared to the average of 14.6 million pounds; and 2.7 million pounds of sediment, almost half of the 5.2 million pound average, reached the Bay.

Scientists have attributed these below-average pollution loads partly to below-average river flow and partly to the implementation of pollution-reduction practices required by the 2010 Bay TMDL (pollution diet). Less rain means lower river flow but it also means less sediment and manure from farm fields and less polluted runoff from streets and parking lots entering our waters. Fewer pollutants entering our waters can also be attributed to implementing practices such as planting cover crops on farm fields, keeping forested buffers along waterways, and upgrading our wastewater treatment plants.

While the Farm Bureau wastes time and money challenging the Bay TMDL, individuals, businesses, and municipalities are working to implement the TMDL and reduce pollution and improve water quality. We have a long way to go before the Susquehanna River and the Bay are as clean as they should be, but it looks like we're on the right track.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Pennsylvania so far off track on aiding Bay cleanup that EPA oversight is needed

The term “backstop” is used to refer to a secondary device put in place to ensure a particular outcome in the event the primary device fails. A recent example in the governmental arena is the across-the-board budget cuts that took effect at the federal level when Congress could not agree on a budget-trimming package.

A backstop is built into the Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Blueprint. The Blueprint, which many consider our best hope for cleaning up both the Chesapeake Bay and our local waters that feed into it, consists of three basic components:

• The Total Maximum Daily Load (or TMDL), which establishes maximum levels of the pollutants causing the Bay’s impairment -- nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment – that may be released by various categories of sources, such as agriculture, urban stormwater, and sewage treatment plants.
• State-specific plans, developed by the six states within the Bay watershed and the District of Columbia, to achieve these pollution limits.
• The “backstop” mechanisms, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is able to activate if a state falls short of meeting its pollution-reduction goals.

This ongoing effort to clean up the Bay is different than previous attempts because it is more equitable, including the entire range of sources contributing pollution; and because there is more accountability, with deadlines for achieving pollution reductions and consequences for failing to meet them. The Bay states committed to reduce pollutants enough to remove the Bay from the list of impaired waters by 2025, and to be 60 percent of the way to that goal by 2017. In order to stay on track for meeting the 2017 and 2025 goals, the Bay states committed to incremental two-year milestones, which establish implementation rate targets for pollution-reducing practices and programs. 

As in the past, Pennsylvania’s implementation rates are a mixed bag, with great success in some areas such as sewage treatment but lackluster performance in the agriculture and stormwater sectors, where Pennsylvania has fallen farther and farther behind in meeting its milestones. As a result, EPA has downgraded the agricultural sector to a “backstop action level,” the highest level of scrutiny, indicating EPA believes its intervention is necessary to get Pennsylvania back on track. The stormwater sector was previously given this designation and still remains just one step better, at the “backstop level.”

Currently, in the hope of avoiding full implementation of its backstop authority, EPA is calling on Pennsylvania to perform more inspections and enforcement on farms to ensure they have the legally required manure management, erosion and sedimentation, and conservation plans necessary to protect water quality.  EPA has also recognized the need for better tracking, reporting and verification of best management practices, which Pennsylvania claims is one reason for failing to meet its implementation numbers. 

Pennsylvania is expecting to achieve three quarters of its nutrient and sediment reduction from the agricultural sector, which makes its implementation shortfalls in that sector especially problematic for achieving its overall pollution reduction commitments and the ultimate goal of restoring the Bay.

To make up for the shortfalls in pollution reductions from agriculture and stormwater, EPA’s backstop options include expanding the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage to currently unregulated sources; conditioning or redirecting grants; and requiring additional reductions from point sources like sewage treatment plants (which already are doing more than their fair share).

The best option, of course, is for Pennsylvania to get back on track to meet all of its milestones, and put the backstops on the back burner.

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg.

Fight for clean water locally becomes national issue

The Chesapeake Bay is polluted. High levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from agricultural activities, wastewater treatment facilities, and stormwater cause “dead zones” where fish, crabs, oysters, and other aquatic life die due to low amounts of oxygen. Excess pollution has also harmed vital Bay habitats. The current oyster population is only 1 percent of historic levels and this decline over the past 30 years has meant a loss of $4 billion for the economies of Maryland and Virginia; the decline in blue crabs has led to losses of $640 million from 1998-2006.

While the Bay states have tried to clean up the Chesapeake for the past 30 years, their efforts have largely failed to meet pollution reduction goals. Finally, in 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exercised its authority under the Clean Water Act and established enforceable pollution limits for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the Bay (this pollution limit is technically referred to as a Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL), with the goal of removing the Bay and its tributaries from the nation’s list of impaired waters. Subsequently, the Bay states developed plans to meet those pollution limits by 2025.

After its release, the EPA’s pollution limits were challenged in federal district court by special interests, including the Farm Bureau, the Fertilizer Institute, and the National Association of Home Builders, claiming government overreach that violated states’ rights. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, PennFuture, National Wildlife Foundation and other environmental groups intervened on behalf of EPA and clean water and, last year, a federal judge ruled in favor of EPA and the TMDL.

Almost immediately, the decision was appealed and again, instead of spending their limited funds on restoring clean water, EPA and environmental groups had to devote their resources to litigation. Additionally, attorneys general from 21 states, mostly from the Mississippi River valley and Midwest but some from as far away as Alaska and Wyoming, filed a joint amicus curiae, or friend of the court brief, supporting the appeal and opposing the Bay states’ efforts to clean up local rivers and the Bay. These states fear that a successful TMDL in the Bay could serve as a model for clean up efforts in their part of the United States.

On the other side are amicus briefs from Virginia, Delaware, Maryland and the District of Columbia. The nation’s largest cities also support clean water, with amicus briefs coming from New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. These cities support a holistic approach to water quality improvements that address all sources of pollution, not just easily regulated point sources, but non-point sources of pollution that historically haven’t been held accountable for their fair share of pollution. Professors of environmental, constitutional, and administrative law from across the country have also weighed in, supporting clean up efforts in the Bay.

Additionally, the ChooseClean Water Coalition has led the charge to organize environmental groups from the 21 aforementioned states to file a brief in support of the TMDL. This resulted in the National Parks Conservation Association, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, and 24 regional and national organizations filing a brief that supports restoring clean water in the Chesapeake and its tributaries. 

The case has far reaching implications for clean water initiatives across the country, with the Bay TMDL either serving as a model for other impaired waterways or as an example of special interest monies defeating everyone else’s interest in clean water. Oral arguments are expected this summer.

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Twenty-one states fear clean water

Last September, Federal Judge Sylvia Rambo rejected the arguments made by big agriculture and developers' lobby groups that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had exceeded its authority and was trampling states’ rights when it developed the Chesapeake Bay TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load), or pollution diet, in 2010. In her opinion, the TMDL exemplified cooperative federalism between the states and EPA at every stage of the process.

A  TMDL is required for any waterbody impaired by pollution, and establishes the maximum amount of pollution a waterbody can receive. The Bay TMDL limits the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the Bay and its tributaries. These pollutants come from a number of sources including agricultural operations, poorly managed stormwater, and wastewater treatment facilities. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus feed algal blooms that block sunlight to underwater grasses, destroying important habitat, and the blooms use up oxygen when they die and decompose, resulting in dead zones that kill fish, crabs, and other aquatic life.

Judge Rambo’s decision sent a clear message to the six states in the Bay watershed -- they should continue working toward their clean water goals -- goals that, after 30 years of insufficient bay restoration efforts, might actually be met through the new, collaborative federal-state effort.

Not too long after the decision, the deep-pocketed farm groups and developers appealed, and just last week, the attorneys general from 21 states, mostly from the Mississippi River valley and Midwest, but some from as far away as Alaska and Wyoming, filed a joint amicus curiae, or friend of the court brief, supporting the appeal and opposing the Bay states’ efforts to clean up local rivers and the Bay. These states fear that a successful TMDL in the Bay could serve as a model for clean-up efforts in their watersheds, and they just might have to control pollution -- and, ultimately, be stuck with clean water.

Jen Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture, based in Harrisburg. She specialized in water quality issues.

A moment in the drain, a lifetime in the Bay

We recently reported on this blog that a federal district court in Pennsylvania had upheld the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) pollution diet (or TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay watershed against industry challenges. This, of course, is great news but, as we all know from experience, a diet will produce healthy results only if we’re truly committed to following it.

As one of the key contributors to Chesapeake Bay pollution, Pennsylvania is a key ingredient to restoring a healthy Bay. Nearly half of Pennsylvania’s land drains into waterways that eventually discharge into the Bay. So, just how close is Pennsylvania to reaching the targets set by EPA’s pollution diet for the Chesapeake? According to a recent report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, we’ve made considerable progress, but we have a long way to go. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation credits Pennsylvania’s farmers for making notable improvements in reducing water pollution since 1985. In fact, since 1985, for the three major pollutants to the Bay, farmers have reduced their pollution contribution by: 14.5 million pounds of nitrogen; 434,000 pounds of phosphorus; and a whopping 431.3 BILLION pounds of sediment. That’s quite an impressive achievement!

Unfortunately, it’s only the beginning of the reduction Pennsylvanians – farmers, industry, sewage treatments plants, and citizens – must make if we’re going to do our share to bring the Chesapeake Bay back to health. Under the EPA’s pollution diet, Pennsylvanians will need to reduce our nitrogen pollution by about an additional 25 million pounds per year, phosphorus pollution by an additional 1 million pounds per year, and sediment by over 1 billion pounds per year by the year 2025. That will take work and commitment but, as anyone who has reaped the results of a successful diet knows, the rewards are worth the effort. And, we can derive extra satisfaction from knowing that the economic, public health, and aesthetic rewards from a healthy Chesapeake Bay will provide countless benefits, not just to us but also to future generations.

Getting to the point -- and nonpoint

In the wake of Judge Sylvia Rambo's September 13 decision upholding the Chesapeake Bay TMDL (read: Bay pollution "diet"), and its subsequent appeal less than a month later, you've probably heard the words "point source" and "nonpoint source" more than a few times. But what do these terms mean? Well, a point source (of pollution), as defined by the Clean Water Act, is "any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance." For example, a pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, well, or container can be a point source, just to name a few. Given that definition, you'd think the definition for a nonpoint source (of pollution) would be equally technical and concise. However, you would be wrong. A nonpoint source is any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of a point source. Is that clear? About as clear as mud. It is pollution from everywhere else.

http://soilscience.info

Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall and snowmelt moving over and through the ground. Picture a farmer's field, your own lawn or driveway, or a parking lot. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries excess fertilizers, pesticides, oil, grease, salt, sediment, and whatever else may be on the ground, to our rivers, lakes and ground waters.

Photo by halseide

Nonpoint source pollution remains Pennsylvania's, and the nation's, largest contributor to water quality problems. It's why 20 percent of Pennsylvania's streams and 50 percent of its lakes are polluted. And that's why the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is so important. The Bay's pollution diet sets limits for the amount of pollutants that can enter the Bay and the only way to achieve those limits is to significantly reduce the amount of nonpoint source pollution in the Bay's tributaries. 

   The Clean Water Act (CWA) has done a pretty good job of regulating point source pollutants. The Cuyahoga River is no longer flammable and Lake Erie is no longer dead, thanks to the CWA. But it hasn't done a whole lot to regulate nonpoint sources because nonpoint source regulation has been left largely to the states with little federal oversight. However, developing the Bay pollution diet required the states and federal government to work together to set pollution limits, develop watershed implementation plans, and milestones to track progress.

This cooperative federalism, and resulting TMDL, represents the best chance for clean water in Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay.

Hello, world. I'm diving in!

Hello, readers! My name is Jen Quinn and I'm PennFuture’s new Outreach Coordinator in central Pennsylvania. I will be focusing on water and Chesapeake Bay issues including the Pennsylvania work of the Choose Clean Water Coalition of the National Wildlife Federation. And, as you may have guessed, I will be blogging regularly about water and other environmental issues.

On September 28, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay hosted its 8^th annual Chesapeake Watershed Forum. Over 400 people were in attendance, representing state and federal agencies, universities, and various NGOs from the six states that make up the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia.  Presenters discussed multiple topics including science and conservation, land use planning and regulation, and advocacy and citizen engagement.

In a time when divisiveness and political polarization is the norm, it was inspiring to see hundreds of people working toward a shared goal: The protection and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. This is no pie-in-the-sky goal -- it's absolutely achievable in our lifetimes.

Over the past 30 years, federal, state, and local governments throughout the watershed, as well as NGOs and academics, have been working to reduce the amounts of nutrients and sediment making their way to the Bay. Thankfully, these efforts have had a positive impact on the health of the Bay. However, much more needs to be done.

The Bay’s water quality remains degraded because of too much pollution. Current oyster populations are less than 1 percent of historic levels and the Bay’s habitats are so degraded they cannot support thriving populations of aquatic life. Increased development, insufficient management of polluted stormwater by our towns and cities, and polluted runoff from agricultural operations continue to harm the Bay ecosystem.

Even so, there's reason for optimism. Thanks to the new “pollution diet” for the Bay issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, we can truly address these problems. This pollution diet, technically referred to as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), limits the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment that can enter the Bay. Implementing the pollution diet isn’t going to be easy but through continued cooperation between the state and federal governments, and local action by homeowners, farmers, NGOs, and municipalities, we can all enjoy cleaner water and a healthier and more productive Chesapeake Bay.

VICTORY: Huge win for clean waterways, in Pennsylvania and beyond

In a major win for the health of local waterways, a federal judge ruled on September 13 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to set limits on pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. PennFuture was part of a coalition of public interest groups that joined the lawsuit to help defend the EPA’s cleanup plan and the decades-long, collaborative process that led to its development. We are also the Pennsylvania state lead for 40-plus members of the Choose Clean Water Coalition (CCWC).

Read on for what happened and why this is so significant. This blog entry is reposted courtesy of the Choose Clean Water Coalition and is authored by CCWC director, Hilary Harp Falk.


http://choosecleanwater.org/press-room/blog/chesapeake-bay-clean-up-wins-big-in-court-a-time-to-celebrate-and-a-time-to-move-forward/

Chesapeake Bay cleanup wins big in court: A time to celebrate and a time to move forward

Friday afternoon around 3:30 p.m., the emails started rolling in with two words: “We won." The history of the Chesapeake Bay clean up is long, with many twists and turns, but on Friday a judge in Pennsylvania confirmed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to develop a pollution limit for the Chesapeake Bay and that history, science and law all support its development. This is a huge win for the Chesapeake Bay and the 17 million people in the region who rely on clean water.

From our friends at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, and PennFuture to Jefferson County (WV) Public Service District, the National Associations of  Clean Water Agencies, the Maryland Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Virginia Association of Clean Water Agencies and the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, interveners in the case helped EPA demonstrate that pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay established in December 2010 are within the Agency’s authority, based on sound science, and that the Farm Bureau and Homebuilders - the industry groups that had brought the suit in 2011 - had ample time to review and comment on the proposed limits.

Judge Rambo said in her decision that the Chesapeake Bay Partnership undertook significant efforts to preserve the framework of cooperative federalism as envisioned by the Clean Water Act, and that EPA did not unlawfully infringe on the Bay states’ rights because the Clean Water Act is an “all-compassing” and “comprehensive” statute that envisions a strong federal role for ensuring pollution reduction. After 31 years, the Clean Water Act has been proven to be the right way to go and, once again, this partnership between federal and state governments has stood up as the best way to get clean water.

Now, it is time to move on and get back to work. We still do not have the results that people want and deserve: Clean water, fishable rivers and streams, and the economic and environmental benefits that they bring. With pollution limits firmly in place, we can go back to taking the necessary actions to reduce pollution and protect the water on which millions of people depend.

The Farm Bureau may appeal this ruling. We hope not. Money would be better spent implementing conservation practices. We need to move forward with the work ahead of us so that future generations will have clean water.

We've received the following celebratory statements from interveners in the case:

Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation: “This is a great day for clean water in the region, there could be no better outcome. CBF and our partners respectfully salute the thoughtful legal decision-making by Judge Rambo, the presiding federal judge in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.”

Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation: “As one of the 17 million people who live near a river or stream flowing to the Chesapeake Bay, I am thrilled that the court ruled in favor of clean water, fishable rivers and safe places for children to swim. The court made it clear the agency is authorized to continue doing what is necessary to reduce pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay and protect the water that sustains people, wildlife and livelihoods. The science-based standards create accountability and are leading to real results.”

Tim Junkin, executive director of the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy: “Everyone -- farmers and homeowners, rural and urban -- all realize clean water is vital to their community and to their economy. Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy joined this lawsuit to represent the voice of rural areas and small towns. We don’t know what purpose this suit was meant to serve but it was not in most people’s interests. We are thrilled that EPA has prevailed. It is a critical time and the clean water blueprint offers a new approach and requires that everyone does their fair share to clean up our local waters.”

Michael Senatore, vice president for conservation law at Defenders of Wildlife: “The court’s decision is great news for fish and wildlife that depend on a healthy Bay for their survival. If implemented properly, the rule has the potential to significantly improve the ecological health of the Bay for the benefit of wildlife and people alike.”

Jim Abernathy, interim president and CEO of PennFuture: "Friday’s federal court decision clears the way for EPA and the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to carry out their responsibilities to clean up our polluted streams. We will continue our work to protect streams and rivers in Pennsylvania for the benefit of our state’s environment and citizens."