Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Wed, March 31, 2010 -- 12:01 AM ET

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses
of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of
Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas
drilling for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

The proposal -- a compromise that will please oil companies
and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of
affected states and many environmental organizations -- would
end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the
East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central
coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?emc=na

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Natural Gas = Bridge to Nowhere

Stan Cox, Salinas, Kans., column: Natural gas threatens environment

Published November 07 2009
By Stan Cox
Prairie Writers Circle

Natural gas is “clean” only in contrast to coal — just as a bacon cheeseburger can be regarded as healthful compared with a double bacon cheeseburger.

SALINAS, Kans. — Holding out the prospect of vast new domestic reserves, the natural gas industry is promising to make the U.S. an energy-rich nation once again.

But we should be careful what we wish for. Spending those riches could endanger water supplies for millions of Americans while still failing to solve the climate crisis.

Electric utilities have expanded their use of gas because gas-fired plants can be “turned up” to meet high peak power demand more quickly than can coal-fired plants. Natural gas also is more climate-friendly than coal and less menacing than nuclear energy.

With the discovery of drilling techniques that can extract natural gas from deep shale formations, the authoritative Potential Gas Committee estimates that the total of confirmed and potentially accessible gas reserves has grown 35 percent in just three years.

Climate bills in Congress contain strong incentives to increase drilling and burning of natural gas. Seized by anti-coal fervor, most major environmental groups have gone along with the gas rush.

But natural gas is “clean” only in contrast to coal — just as a bacon cheeseburger can be regarded as healthful compared with a double bacon cheeseburger. Per kilowatt of electricity generated, gas releases 55 percent as much carbon as coal. And gas drilling poses a growing threat to our water supplies.

The investigative news organization ProPublica has documented thousands of cases of surface and groundwater contamination caused by natural gas drilling in six states.

Concern is now growing over hydraulic fracturing, in which water laced with sand, clay and “fracturing fluids” is pumped deep underground to create fissures and free gas trapped in rock formations. Most of the polluted water returns to the surface and must be handled as waste.

Drilling in shale, which depends heavily on fracturing, can consume hundreds of times more water per well than does drilling in traditional gas fields.

In Pennsylvania, which shares the vast, gas-laden Marcellus shale formation with four other states, drilling is expected to generate 19 million gallons of waste water daily by 2011, according to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection. The water, which carries both natural and human-made toxins and is up to five times as salty as sea water, puts a heavy burden on water treatment plants.

Gas companies have enjoyed a slack environmental leash since the 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted them from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Water Pollution Control Act. Bills now stalled in Congress that would re-regulate the industry need broader grassroots support.

Risking our water so we can burn more natural gas will not be the planet’s miracle climate cure. For the U.S. to achieve necessary reductions in greenhouse emissions — estimated at more than 80 percent — will require not more energy production, even if somewhat cleaner, but deep cuts in energy consumption.

Coal must be phased out as quickly as possible, but more gas won’t accomplish that. While electric utilities’ gas consumption doubled from 1996 to 2007, coal use continued its steady climb.

Financier T. Boone Pickens recommends running our vehicles on natural gas. But substituting natural gas for gasoline in all vehicles would cut the nation’s total carbon emissions by less than 9 percent. Converting all gasoline-powered vehicles would consume more natural gas than electric utilities, homes and businesses combined. Consequences for the nation’s water would be disastrous.

Natural gas is being hailed by some, including Pickens, as a high-energy “bridge” to a renewable future, and by others as sufficiently climate-friendly to be a “destination” fuel. But as gas’ environmental drawbacks become more evident, it’s looking more like a bridge to nowhere.

Cox is lead scientist for the Land Institute in Salina, Kan., and wrote this comment for the institute’s Prairie Writers Circle.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Oil and Gas Drilling is Transforming the Allegheny National Forest

According to Alan Gregory's Conservation News, "The Allegheny is the most heavily drilled federal public land anywhere. It is a veritable pincushion of drill pads, storage tanks, roads, clearcuts, holding ponds and pollution." In 2007 the Allegheny Defense Project published this slideshow of aerial views of oil and gas drilling in the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. At that time, the ANF had approximately 9,000 active oil and gas wells... more than all other national forests combined! The Forest Service predicts that if current rates of drilling continue, there could be 20,000 wells by 2020 and an additional 3,000 miles of roads. According to the ADP, "The oil and gas industry, the Forest Service, and the PA DEP all share the blame for what is happening in Pennsylvania's only national forest."

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Effects of Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling on Local Water Sources

This video, from a public forum held in Bath, NY on June 22, presents a comprehensive overview of the problems (dangers) accompanying drilling for gas in the Marcellus Shale.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Drilling in Marcellus Shale needs Scrutiny

Contamination of Drinking Water Feared

By Stacey Shackford • sshackford@gannett.com

Staff Writer • ithacajournal.com

June 24, 2009

The woman who has helped the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review and monitor state oil and gas drilling policies warned that New York is seriously lacking oversight and is long overdue an assessment.

Speaking Tuesday at the Museum of the Earth, with the skeleton of giant prehistoric creature looming above her head, Wilma Subra said now is the time for the state to take a hard look at its current and future drilling policies, with the specter of large-scale hydrofracking of natural gas reserves in the Marcellus Shale looming over its head.

Subra, a chemistry expert and recipient of the MacArthur Fellowship Genius Award for her work as a community organizer, has gone into several states to assess oil and gas exploration policies as a member of the EPA National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. New York was last assessed in 1994, she said.

"We need to go in and do another review because this is the only oversight we have," she said.

Around 60 people crowded into the museum, most of them furiously scribbling in notebooks as they were bombarded with information.

Horizontal hydro-fracking - pumping a mixture of high-pressure water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground to fracture shale and capture the natural gas there - continues in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, but has paused in New York while the DEC writes a supplement to its environmental impact statement on gas drilling.

Subra warned of depletion of water aquifers, the contamination of groundwater, soil and air with potentially toxic materials, the possibility of radioactive scaling in drill wells and pipes and the inability of local wastewater treatment facilities to dispose of the amount of waste involved in large-scale drilling. She also noted that other formerly drilled, uncapped wells in the area could pose serious risks if fracking fluids find their way into them as they could then easily flow into the groundwater supply.

Wes Gillingham, of event organizers Catskill Mountainkeeper, also showed aerial photos of a rural Pennsylvania drilling site that confirmed many of their fears - drilling sites and gravel pits popping up in a seemingly random pattern alongside houses, farms and churches; pipelines and access roads zigzagging across the landscape; holding ponds overflowing its potentially chemically contaminated waste water; and dozens of large freight trucks lined up in fields.

Subra urged those gathered to educate themselves and get involved, and pointed out that citizen outcry in her native Louisiana successfully led to the phasing out of drilling pits in favor of a more environmentally sound "closed-loop system."

"You have a large amount of work ahead of you," she added.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

Ghostbusting Hydraulic Fracturing... State vs. Federal Regulation (Who You Gonna Call???)

A report, by John Laurent-Tronche, in today's Fort Worth Business Press, "States or Feds: Who gets to regulate hydraulic fracturing?" states:
A recent push by federal legislators to repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005 could mean companies that employ hydraulic fracturing, a means of stimulating and opening up a well, would have to answer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Act about the chemicals they use in the injection process.
...
Legislators and other concerned parties, including environmental groups, are worried the chemicals used – many of which are harmful to humans and other species – could seep into underground water tables and contaminate water supply. The industry argues there haven’t been any instances of contamination to date and federal oversight would impede natural gas and oil development by adding increased permitting requirements and economic burdens.

“We have a 60-year track record on our side,” said Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a Washington, D.C.-based industry lobbying group comprised of dozens of organizations, including the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America. “Why in 60 years that fracing has been used, why now? Why is everyone pissed off now?”

In today's Atomic Insights Blog post: "See No Evil, Hear No Evil Approach to Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing Shale Gas Extraction", Ron Adams counters:
...I also found out that claims of "never a problem with hydraulic fracturing" were carefully stated to ensure that the claim was applicable only to a portion of the full process and did not include the potential for human or mechanical errors during drilling through aquifers, or the potential for surface water contamination. The witnesses that claimed that there was no evidence of contamination from hydraulic fracturing admitted that some parts of the complete process of extracting gas from shale formation had historically caused some issues of contamination or property damage, but the "fracking" process itself had not yet been proven to be the cause of any incidents. (One witness dismissed the reports of previous problems by stating that they were "legacy" issues that have already been corrected through state legislation and/or regulatory changes.)

Though the natural gas industry is adamant that additional regulations will cause it undue financial burdens and limit its ability to supply the abundant, cheap fuel that it claims is a "game changer", it appears evident that the practice of drilling for unconventional gas requires consistently applied regulations set at the federal level, perhaps with some assistance from state agencies that have proven capabilities as the local enforcement arm. As described by the witness from the US Geological Survey, the formations being developed are spread over large areas that do not respect state lines. The potentially affected air and water resources also do not recognize the politically determined boundaries of existing states.

With that 60 year problem free track record in Texas, why is there suddenly such outcry?

The Fort Worth Business Press continues:
The answer, [industry spokesman Chris Tucker] said, is the Marcellus Shale. As soon as natural gas production went from an isolated area in North Texas to nationwide – in Louisiana, Wyoming, New York, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and elsewhere – people began to worry about how to address it.

“[Environmental activists] knew they couldn’t go into Texas and say that the Barnett Shale was a loser or that fracing was dangerous. They couldn’t do that in Oklahoma,” Tucker said. “But once the Marcellus Shale came out and it was clear this was huge, it all came to the forefront.”

Indeed, 34 states now have oil and gas production, said Amy Mall, senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“It definitely is a national issue,” Mall said. “It’s no longer a local issue. We think federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act makes sense, because it is a national issue.”

From Atomic Insights:
In many cases, notably the newly developing Marcellus shale formation, the continuous gas reservoirs are deep under the surface of states that have little existing regulatory infrastructure and little experience in deep underground drilling. It is disingenuous for the oil/gas industry and the states that have experience to dig in their heels on a states' rights basis when it is clear that the implications of developing this large and important resource in a responsible manner will require multi-state cooperation with legal enforcement of required practices and should not be dependent on voluntary compliance with vaguely defined ''best practices".

FW Business Press:
Many of the chemicals used in Texas frac jobs can cause irreparable harm to the eyes, skin, sensory organs, respiratory system, brain and nervous system, according to an April 2009 study by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a Colorado-based organization that studies chemicals’ effects on human health and the environment. A little more than a month ago, 19 cattle died after ingesting a fluid that originated at a Chesapeake Energy Corp. drill site in Louisiana, according to an April 29 article in the Shreveport Times. Schlumberger Ltd. reportedly was conducting a frac job at the time. The matter is under investigation by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
...
There have been at least 375 cases of groundwater contamination due to oil and gas operations reported to the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division, according to a list on the government agency’s Web site. Some of the companies responsible are big players in the Barnett Shale.

From TXSharon's blog, Bluedaze today, David Burnett, Director of the Global Petroleum Research Institute, is quoted, saying:
What is the fuss about drilling a Barnett Shale well? A Barnett well site with a drilling rig operating for three months has the same impact as a city of 4,000 people - Water use, solid waste generation, air emissions and traffic. The O&G industry has been slow to realize this—that it has too big an impact on the environment. ...

Bluedaze presents us with this revealing bird's eye view of "Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale..."

Thank you TXSharon, for all you do.

The Fort Worth Business Press concludes:
Earlier this year, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a report saying it found no significant impacts from hydraulic fracturing operations, according to news reports. Only later did the department admit it had not conducted a single test to back up that claim.

DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY!

NOT SO FAST... THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD REDUX

TEMPORARY HOLD ON LEASING STATE LAND SOUGHT

Just last week, the GOP House Energy Task Force, co-chaired by Tina "Drill Baby Drill" Pickett (R-Bradford), unveiled a proposal to violate 390,000 new acres of PA state forest land drilling for gas.

In an environmentally considered move, the Conservation and Natural Resources Advisory Committee has requested a temporary hold on leasing additional state forest land for Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling until the environmental impacts of drilling on the first 74,000 acres can be evaluated.

The Memorandum of Concern, addressed to Governor Edward Rendell and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Secretary Michael DeBerardinis, notes, “We believe that to lease additional substantial acreage of state forest lands at this time would be an abrogation of the public trust of these public lands, and would be a short-sighted approach to the use of the resources managed by this state agency [DCNR].”

The committee also recommended future revenues from leased lands be retained in DCNR’s Oil and Gas Lease Fund to help maintain state parks and forests and to address any environmental issues arising from the drilling.

DEP ROLLBACK OF CLEAN WATER PROTECTION FROM MARCELLUS SHALE DRILLING CALLED ILLEGAL AND IRRESPONSIBLE

(HARRISBURG, PA) -- Members of the Pennsylvania Campaign for Clean Water, a coalition of organizations dedicated to protecting Pennsylvania’s water resources, issued the following statements today after DEP recently stripped County Conservation Districts of their duties to review erosion, sediment, and stormwater control plans for natural gas well drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale formation. DEP additionally instituted an expedited stormwater permitting process that does not allow for public participation or meaningful agency review of permit applications.

36 member organizations of the Campaign for Clean Water co-signed a letter sent today to DEP Acting Secretary John Hanger condemning DEP’s actions. (see below)

“DEP’s actions are complete give-aways to the oil and gas industry. DEP acted without any public notice or opportunity to comment, and in so doing have increased the likelihood of more sediment pollution to Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams. In taking these actions, DEP has ignored its own core values of environmental protection and public transparency.”
Maya van Rossum, The Delaware Riverkeeper

“At a time when DEP is admittedly understaffed to deal with the rush of Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania, it makes no sense whatsoever to strip the Conservation Districts of their duties and give them to DEP staff that lack their level of experience in erosion and sediment control. Many local communities have already been heavily impacted by drilling. The public is looking for more oversight, not less.”
Myron Arnowitt, Pennsylvania State Director, Clean Water Action

“Pennsylvania and federal law requires well drilling sites to adequately control stormwater and prevent erosion and sediment pollution to our rivers and streams. We believe a fast-track permitting scheme that eliminates technical review of erosion, sediment, and stormwater plans is illegal under federal and state environmental laws.”
Matt Royer, Staff Attorney, Pennsylvania Office, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

(following is the letter sent to DEP)

PENNSYLVANIA CAMPAIGN FOR CLEAN WATER
1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1650
Philadelphia PA 19107
215-545-0250

March 31, 2009

John Hanger
Acting Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Acting Secretary Hanger:

We were dismayed to learn of the new directives issued by DEP on March 18, 2009 related to review of Chapter 102 and 105 permits associated with Marcellus Shale gas activities. DEP’s actions to suddenly strip County Conservation Districts of their delegated duties without notice and public comment and to institute, through revisions to permit forms, a permitting process that does not allow for public participation or meaningful agency review of permit applications is illegal, irresponsible, and a violation of DEP’s public duties as a public resource protection agency of the Commonwealth.

DEP’s mission is to “protect Pennsylvania’s air, land and water from pollution” and “work as partners with individuals, organizations, governments and businesses to prevent pollution and restore our natural resources.” DEP has established five core values to guide its work:

Public Service. To “serve the public in a fair, efficient, responsive, open and honest manner.”

Protection. To protect “the air, land and water of the Commonwealth” and “promote measurable environmental improvement, cooperation, innovation and sustainable development so future generations may share our wealth.”

Teamwork. To recognize that DEP’s “responsibilities are great and our numbers are few” and that DEP’s goals “can only be accomplished if we work cooperatively and support each other in the achievement of our common purpose.”

Communication. To “encourage the broadest two-way communication possible with all our constituencies by involving the public in decision-making opportunities” and “disseminating information through all means possible.”

Pollution Prevention. To “promote the goal of zero discharge” and “stop pollution before it starts.”

For the reasons discussed below, these recent actions violate every one of DEP’s core values.

The lack of transparency and public involvement in development of the process is contrary to DEP’s stated mission and values.

As a public agency, DEP must remain committed to transparency and full public involvement of major policy, guidance, and regulatory initiatives. Despite espousing these principles in its mission and values statement, DEP has not asked the public to comment on the decisions to strip Conservation Districts of their delegated duties and to revise, through permit form revisions, the permit review process for the oil and gas industry. This proposal was not shared with important advisory committees made up of public stakeholders, including the Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) or even the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC), a statutorily-created advisory committee tasked with providing independent oversight of DEP’s operations and policies.

While DEP’s draft proposed permit-by-rule for the entire stormwater construction program was shared with these committees, it was widely criticized as unworkable and fraught with many of the same Clean Water Act issues that now confront DEP’s current permit process applicable to oil and gas activities. Yet, apparently, DEP has chosen to ignore these criticisms and institute a permit-by-rule process through the back door to facilitate Marcellus Shale development activity.

County Conservation Districts are valuable local resource agencies with which DEP should be partnering to ensure it can fulfill its regulatory duties.

Development of the Marcellus Shale formation has the potential to benefit local economies in rural Pennsylvania. It also has the potential to drastically change the landscape and impact the forests, mountains, farms, and streams of some of the most pristine areas of the Commonwealth. For decades, County Conservation Districts have provided grassroots-directed local support and expertise to ensure protection of Pennsylvania’s soil and water resources. Since being delegated duties of administering elements of the Chapters 102 and 105, Conservation Districts have performed admirably in ensuring that earth disturbance and water resource encroachments associated with new activities are protective of our rivers and streams.

There has been no evidence presented that there are persistent and systemic problems with County Conservation District review and permit processing under Chapters 102 and 105. Thus there is absolutely no justification for unilaterally stripping Conservation Districts of such delegated duties, particularly when DEP should be partnering with as many agencies as possible to ensure that environmental regulations continue to be implemented in the face of increasing Marcellus Shale development activity.

DEP lacks the staff to take on these new duties and effectively administer the E&S and stormwater permitting program.

By your own admission in response to questioning during testimony before the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, DEP lacks adequate staff to fully implement the oil and gas program in the face of increasing activity. While we understand that DEP has hired new employees in recent months to address this staffing shortfall, there is still not enough staff at DEP to administer all necessary regulatory duties.

It will take months before these new employees are established and trained. The professionals with the most training and experience in reviewing erosion and sediment control plans and inspecting BMPs in the field are those at the County Conservation Districts.

In light of these facts, it makes no sense whatsoever for DEP to take on more duties by stripping County Conservation Districts of delegated duties under the Chapter 102 and 105 programs with which Districts have considerable experience. We fear that, if administering of these permitting programs remain in DEP hands, shorthanded and inadequately trained DEP staff will not have the time or experience to conduct adequate review of plans, and permits will be approved and projects constructed that will not be protective of waters of the Commonwealth. In addition, we fear that few experienced DEP staff will be in the field to oversee the operations of gas drillers.

This process is illegal under the Clean Water Act and 25 Pa. Code Chapters 92 and 102.

Current state regulations clearly require all oil and gas activities that disturb five acres or more to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(a). In addition, the Ninth Circuit recently vacated EPA’s rulemaking exempting construction associated with oil and gas activities from NPDES permitting. NRDC v. EPA, 526 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2008). As a result of this court decision, the limitation that Section 402(l)(2) of the Clean Water Act places on NPDES permit requirements for oil and gas operations does not apply where stormwater runoff is contaminated by contact with sediment. Stormwater runoff contamination by contact with sediment will, as a matter of course, result from any and all construction activities associated with oil and gas operations. Moreover, the need for NPDES permits to control sediment contamination from stormwater runoff on oil and gas sites is applicable to both Phase I and Phase II facilities, and thus should be required for all operations 1 acre or greater. The Ninth Circuit noted that, due to contact with sediment:

the runoff generated while construction activities are occurring has potential for serious water quality impacts . . . [and] [e]ven small construction sites may have a significant negative impact on water quality in localized areas. Over a short period of time, construction sites can contribute more sediment to streams than was previously deposited over several decades.

NRDC v. EPA, 526 F.3d at 597 (citing 55 Fed. Reg. at 48033-34). Further, it noted that “EPA long recognized that oil and gas construction sites were prime candidates for NPDES permitting in light of what EPA referred to as ‘serious water quality impacts’ caused by construction stormwater discharges polluted with sediment.” Id. at 607.

Pennsylvania requires an NPDES stormwater permit for oil and gas activities that disturb five acres or more. 25 Pa. Code 102.5(a). And, in light of NRDC v. EPA, Pennsylvania should require all oil and gas operations greater than one acre to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit. Accordingly, it is illegal for DEP to continue to regulate E&S and stormwater discharges from oil and gas sites using the Erosion and Sediment Control General Permit ESCGP-1. Moreover, in light of the regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Streams Law, and Chapters 102, 92, and 93, DEP cannot legally regulate E&S and stormwater through a mere “Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Control Module” to well drilling permits.

DEP’s new permitting scheme, therefore, violates state and federal law in several respects. As we have explained in our many comments on DEP’s proposed permit-by-rule for the stormwater program, a process that lacks public opportunity to comment on NPDES permit applications and does not allow enough time for meaningful agency review of stormwater and E&S plans violates the Clean Water Act. Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d, 486, 498 (2nd Cir. 2005); Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, Texas Cities Coalition on Stormwater v. EPA, 541 U.S. 1085, 124 S. Ct. 2811 (2004).

In addition, the process is illegal pursuant to Chapter 92, the state regulations governing NPDES permits. DEP’s scheme allows for general permit coverage under ESCGP-1 in High Quality (HQ) and Exceptional Value (EV) special protection watersheds. However, 25 Pa. Code §§ 92.81(a)(8), 92.83(b)(9) do not allow coverage under general NPDES permits in HQ or EV watersheds. Rather, individual permits are required.


To conclude, in taking this new direction for the stormwater and Chapters 102 and 105 programs as related to Marcellus Shale development, DEP has violated legal requirements, bypassed the public comment process, and refused to work with willing local partners to ensure that the Pennsylvania’s wealth of clean water resources are protected while natural gas development proceeds at record pace. We urge you to retract the memo dated March 18, 2009, implement the NPDES stormwater program for oil and gas activities as required by federal and state law, and continue to partner with County Conservation Districts to deliver this program.

Sincerely,

Julie Vastine
Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring (ALLARM)

Liz Garland
American Rivers

Matt Royer
Chesapeake Bay Foundation

James Morawski
Chester County Trail Club


Deb Smiko
Chestnut Ridge Trout Unlimited

Myron Arnowitt
Clean Water Action

Leonard Hess
Conemaugh Valley Conservancy
Kiski-Conemaugh River Basin Alliance

Tracy Carluccio
Delaware Riverkeeper Network

Deborah Goldberg
Earthjustice

Alan C. Gregory
Friends of the Nescopeck

Barry Lewis
GreenTreks Network, Inc.

John Hoekstra
Green Valleys Association


Ingrid Cantarella-Fox
Horse-Shoe Trail Club

Terry Wentz
Juniata Valley Audubon Society

Thyra Sperry
Keystone Trails Association

Michael R. Helfrich
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper

Bev Braverman
Mountain Watershed Association

David Masur
PennEnvironment

Chuck Marshall
Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund

R. Martin
Pennsylvania Forest Coalition

Deborah Nardone
Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited

Bryn Hammarstrom, RN
Pine Creek Headwaters Protection Group

John Linkes
Roaring Run Watershed Association
Kiskiminetas Watershed Association

Laura Jackson
Save Our Allegheny Ridges

Thomas Au
Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter
Peter Wray
Sierra Club Allegheny Group

Mark Fiorini
Sierra Club Kittatinny Group

Gary Thornbloom
Sierra Club Moshannon Group

Jack D. Miller
Sierra Club Otzinachson Regional Group

Pat Beaudet
Sierra Club Southeastern PA Group

Jim Nelson
Valley Forge Chapter of Trout Unlimited

Joan Jessen
Washington County Watershed Alliance

Elizabeth Berkowitz and Jennifer Borneman
Wild Asaph Outfitters

Krissy Kasserman
Youghiogheny Riverkeeper