Northumberland is goin=
g to
grow. Let’s help it gro=
w with
order and beauty.
Vision 2048 — Northumberland
Partnership
By
Lee Allain
Since
being “born” in January of this year, Vision 2048 —
Northumberland Partnership has grown rapidly in membership. Some diverse organizations now mak=
e up
the current roster. All are
committed to smart growth for our County.&=
nbsp;
A wide-ranging group that includes such organizations as the YMCA, t=
he
NAACP, NAPS, the Hewlett Tavern Foundation, Audubon, several HOAs, and many
other local organizations have chosen to be part of the outreach network of
Vision 2048. This new organiz=
ation
of organizations, devoted to preserving our history, culture and environment
for our children, has started to get traction in a number of project
areas. Probably more importan=
tly,
the organization has increased interest and attendance at recent Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings. We are working in partnership to
identify, prioritize and steer projects that sustain our heritage, build a
healthy environment, a vibrant community, and a vigorous economy. It is only through involvement of =
the
whole community in a collective planning process, that we can assure the
quality of life in the future that we today take for granted. It is easy to get over-run by the
tyranny of today’s issues. But,
our tomorrows, and the tomorrows of the next generation, also deserve our
attention.
Vision
2048 has received positive attention from local media and even was highligh=
ted
on the Thea Marshall show at WINDY 105 on June 14th. There are no silver bullets, just =
a lot
of hard work by those concerned with growth, understanding the issues, and
encouraging growth consistent and appropriate to our county.
Of
most concern to the group is revision of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zon=
ing
Ordinances. Members of the gr=
oup
have provided much of the input on Plan Chapters reviewed so far. The focus has now moved to Chapter=
3,
which addresses basic land use issues.&nbs=
p;
Copies are available on line at the county website
www.co.northumberland.va.us and at the Public Library. The county is doing a superb job of
providing access to the process.
All inputs are accepted and logged, and the current version of the p=
lan
is posted to insure that others can see progress as inputs are assessed by
county staff.
Some
of the projects that Vision 2048 is working on relate to such areas as water
access for the public, reinforcing the village concept, providing environme=
ntal
stewardship education, controlling waterfront growth, Rt. 360 corridor
protection overlay, public opinion survey, and doing an assessment of county
“assets”: historical, archeological, scenic views, etc. We don’t know all the proble=
ms
that we will encounter over the next decades. We are a unique county with unique
assets. Still, the experience=
of
others who have experienced rapid growth provides insight into many typical
issues.
At
our June meeting, we listened as Jane Towner described the charter, functio=
ns
and progress of the Northern Neck Land Conservancy. The Conservancy provides at least =
one
possibility for large land estates, such as local farms, to maintain their
integrity in perpetuity. The
conservancy has also chosen to join Vision 2049(8?).
If
the future concerns you, today is your best chance to have an impact on the=
Vision
2048 meets the 2nd Monday of each month at 9:00 AM in the Northumberland
Library. Your organization is
invited to join us. If you ha=
ve
questions, or would like to be personally involved, call Lee Allain, Mike
Harwood,
Nutrient
Management Regulations
By
I
attended four meetings of a Technical Advisory Committee to the Department =
of
Conservation and Recreation regarding stiffening nutrient management
regulations. My public comments are posted on the NAPS web site www.napsva.=
org
and appended. Briefly, this is a classic example of how special interests g=
et
their way. The proposed regulation changes have no "teeth" and ar=
e a
"give-away" to sewage sludge interests, the poultry industry and =
the
few farmers who use the stuff. The use of animal waste as
"fertilizer" is the largest single polluting agricultural practic=
e,
and agriculture has been known for over three decades as the largest pollut=
er
of the
Public comments on Nutrient Management Training =
and
Certification Regulations
By Dr. Lynton S. Land,
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to DCR, of
which I was a member, was given several objectives regarding phosphorus (P)
regulations at the first meeting:
1) =
Protect water quality by controlling soil
concentrations of P and P loadings,
2) = Be straightforward and time efficient to apply,<= o:p>
3) =
Produce consistent results when applied by diffe=
rent
persons, and
4) =
Be relatively easy to understand and convey to
farmers.
The proposed regulation revisions fail to
significantly achieve any of these objectives, and reflect the views of the
TAC, which was dominated by poultry and sewage sludge interests. One State
participant, Dr. C. M. Sawyer from VDH, was more vocal in resisting regulat=
ion
of the land-application of sewage sludge than were the representatives of
commercial “biosolids” contractors. Most agronomists focused on
maximizing crop yields irrespective of environmental consequences, for exam=
ple
by defending land-application to winter cover crops.
Four methods of achieving the P objectives were
presented to the TAC and compared for seven different scenarios:
Method &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; Apply no P=
Crop removal rate 1.5 times Crop r=
emoval
Soil Test P =
&nb=
sp; all 7 scenarios
Poultry Waste Mgt. Act &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; all 7 scen=
arios
Environmental Threshold &=
nbsp; 1 scenario=
3
scenarios &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 3
scenarios
Phosphorus Index (PI) &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 2 scenario=
s 2
scenarios &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 3
scenarios
The simplest, most easily understood common sense
method, “Soil Test P,” namely to analyze the soil for P and app=
ly
only the amount of P required by the crop according to DCR’s 2005
Nutrient Management Standards and Criteria (“Standards”), satis=
fies
all four objectives. Adoption of the “Soil Test P” method would
severely restrict land-application and no P would be allowed under any of t=
he
seven scenarios presented to the TAC. This is because animal waste (sewage
sludge, cattle and swine manure and poultry litter) is P-rich and because i=
t is
well known that “…much of the crop land in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed is now considered “optimum” or “excessive”=
; in
phosphorus from an agricultural perspective and hence needs little addition=
al
phosphorus, from any source, to ensure that economically optimum crop yields
are attained.” (A. N. Sharpley, Ed., Agriculture and Phosphorus
Management: The Chesapeake Bay, 1999, CRC Press, p. 66.) The Soil Test P me=
thod
would have no negative impact on agricultural productivity, it best achieves
the objective of reducing P loading of soils, it is most protective of water
quality and reducing pollution of
The “Poultry Waste Mgt. Act” method =
would
limit P application to crop removal rates for all seven scenarios, but it w=
ould
not reduce the P loadings (objective #1). The other two methods, including =
PI,
are the least restrictive. Applying P a rates higher than is needed by crops
will ensure further P loading of soils already overloaded with P, violating
objective #1. Why is land-application to be permitted at up to 1.5 times
crop removal rates?
The 48 page Virginia Phosphorus Index (Version 1=
.3,
March 2005) is, in my opinion as a professional geochemist, based on
undocumented and very permissive “science.” In no way can the P=
I be
considered “straightforward and time efficient to apply” (objec=
tive
#2) or ” easy to understand and convey to farmers” (objective #=
4).
Because of complexity and cost the PI will discourage farmers from adopting
voluntary nutrient management plans, the exact opposite of what is desired.=
Any
method such as PI that uses subjective judgments cannot “produce
consistent results when applied by different persons” (objective #3) =
and
it is obviously subject to conscious or unconscious bias. Many of the
coefficients/factors are undocumented (Tables 10, 11 and 16 for example) and
the negative intercepts in Table 9 (-0.32) and Table 17 (-1.72) are physica=
lly
impossible. The way ‘Subsurface Risk Factor” (SRF) is handled
ignores the fact that chemical weathering will eventually dissolve excess P
from the soil and guarantee a very long term slow “bleed” of P =
into
groundwater and surface water, and then into Chesapeake Bay, as indicated by
modern studies. The inclusion of a multiplicative 0 (zero) in the formula
guarantees that the SRF can be 0 (zero). Not only does this help minimize t=
he
PI because SRF is one of three factors that are added together to yield the
final PI value, it is chemical nonsense. Groundwater phosphate concentratio=
ns
are never zero (e.g. USGS Circular 1157, p. 12). In Table A.3 more than 80%=
of
the soils have “Soil texture/Drainage class factors” of 0.00, a=
nd
those soils with values greater than zero are rarely farmed, as is made cle=
ar
in the definitions of drainage conditions that accompany Table 16. Why is
the cumbersome and complex Phosphorus Index, poorly grounded in modern
peer-reviewed science, and capable of being manipulated to yield a minimum
result, being advocated?
The proposed regulations state in 4VAC5-15-150.c=
. (my
emphasis):
1. =
Phosphorus applications from inorganic=
nutrient sources shall not exceed crop nutrient needs over
the crop rotation based on a soil test.
2. =
Whenever possible,
phosphorus applications from organic nutrient sources =
should
not exceed crop nutrient needs over the crop rotation based on a soil
test.
Why is a distinction made betwe=
en
inorganic and organic forms of P and why is the language with regard to org=
anic
P permissive?
It is relevant that the wording of existing
12VAC5-585-550.A “The applied nitrogen and phosphorous content of
biosolids shall be limited to amounts established to support crop
growth.” is very similar to 4VAC5-15-150.c.1, but unlike
4VAC5-15-150.c.3. It must be publicly recognized that 12VAC5-585-550.A is b=
eing
violated routinely by VDH. The rate of land-application of sewage sludge is
being determined by N and lime, and P is being ignored. If 12VAC5-585-550.A
were being enforced, land-application of municipal sewage sludge would be
severely restricted. Why is 12VAC5-585-550.A being violated and P being
ignored?
In addition to addressing P, these regulations address the timing o=
f N
application. In the face of unavoidable inefficiencies in N uptake by crops,
timing of N application is a small part of the pollution problem. Organic
material is a very inefficient form of fertilizer, compared to chemical
fertilizer, because microbes release nutrients slowly to the soil irrespect=
ive
of whether or not the crop is growing. Inefficient N availability to crops =
is
quantified in “Standards” Tables 8-2 and 9-1, which state that
between 18 an 55% of the N in sewage sludge is crop-available, and between =
15
and 60% of the N is available to crops from other forms of animal waste. On
average, about half the N applied to the land in animal waste is used by cr=
ops
and half is not. The N not used by crops must be accounted for, and since it
does not remain in the soil, it must be released to the environment. Most of
the N not used by crops is oxidized to nitrate and constitutes pollution of
groundwater or runoff. Massive loss of N to the environment from agricultur=
al
fertilization is proven by widespread high nitrate concentrations in ground=
water.
For example, USGS Circular 1228 (p. 2) states that “Concentrations of
nitrate and herbicide compounds in groundwater of the
It is instructive to ask how much N is land-appl=
ied in
animal waste annually in
=
Pounds applied *
Sewage sludge&nb=
sp; 494,648,000 * 0.02=
* 0.48=
=3D =
4,749,000
Poultry litter&n=
bsp;
1,115,268,000 * 0.03=
* 0.40=
=3D =
13,383,000
Cattle, swine&nb=
sp; 468,509,000 * 0.03=
* 0.60=
=3D =
8,433,000
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; 26,565,000
27 million pounds of N were land-applied in 2003=
in
The proposed reg= ulation changes with regard to the timing of N land-application merely tinker around the edge of a massive source of pollution, namely the naturally inefficient nature of animal waste as fertilizer. The land-application (or storage) of animal waste is a particularly egregious form of groundwater pollution in B= ay Act counties because of porous soils, a high water table, and close proximi= ty to tidal waterways. In Bay Act counties, shallow groundwater, not runoff, is the most important vector of transport of nutrients directly to tidal water= s.
A serious omission that significantly eases
restrictions on the land-application of animal waste, is DCR’s failur=
e to
specify any N recommendations for soybeans (Standards, p. 63) which constit=
ute
about 13% of all crops grown in
Seven questions have been posed, some of which t=
o not
apply specifically to the regulations in question but address the broader i=
ssue
of reducing nutrient pollution of
1) Why is the straightforward, common sense =
Soil
Test P method not being mandated?
2) Why is land-application to be permitted at up to=
1.5
times crop removal rates?
3) Why is the cumbersome and complex Phosphorus Ind=
ex,
poorly grounded in modern peer-reviewed science, and capable of being
manipulated to yield a minimum result, being advocated?
4) Why is a distinction made between inorganic and
organic forms of P and why is the language with regard to organic P permiss=
ive?
5) Why is 12VAC5-585-550.A being violated and P bei=
ng
ignored?
6) Why are nutrient management plans not mandated f=
or the
land-application of manure and poultry litter, which constitute most of the=
N
pollution?
7) Why are the N recommendations for soybeans not z=
ero,
as they are for red clover?
The answer to al= l of these questions is the same.
Stricter regulations would seriously impact the
profits of a very few enterprises directly associated with the land-applica=
tion
of animal waste and slightly impact the few farmers who use animal waste.
Stricter regulations would have no negative effe=
ct on
economically optimum crop yields (agricultural productivity) and would
significantly reduce nutrient pollution of
It is clear to me after observing the process by which these
regulations were formulated that they are being promulgated in favor of a v=
ery
small minority of poultry growers, sewage sludge haulers and farmers direct=
ly
associated with the land-application of animal waste. The “free
fertilizer” for farmers comes with a massive cost to society in the f=
orm
of
Dr. Lynton S. Land
Emeritus Prof. Geological Sci., U. <=
st1:State
w:st=3D"on">Texas,
and Edwin Allday Chair in
Subsurface Geology
Comprehensive Plan and zoning revision
By
Revision of the County Comprehensive Plan continues, with several
schedule changes. So many public comments were received on Chapter 5 (Water
Quality Protection Plan) that the first draft revisions will be presented to
the Planning Commission at their scheduled meeting Thursday July 21 at 7:00,
one month later than originally planned. Additionally, a new chapter is bei=
ng
considered, which may add another couple of months to the review process.
Everyone should realize that even though revised Chapters 1, 2, 4 and the
Appendix have been accepted by the Planning Commission, the entire
Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed again by the Planning Commission. The
entire plan will then be reviewed again by the Board of Supervisors. This m=
eans
that there is still plenty of time to review and make public comments on the
revisions. Most of the documents are on the
&nbs=
p; Public
comments are now being solicited for Chapter 3 (Land Use Plan) in time for =
the
August meeting. Chapter 3 was scheduled last because it was felt there migh=
t be
more public input. The existing Chapter 3 is only 23 pages long (big type, =
one
side-of-the-page, 8 pages of Figures
- hint, hint, hint) an=
d can
be read at the Northumberland Library. It is useful to summarize the purpos=
e of
this chapter. From p. 3:1.
8) =
It represents the vision community leaders have =
for
future use and development of land within the County. That vision is expres=
sed
in the Future Land Use Plan Map and its accompanying land use policies.
9) =
The Land Use Plan serves as a guide to any chang=
e in
character of individual properties as they change from one use to another o=
ver
time.
10) It provides a rational basis for establishing zo=
ning
and other land use development regulations.
11) It provides a broad set of policies that can be =
used
in making public and private decisions on projects that come before the
government.
12) It becomes a valuable tool of communication betw=
een
citizens and the local government on matters concerning land use and
development.
The first eight pages summarize land use policies for the Rural
Uplands, the Rural Low Shelf, the Shoreline Conservation Area and the Villa=
ges.
Each of the seven villages (
It is also i=
mportant
to remember that the Board of Supervisors is in the process of revising zon=
ing
ordinances, and several public presentations have been scheduled on this is=
sue
although no public comments have been formally solicited. Two new zoning
categories, have been proposed. A new A-2 (Agricultural Business) zone cont=
ains
most of the non-agricultural uses that have been removed from the old A-1 (=
now
Agricultural Limited) zone. A New B-2 (Business Waterfront) zone is being
proposed. The proposals presented to the Board of Supervisors by
1. =
Should commercial activities be concentrated in =
the
Villages and not along the highways between Villages?
2. =
Do we need a strong Highway Overlay plan?
3. =
Should the locations of the Commercial Hub and S=
upport
Areas in Villages be based on plat lines?
4. =
Should architectural guidelines be established f=
or
Villages?
5. =
Should the Village Concept become Ordinance?
6. =
Should re-zoning accompany the establishment of =
the
locations of the Commercial Hub and Support Area in Villages?
7. =
What kinds of restrictions on locations, building
heights, spacing and architecture should apply to multi-family waterfront
development projects in the R-2 (Residential Waterfront) and B-2 zones?
Whatever your opinion on these, and other matter=
s, it
is important to educate yourself and get involved in revisions of both the =
comprehensive
Plan and zoning ordinances. The County is likely to be much more highly
developed by the next time the Comprehensive Plan is revised. Let the NAPS
board know your ideas, and please contact us if you need help accessing any=
of
the information.
DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN AWARD
By Bob Kane
The
Annual Fall Social in September will be here before you know it! Chairman Martha Tallent has already
begun the organization process, so you know it’s going to be great
fun! Sunset at the Shore will=
be a
picnic supper held at
Details
will come later, but now The Board of Directors is asking for members and
friends of The Northumberland Association for Progressive Stewardship (NAPS=
) to
make nominations from which to choose the recipient of the 2005 Distinguish=
ed
Northumberland Citizen(s) Award (DNCA). As you know, this award is given to
honor an individual, team, organization or business that advances the goals=
of
NAPS. These goals include imp=
roving
the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries; fostering and
preserving the County’s rural atmosphere; promoting and monitoring la=
nd
use policies; encouraging economic growth to promote jobs; and, cooperating
with others through educational programs to target these goals.
In
2003, Luther Welch was awarded the Distinguished Northumberland Citizen Awa=
rd
(DNCA) for the use of soil and water conservation in his farming practices,
following the Department of Forestry guidelines in the management of 250 ac=
res
of forest land, and his efforts in the historical preservation of farming
equipment.
In
2004, the recipient of the DNCA was Audrey Brainard for her continuous work
with the school children in hands-on science activities related to the water
and conservation by encouraging proper planting methods, composting, and
recycling. She also has been =
a leader
is setting up ‘Birds and Butterflies” in several Blue Bird Trai=
ls
in the County.
Also
in 2004, NAPS established The Ambassador Award. This Award may be given to a
The
selection committee consists of Porter and Mary Kier (Chairmen), Richard and
Karen Culp, Anne Olsen and Bob and Sloane Kane. If you know of someone, a
group, organization or business you think merits this award, mail the infor=
mation
to Mr. Porter Kier,
SAVE
THE DATE----SAVE THE DATE!!!
Saturday,
September 24. 5-7 p.m.
Sunset at the Shore
By
Martha Tallent
This
year's Fall Social, SUNSET AT THE SHORES, will be held Saturday, Sept. 24, =
5-7
p.m. We are fortunate, indeed=
, to
be able to use
To
accommodate the sunset (6:59 p.m. that day) we will be having an old-fashio=
ned
fried chicken picnic after our presentation of the Distinguished Citizen
Award. We can plan to "d=
ine
out" together. All you n=
eed to
do is bring a lawn chair or blanket if you would like better viewing of the
sunset from the grassy point.
The
last week in August, look for our mailing with more particulars and the
envelope for you to send in your reservations. For now,
SAVE
THE DATE:
SATURDAY, SEPT. 24, 5-7 p.m.
NAPS
FALL SOCIAL!
NAPS AWARDS FIVE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR 2005
By Susan Stubbs
On March 11, Myrtle
Phillips, Joe Thompson, and Susan Stubbs interviewed eight students, gradua=
ting
from
NAPS supports community leadership through str= ong growth planning and environmental stewardship. The scholarship program is the mai= nstay of our encouraging education for future leadership. The five awards were awarded at the Senior Chapel services at the High School on May 18.
Additionally, Myrtle
Phillips selected a recipient for her family scholarship along with the
students listed above. Tychier Young, who will be attending
Grass
By
We
purchased 60 flats of three kinds of marsh grass this spring (3000 plants) =
and
planted them at 25 locations. This is in addition to the grass purchased by=
the
Fishermen's museum and planted with NAPS' help (see article in this
Newsletter.) Unfortunately our grant was denied, but many people contribute=
d to
the cause so the treasury didn't take too big a hit. We now have enough
information to make much better projections about what works and what does =
not
work. One of the lessons we have learned is that the success of using marsh
grass to stabilize shorelines and/or to improve marshes, is highly dependen=
t on
the motivation of the property owner. "Plant it and forget it" is
rarely successful. Here are a couple examples.
A
moderate energy beach on the Little Wicomico River was sprayed for Phragmit=
es
in the fall of 2003. The beach was planted in the spring of 2004 and by the
fall of that year it was occupied by a lush stand of common cordgrass. A be=
ach
on the adjacent property, planted at the same time, had almost no grass
remaining. Why? Because the property owner in question religiously replaced
grass plugs as the waves (mostly from boat wakes) washed them out, and once=
the
grass began to grow he fertilized it lightly. FERTILIZER IN THE BAY you sho=
ut.
Yes, but how does pollution caused by a small amount of fertilizer for a ye=
ar
or so balance against the long-term advantages of erosion control and
groundwater nutrient uptake by the grass? Consider the pollution caused by
land-application of poultry litter to one acre of farmland. To provide 120
pounds of nitrogen needed by most crops, 200 pounds of nitrogen is applied =
(IF
application is done according to a "nutrient management plan" whi=
ch
is currently only required for the land application of sewage sludge.) Anim=
al
waste is a highly inefficient form of fertilizer and about half the applied
nitrogen is pollution. So that single acre of farmland contributes 80 pound=
s of
nitrogen pollution to the Bay or one of our local waterways, compared to the
few pounds that were applied to the beach in question, or the 5 pounds of
nitrogen per year that enters the groundwater from my septic system.
Another
site on Cockrell's creek had a beach in front of a cliff. NAPS installed
coconut logs at the base of the cliff in the spring of 2003 and planted gra=
ss
in front. Again, the property owner nurtured the grass by replanting plugs =
that
washed out (again, boat wakes were the main culprit) and fertilizing lightl=
y.
In addition, he planted several kinds of ground cover on the cliff to stabi=
lize
it. The coconut logs are beginning to decay, but the cliff seems to be
stabilized and the grass out in front is doing its job of breaking the waves
and trapping sediment. We do not know if a similar result would have been
obtained without installing the coconut logs, but we suspect they were not
necessary.
We
added small amounts of grass to both of these sites in 2004 and again this
year, for the last time. If anyone wants to visit either of these sites, the
property owners are both willing to show them off - just contact
Marsh Stabilization
and Community Education
By
Rita Johnson
The
Reedville Fishermen's Museum, in partnership with
Rita
Johnson is chairperson of the project, Susan Tipton is tracking the finances
and Audrey Brainard is coordinating on behalf of the RFM Education Committee
and the Chesapeake Bay Garden Club Conservation Committee.
With
the assistance of project advisors Karen Duhring from VIMS, Sue Lindsey fro=
m NN
Master Gardeners,
NAPS
has been controlling Phragmites for several years and helped plant marsh
grasses to "jump-start" the marsh in areas where the Phragmites is
being killed. Andy Pitts provided a tractor to remove old concrete from the
waters edge and volunteers bushed the shoreline. A marsh toe stabilization
demonstration was built by volunteers under the direction of Brian Barnes of
GreenShore Solutions, and it has been planted with marsh grasses. Nathan Moore drew up the specifica=
tions
and worked with agencies to obtain the appropriate permits for the job. Clean up continues, and includes
periodic spraying of undesirable plants with Rodeo. A major planting of
terrestrial plants is imminent. Feel free to stop by and watch the progress.
More volunteers are always welcome!
September ’05 =
Plant
By Sandy Blackwell
The
Northern Neck Chapter of the Virginia Native Plant Society will hold its an=
nual
plant sale on Saturday, September 10th from 9:00 until 1:00. We’ll be in front of the thr=
ift
store of the Episcopal Church in
Sustainable Development Award Nomination
By Lee Allain
As most of you are aware, NAPS has been one of= the pioneers advocating Marshgrass Restoration as part of erosion control and habitat restoration. As a res= ult of our work and the work of others in the community, a viable business has been established and the work goes on. The following excerpts from NAPS nomination letter for the RC&DC Sustainable Development Award nomination letter follows:
____________________
Dear
Ms. Davis:
The NAPS nomination fo=
r your
Sustainable Development Award is a new small company, Greenshore Solutions.
In
Today, that business is
thriving.
A little review of his=
tory
is in order. A number of year=
s ago
now, RC&D/Pat Tyrell, sponsored the Coan River Project headed locally by
Hoyt Wheeland. This project i=
ncluded
several tasks, all directed toward improvement of the
NAPS takes a lot of pr=
ide in
nominating Greenshore Solutions for
your Sustainable Development Award!
Since your organization started this activity, you also must be prou=
d of
the way this strong conservation effort has translated into sustainable
economic development. Our
understanding is that, in addition to our nomination, both the Northumberla=
nd
Economic Commission and the NN Soil and Water Conservation District intend =
to
nominate Greenshore for your award.
If you need any further information with regard to our nomination,
please call or send me an Email.
Lee Allain, NAPS Director