Pa. and the bay |

Pa. and the bay

The Associated Press news story “Pa. makes progress on Chesapeake Bay cleanup” addressed a report published by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Choose Clean Water Coalition that focused on alleged failures by Pennsylvania to restore the Chesapeake Bay and underrated the state’s true progress.

Pennsylvania has directed more than $3.9 billion in grants, loans and program investments toward Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. These investments are paying off. The most recent Chesapeake Bay program assessment showed Pennsylvania’s phosphorous reductions exceeded the watershed model milestone by 5.1 percent. Pennsylvania very narrowly missed the milestones for nitrogen, by 1.8 percent, and sediment, by 4.8 percent, despite seeing continued reductions for both.

Consider Pennsylvania’s efforts in terms of overall water quality improvement. Solely examining individual best management practices, like nutrient management plans and forested buffers, is an inaccurate measure of progress. Long-term trends show that since 1985, Pennsylvania has reduced phosphorous pollution in the bay by 25 percent, nitrogen by 10 percent and sediment by 15 percent.

I encourage all Pennsylvanians who live, work and play in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to consider ways they can make a positive impact on their local watershed. After all, everyone lives downstream.

Kelly Heffner


The writer is the state Department of Natural Resources’ deputy secretary of water management.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.