Draft Environmental Goals and Outcomes Released

March 19. 2010 19:28

While I think it is admirable to restore the fish and wildlife populations, and think the goals are good ones, will there be intermediate goals between now and 2025 to make sure we are heading in the right direction?

Martha

March 20. 2010 14:14

Draft goals released for Chesapeake Bay restoration - WGMD.COM

March 23. 2010 18:09

Pingback from midatlanticnemw.wordpress.com

EPA releases draft guidance for Chesapeake federal lands « MidAtlantic Watersheds Blog

midatlanticnemw.wordpress.com

March 25. 2010 09:59

I would like to request the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration document include a goal for returning natural rhythms of day and night to the watershed. Light Pollution in the area represents an impaired ecosystem that negatively affects a variety of flora and fauna activities including: migration, reproduction, feeding, sleeping and predation. Many species have survival strategies that rely upon natural queues such as lunar cycles and seasonal sunlight duration.

Efforts to restore natural water quality without addressing this basic ecosystem trait will slow and may even prevent species recovery. The International Dark-Sky Association would like to extend our support and knowledge base for your restoration activities. Additionally, the National Park Service Night Sky Team and The Urban Wildlands Group may be able to offer additional expertise.

Robert Wagner
President
Board of Directors
International Dark-Sky Association

Robert Wagner

March 26. 2010 09:40

I respectfully submit that more emphasis should be on establishing a private aquaculture fishery in Maryland. Private aquaculture has many benefits both economically and ecologically. Ecologically, private aquaculture will 1) take harvest and predatory pressure off the wild oyster population 2) provide habitat and food for other species 3) filter the bay water as they grow, removing sediments, algae and pollutants 4) encourage private funds to be invested in oyster research for disease resistant strains 5) encourage private funds to be invested into oyster hatchery operations 6) naturally improve wild oyster spat set as the aqua cultured oysters spawn.

Unfortunately, for various reasons there is no Maryland aquaculture industry. After decades of poor harvests watermen are in no financial position to invest in the large amounts that are needed. Even if they did have the money to invest they would be hesitant because aquaculture in Maryland has not been proven to be profitable.

Large-scale private aquaculture has significant up-front costs and at least 2 years before you can sell your first oyster. (Unless you use a triploid strain, but they are in limited supply and then you still have to wait 1 year.) To purchase the waterfront commercial land, build the necessary buildings and piers, and purchase the necessary equipment and oyster larvae, shell and labor you will easily have more than $2 million dollars invested.

In my opinion, private aquaculture is the key to restoring the health of the bay. However, without governmental support it will probably not develop.

Kind Regards,
Ryan Bergey, CPA
Berlin, Maryland

Ryan Bergey, CPA

April 1. 2010 15:45

Implementing the Bay wide TMDLs across 6 states and the District of Columbia is an enormous effort and inarguably requires a substantial amount of time to achieve. However, there are some aspects within the Bay Strategy Goals Framework that have a direct impact on the achievement of the Bay wide TMDLs that seemingly could and should be achieved sooner than the 2025 target date. As we know, the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that drains into the Bay directly affects the water quality and overall health of the Bay. As the Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance states on page 1-2, ‘Almost half of all the nitrogen and phosphorous pollution delivered to the Chesapeake Bay derives from agricultural sources, from both livestock production and row crop land.’ Why then is the date to achieve new conservation practices for agricultural lands pushed out to 2025? Is it too unreasonable to achieve that by 2015 or 2017?
I have the same concern for the delayed schedule to restore wetlands and riparian forest buffers. Why delay this until 2025? Better farming practices and restoring wetlands and forest buffers would all contribute to a decrease in the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment that ultimately reaches the Bay. If the target date is to fractionally restore these aspects by 2025, how will we restore the fish and wildlife populations by 2025? If we are to meet the Bay wide TMDLs by 2025, then some of the factors that will contribute to achieving those - wetland restoration, restoration of riparian buffers, increasing the land conservation bank, implementing sustainable farming practices – conceivably should be on a more aggressive schedule.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Suzanne Teague
Howard County, MD

Suzanne Teague

April 1. 2010 22:54

VCAN public comments on the President’s Executive Order (EO) and the DRAFT Chesapeake Bay Strategy Goals Framework (the strategy) March 19, 2010

Virginia Coastal Access Now (VCAN) is in support of the EO and the strategy. VCAN agrees with the strategy’s vision, goals, planned actions, and desired measureable outcomes. Our non-profit especially endorses the public access component of the EO and the strategy. VCAN has the following specific comments on the EO, the strategy, and the current draft document.

EO Goals (Pg 5), the goal to conserve lands for people, wildlife, and water should go beyond the stated desire to just expand public access and include restoring public access that has been lost. There are many examples where public access to the water’s of the Chesapeake Bay have been lost over the last 40 plus years that continue to this vary day. The strategy needs to help stop and even reverse this trend by taking planned actions and measured outcomes to restore public access. This could be reflected in the strategy at the end of the goal statement by adding the sentence: “Expanding public access includes both the creation of new public access opportunities, precluding the closure of existing public access locations, and the restoration of sites where public access has been lost.”

The actions necessary to meet the goal of expanding public access will not be easy or go unopposed by those wanting to protect their personal private interests. The President’s EO will need to be invoked to create, protect, and restore public access to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Enforcement of the EO and the strategy is absolutely necessary in areas where private interests are receiving a publicly funded water front property benefit (beach replenishment, local infrastructure improvements, etc).

In addition to the strategy’s goal of 300 new public access sites by 2025, the Measureable Outcomes for Public Access on page 9 must also state that it will protect or enhance the 754 existing and restore 150 public access sites. Protection means the EO will step in to preclude a public access closure. Enhancements by the strategy can facilitate the creation of new amenities like additional public parking or other public facilities at existing public access sites. Restoration of public access ranges from re-acquisition of public property from private control to lifting restrictions on parking to removing barriers and/or intimidation at public access sites.

In the last section on Conserving Lands for People, Wildlife, and Water (Appendix, Pg 24), the definition of the measure needs to be expanded beyond just “… the addition of new public access sites.” as described to include the stated need for ample public parking. The lack of public parking or “access to the access” is the great façade of public access. Historically, public accesses including walkovers, ramps and designated “public” beach and/or waterfront areas receiving public funds are required “public access”. However, for many inappropriate reasons to outright illegal actions the public has been kicked out through the elimination, restriction, or relocation of public parking to an extent that there is no real public access. Where this has, and continues to, happen the public is funding a de facto private beach. The EO and the strategy must clearly state the requirement for public parking to provide real public access.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark Feltner, President
Virginia Coastal Access Now
“Helping protect your Virginia public access water rights”

VCAN
1356 Pamlico Blvd
Chesapeake, VA 23322
(757)410-3180
vcanaccess@verizon.net

Mark Feltner

April 2. 2010 07:06

Overall the flow of the document is excellent. However, I feel that the
focus is a bit narrow in some areas as specified below.

1. Internships and partners, especially university partners such as
UMCP are not mentioned anywhere. Not only are our students intensely
interested in the environment, Chesapeake Bay, and conservation, but
they are our leaders for tomorrow. This effort presents an outstanding
opportunity to document the importance of training our future
scientists, policy makers, journalists, and social scientists.

2. Wildlife in this draft document does not consider key species that
inhabit the Chesapeake Bay and its environs. This includes waterfowl
and other semi-terrestrial inhabitants of wetlands. These species
provide important information about the ecological and environmental
health of the region.

3. Toxics should include endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs),
especially in considering the impact of pesticides and steroids from
field treatments of pesticides or manure.

4. Impacts on shore birds and other species that live near the
Chesapeake Bay also feed on aquatic insects, for example tree swallows,
ducks, gulls, and terns.

Mary Ann Ottinger

April 2. 2010 08:18

On behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Program Goal Implementation Teams we suggest that the program's Management Board should:

- Continue state and federal collaboration and work with the GITs to integrate the federal EO initiatives into the overall CBP strategy in a way that re-engages and strengthens the partnership and creates a single unified strategic action plan.

- Adopt a formal management system such as the one proposed at the November 2009 Management Board meeting to provide a predictable method of developing annual work plans and using data and decision support tools to adapt strategies and be successful in completing planned actions.

Greg Allen

April 2. 2010 08:59

Please accept the following comments from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation on the draft goals and measurable outcomes for the Chesapeake Bay restoration strategy.

General Comments:
Clarify the relationship between the current goal setting effort and the one completed by the Chesapeake Bay Program less than 2 years ago. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), in response to a 2005 Government Accountability Office report developed a strategic framework that attempted to unify, organize, and clarify CBP restoration efforts known as the “Chesapeake Action Plan” (CBP/TRS-292-08, July 2008). The goals in the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP) currently form the basis for CBP’s annual reporting in the Bay Barometer. It is unclear how the newly proposed goals and strategy framework relate to what is described in the CAP document. There appears to be substantial, but not complete overlap. These efforts should be reconciled. As it stands now, these two goal-setting initiatives will be perceived as duplicative and could confuse the public about Bay restoration efforts.

Set shorter term milestones to gauge and track progress. Bay restoration efforts are full of goals and outcomes, the majority of which have never been achieved. To enhance accountability, CBF recommends including shorter term milestones (expressed as measurable goals) leading up to the longterm outcome, similar to what was proposed to track and measure the states’ pollution reduction efforts.

Include a goal and measurable outcome for environmental education. One of the CAP goals was to “Foster Chesapeake Stewardship” and we strongly urge the inclusion of a goal related to environmental education. For example, the goal could be: “Educate the next generation of Bay citizens so they have the knowledge and skills needed to sustain clean water and a healthy Bay. “ The measurable outcome would be that States develop and implement classroom and field based programs to qualify for federal education funding and so all students graduate environmentally literate.

Specific Comments:
The Vision – the term “sustainable, healthy populations” is redundant. “Healthy” is the better word, because sustainability by itself could be achieved with a very low level population. In most practice, “sustainable” would be used to describe the fisheries or other activities that impact a population. Therefore, we recommend the following re-write of the 1st paragraph:

“We will work toward a Chesapeake Bay watershed with clean water that is swimmable and fishable in streams, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay and will rebuild and sustain healthy populations of blue crabs, oysters, fish and other wildlife with a broad network of land and water habitats that support fish and wildlife and are resilient to the impacts of development and climate change.” [note that this is how the word “sustain” is used in the Fish and Wildlife Goal statement]

Supporting Strategies – We fully support improving and using science and adaptive management. However, with respect to fisheries conservation and management, the quest for better science has often enough been used as an excuse for inaction. Taking no action in fisheries management is in effect a decision to continue existing levels of exploitation. Therefore, with respect to fisheries (at least) we recommend that in cases of insufficient scientific information for quantitative decision-making, we recommend the adoption of the precautionary principle, i.e., when information is incomplete, management agencies should err on the side of conservation. This should be either an additional Supporting Strategy or an addendum to the Science & Adaptive Management Strategy.

Measurable Outcomes –

1. Water Quality: We appreciate the attempt to determine and set goals for the attainment of water quality standards because this is a question that the public frequently asks. As noted, we also encourage a revisiting of this goal as the science behind our understanding of the Bay’s response to restoration improves.

2. Agriculture Conservation: We strongly support the targeting of agricultural conservation efforts to those areas that represent the highest risk to water quality. We recommend, however, that the outcome also include a commitment to implementing those practices that will also have the greatest benefit to water quality i.e., rather than placing additional practices on farms that are already doing a good job, funds should be directed to those producers that are lacking basic conservation measures. Finally, we note that to restore water quality, conservation measures will also need to be implemented on farms outside of the priority areas. While we recognize the intent of the goal is not to ignore producers in these areas, we suggest that the background information explicitly indicate that the intent is to also continue broader conservation efforts.

3. Oysters: Restoring self-sustaining native oyster populations in 20 tributaries by 2025 is an ambitious but attainable goal that we support. With the completion of the oyster EIS, the issuance of the EO, the development by the Corps of Engineers of the Master Plan, the release of the MD oyster restoration plan, and the success of properly scaled projects in the Great Wicomico and Lynnhaven Rivers in VA, now is the time to increase the scale of investment in oyster restoration. This goal is sufficient to begin to have a systemic affect on the Chesapeake Bay.

4. Blue Crabs: We support to application of the interim population target of 200 million, but it is insufficient (and incomplete from a management perspective), to maintain this interim goal until 2025. As noted in the Background Information, a long-term target is envisioned by 2012. The Blue Crab Measurable Outcome should include adoption and maintenance of a long term goal beginning in 2012.

5. Menhaden: Why is there no measurable outcome for this ecologically critical species? While data on menhaden abundance in Chesapeake Bay is lacking, a non-quantitative outcome can and should be adopted. MD Sea Grant has been making dramatic progress developing an ecosystem-based management (EBM) framework for Chesapeake Bay that includes menhaden as a keystone species. We suggest the development and adoption of an outcome such as: “maintain menhaden seasonal abundance in Chesapeake Bay sufficient to provide suitable forage for predatory species consistent with EBM.”

6. Brook Trout: We support the goal of improving 58 sub-watersheds from “reduced” to “healthy” for brook trout consistent with the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) regional conservation strategy.

7. Wetlands: The restoration goal of 30,000 acres falls below the current Tributary Strategy goal of roughly 120,000 acres. We recognize that the majority of these acres are contained within Virginia’s Tributary Strategy and may change in the future. We suggest that this goal be re-visited once the States have developed their Watershed Implementation Plans and adjusted up, if necessary, to be consistent with this goal.

8. Riparian Buffers: As noted for wetlands, this outcome goal should meet or exceed the target the States will set in their Watershed Implementation Plans.

9. Fish Passage: We support the fish passage goal of restoring an additional 1000 stream miles to fish migration in the Chesapeake watershed by 2025 by implementing 100 priority dam removal/fish passage projects. The success criteria of the presence of river herring, American shad and American eel are key to this outcome.

10. Land Conservation: Attaining this goal would place an area equal to another 5 ¾ % of the watershed into conservation, bringing the total to a respectable 25%. That’s probably not all the fully conserved land that the watershed needs (there will be many areas of high ecological value not included), but the number would set a reasonable, if somewhat optimistic, pace over the next 15 years.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Beth McGee
Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Beth McGee

April 2. 2010 10:41

The final Framework should focus on detailing the specific actions under the Framework and the supporting Strategies.

Lack of Specific Actions

Of the four components in the Goals Framework, the actions are arguably the most important, as they detail how the vision and goals will be achieved. By failing to including them, the Framework misses a key opportunity to gather public input about actual, on-the-ground actions that must occur in order to achieve the Bay-wide TMDL and other Bay restoration goals. In the final strategy, it would be helpful to include:

• A list of dedicated sources of funding for the actions through 2025;
• A list of existing authorities on which the actions are based;
• A list of needed authorities to conduct certain actions; and
• Interim, measurable goals to determine whether the actions are working.

Lack of Details on Supporting Strategies

The draft Framework highlights four cross-cutting Supporting Strategies: Science & Adaptive Management, Climate Change, Ecosystem Markets, and Citizen Stewardship. Again, however, the Framework fails to give detailed information regarding how these strategies will apply, what specific factors will be considered in using these strategies, and how these strategies will be evaluated for effectiveness or efficiency. For example, while adaptive management may be a sound strategy to constantly reevaluate, assess, and adjust goals and methods, it often causes delay through more planning. The final Framework should address the real application of adaptive management principles rather than simply paying lip service to the idea. Adaptive management should apply at the substantive level to Chesapeake Bay restoration goals and not simply at the management level.

In addition, the development of Ecosystem Markets, namely nutrient and sediment trading, should be regarded cautiously. The Framework itself notes that 89 of 92 tributary segments are impaired, so any trading program should be designed to avoid the occurrence of localized impacts or the degradation of local waters. The EPA and states should retain oversight of the markets to ensure that they are producing the promised benefits and should retain the ability to, with notice, halt market activity that fails to achieve those benefits.

Extension of Deadline to 2025

Overall the goals in the draft Framework overlap significantly with existing quantitative goals identified by the Chesapeake Bay Program. The draft Framework extends the deadline for achieving its goals to 2025. While this extension is reasonable, given that many of the existing CBP goals have a 2010 deadline, it should not be an excuse to delay actions.

While the specific goals themselves provide helpful quantitative markers for evaluating success, the lack of specified actions in this draft Framework precludes any realistic assessment of whether that success will be achieved. It is disappointing that the draft Framework does not provide greater detail on the actions component.

Rena Steinzor
Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law
President, Center for Progressive Reform

Yee Huang
Policy Analyst, Center for Progressive Reform

Yee Huang

April 2. 2010 13:55

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Maintain Healthy Watersheds Goal Implementation Team (GIT4):

As adopted by membership from across the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership, the primary objective of GIT4 is to ensure that significant landscapes and healthy watersheds across the Chesapeake region are identified and protected through targeted conservation efforts. These protection efforts are a critical complement to traditional restoration approaches focused on improving and maintaining water quality in the Chesapeake region. The cost-effectiveness of protection activities vis-à-vis restoration and the continued loss of significant landscapes and healthy watersheds justify a greater focus on protection of watershed resources across the Chesapeake region.

In consideration of the proposed goals and objectives of GIT4, we offer the following recommendations for improving the draft environmental goals and outcomes that were released for public comment on March 19, 2010:

1. Greater inclusion of “protection” in the draft environmental goals and outcomes for water quality, fish and wildlife populations and habitats.

Language included in Executive Order 13508 recognizes the importance of restoration and protection activities in the Chesapeake region. Furthermore, a variety of Federal partners already engage in protection activities through a variety of programs. These protection activities should be explicitly included as a part of the draft outcomes in order to reflect the maintenance of both current baselines of environmental condition and outcomes achieved through future restoration efforts. In particular, language should be added that reflects the protection of baselines and restoration accomplishments in outcomes for stream restoration, brook trout populations, and riparian buffer habitats which are all resources critical to maintaining watershed health.

2. Greater emphasis on place-based, landscape-scale land conservation.

While the 2.3-million acre land conservation outcome is based in part on conservation priorities at the state level, the outcome does not address the need for greater place-based, landscape-scale targeted conservation efforts. The success of land conservation efforts should not be gauged simply by achieving gross acreage targets. Instead, outcomes should reflect the need to protect large tracts in significant and special landscapes that represent unparalleled ecological systems important for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Mark Bryer
Chair, Maintain Healthy Watersheds GIT

Jake Reilly

April 2. 2010 17:28

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft “Chesapeake Bay Strategy Goals Framework” for implementing the President’s Executive Order dated 12 May 2009. The Commission supports the goals identified in the Framework to serve as the foundation for a renewed effort to restore and protect the nation's largest estuary and its watershed.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and its 15 member states have a long history of working toward two goals identified in the Framework: restore habitat, and restore fish and wildlife populations. Our member states are committed to improving fish habitat through cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Commission recently initiated an effort to improve fish passage to allow diadromous species access to historic habitats.

We request that the goal of ‘restoring fish and wildlife populations’ include additional species managed through the Commission process. Specifically, measurable outcomes for striped bass, American eel, and American shad could be used as indicators of the success of Bay restoration efforts. The benefits of restoring and maintaining critical spawning and nursery habitats for diadromous species will be realized far beyond the Bay watershed. For example, the states from Maine through North Carolina benefit from a healthy, fully restored population of striped bass.

The restoration of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is critical to assisting the Commission in achieving its goal of "Healthy, self sustaining populations of all Atlantic coast fish species, or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015." Please let me know if you need any additional information or if the Commission could be of assistance with this important effort.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission