As required by Executive Order 13508, each year, the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay—composed of representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation—issues a Chesapeake Bay Action Plan and an annual Progress Report. This year, for the first time, the FLC has combined the two together into one report. The Action Plan covers fiscal year 2014, which runs from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, while the Progress Report covers actions achieved during fiscal year 2013, which ran from October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013.
This Action Plan for 2014 and Progress Report for 2013 represents a collaborative effort across the federal government, in consultation with states and other partners, fulfilling the direction of the Executive Order “to ensure that federal actions to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay are closely coordinated with actions by state and local agencies in the watershed and that the resources, authorities, and expertise of federal, state, and local agencies are used as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and ecosystem and habitat health and viability.”
The report highlights key accomplishments as well as work still needed to be done to restore clean water, recover habitat, sustain fish and wildlife, and conserve land and increase public access. Collaborative actions will also enhance supporting efforts to expand citizen stewardship, develop environmental markets, respond to climate change, and strengthen science.
Comments on the combined report will be accepted here through March 31, 2014.
March 21. 2014 16:54
As I stated several years ago when this process started; NOTHING is going to change until EVERY has an inventory and assessment preformed on them. Until we know where the good, the bad and the ugly farm operations are located we will NEVER know for sure what needs to be done. I have offered the CBF my computer generated Inventory, Assessment & Planning Tool but NOBODY has the nerve to do what is needed. Farmers have do much but has a great more before they become the enviromentalists that they keep saying they are.
Doug Valentine
March 27. 2014 17:04
The FY2014 Action Plan (2014-2015 milestone) for 2.d.1 Land Conservation Outcome should include actions to implement Action CL10, "Develop integrated transportation, land use, housing and water infrastructure plans setting forth smart growth and environmental stewardship visions", of the Executive Order 13508 Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Action CL10 can help reduce the amount of forest and farmland consumed by future growth and development within the Chesapeake Bay watershed (estimated to grow by about 2 million more people through 2030), contributing to the success of the Land Conservation Outcome.
The strategy recognizes the federal-level Partnership for Sustainable Communities (DOT, EPA and HUD), and lists the following commitments: "the partnership will seek opportunities to support existing communities, leverage federal investment and value communities and neighborhoods. DOT will work with partners to encourage initiation of integrated plans in one or more communities
in the watershed. Beginning in 2011, pending availability of funds, DOT and partner agencies will provide communities that undertake integrated planning with technical assistance and enhanced capacity for modeling and data collection. DOT, EPA and HUD will work with local planning authorities, state resource agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and state DOTs beginning in 2011 to further promote environmentally sustainable transportation and development as part of integrated regional planning."
Jason Dubow
March 29. 2014 14:48
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "Combined FY2014 Action Plan and FY 2013 Progress Report for Executive Order 13508.
The Severn Riverkeeper Program is a local watershed organization whose mission is to protect and restore the Severn River, the Capital River of the State of Maryland, particularly to make the river safe for children and families. www.severnriverkeeper.org.
The Severn River is fortunate to be located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland because our county government is fully committed to meeting the TMDL goals and WIP requirements. They are leaders in this effort.
In partnership with the county and other environmental organizations, we obtained a stormwater fee that will provide Anne Arundel County with $70 Million per year to stop stormwater pollution. Stormwater pollution is the only source of pollution that is increasing, and the most damaging to the Severn River and the Bay.
In anticipation of the county receiving these funds, we installed two prototype stream restoration projects in the Severn. We utilized the latest restoration technology and built one prototype for suburban runoff and one for urban runoff, the most difficult type to stop.
In the process, we discovered permitting obstacles created by the EPA Region 3 staff. This opposition was primarily against the new technology known as Regenerative Stormwater Conveyance Systems (RSCs), which are designed to connect the stream to the floodplain.
Such opposition is in direct violation of the "Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed" published by the Federal Leadership Committee under Lisa Jackson on May 12, 2010. The Strategy for "Partnering with Communities" and "Supporting Local Efforts" states that:
"Local communities have the greatest interest in and ability to impact conservation of their local environment. The strategy is designed to directly support the restoration activities of local governments, watershed groups, county conservation districts, landowners and citizens".
The Report should include a section on "Supporting Local Efforts". This section should review EPA opposition to local restoration projects that poisoned the permitting process and made adversaries of local governments and watershed groups instead of partners. The section should include a milestone for eliminating this opposition and steps to streamline the permitting process in 2014.
This Progress Report should address the negative impact of permitting obstacles to restoring streams and reducing stormwater runoff. Stormwater pollution will continue to increase if EPA permit review staff continue to treat local governments and watershed groups as adversaries and not partners and delay permits for restoration projects. Bay restoration will only succeed if stormwater pollution is significantly reduced.
Fred Kelly
March 31. 2014 15:28
Comments on Draft EO13508 FY014 Action and FY13 Progress report
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Combined FY2014 Action Plan and FY2013 Progress Report for Executive Order 13508 – Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Anne Arundel County Government takes its clean water obligations under both its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements very seriously, and has a robust Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) in place that guides us in our work to achieve those goals.
Our work involves multiple implementation strategies, though for the sake of responding to this action plan and progress report, our comments will pertain entirely to our stormwater management strategies and addressing the pollution load reductions associated with that particular source.
By 2025, Anne Arundel County’s stormwater implementation strategy calls for reducing TMDL pollutant loads to the Chesapeake Bay and local waterways in the following amounts: Total nitrogen, 207,742 lbs; Total phosphorus, 26,384 lbs; and Total suspended sediment, over 30,000 tons. These reductions are absolutely critical to our ability to comply with the “Restore Clean Water” goal (page 9). Anne Arundel County’s stormwater restoration strategy is focused on three key areas: Stormwater pond retrofits; stormwater outfall repairs; and, stream restoration. Existing facilities, such as dry ponds, detention ponds, or infiltration basins will be rebuilt to optimize their ability to reduce pollution and provide an array of ecosystem benefits. Eroded or failing stormwater outfalls – locations where drainage systems discharge onto erosive soils – will be rebuilt into systems that can safely pass high flow events as well as provide water quality benefits and habitat along their length. Stream erosion is the largest contributor of sediment and phosphorus pollution to our local rivers, and the County’s strategy to restore valley bottoms to stable conditions will provide broad water quality, flooding, and ecological benefits.
Based on our own, extensive, modeling and assessment, there is no way that we can reach our clean water goals, particularly with respect to sediment and phosphorus reductions, without conducting extensive stormwater outfall and stream restoration work. Over the next six years (through FY19), our implementation plan calls for over 23 miles of stream restoration and the repair of over 870 stormwater outfalls. In every case, stream restoration currently requires state and federal permits for construction, and in many cases, outfall restoration work does as well. These permits routinely take 1-2 years for issuance, and have, in some cases, taken longer. Based on numerous conversations with local governments in VA, PA, DC, and MD, our situation is far from unique. The absence of key actions around improving and streamlining the federal and state permitting processes for these sorts of restoration projects needs to be addressed explicitly in the final version of this document. In most Maryland jurisdictions, where the revenues are now in place to conduct this clean water work on a large scale, permitting remains the number one obstacle to timely project implementation and is costing local governments significant lost financial resources that could otherwise be directed to water quality improvements.
Regarding the “Recover Habitat” goal (page. 23), Anne Arundel County’s stream restoration strategy is heavily reliant upon the rehydration of stream valley bottoms – re-connecting streams to their “floodplains.” An intentional byproduct of this work is the re-creation of significant swathes of non-tidal wetlands, in addition to preservation of the flowing stream system. While this work involves temporary and self-mitigating impacts to the already impaired resource, the final, restored product nearly always results in a net gain in wetland creation. At over 23 miles of stream and wetland restoration proposed over the next six years, Anne Arundel County has the potential to restore hundreds of acres of non-tidal wetlands during that timeframe, and can be a significant asset in helping to achieve the ambitious 2,000 acres per year of wetland restoration milestone set forth in the action plan. Already the partners have fallen short of the 2013 milestone, having achieved just over 50% of the goal set forth. Having participated in the Habitat Goal Implementation Meetings referenced on page 24, I can state that no discernable progress has been made since those meetings in overcoming barriers to accelerate progress towards this particular goal. Practitioners working in rural wetland creation as well as those working on urban wetland creation, both government and non-profit, continue to run up against serious state and federal barriers to implementation.
In Anne Arundel County, only 28% of streams are rated in good or fair condition according to their Benthic Index for Biotic Integrity (BIBI) scores. This is significantly worse than the baywide average of 45%. Regarding the 2012-2013 milestones, we now certainly have documentation that most of our streams are in poor or very poor condition – both in the county and baywide – as well as a significant sense of the barriers to reversing that trend. Again, having attended the Mid-Atlantic Stream Restoration Conference referenced on page 28, a common theme of the event was the state and federal barriers to implementation and the need for a separate “restoration” permitting track that recognizes that WIP implementation efforts should not be reviewed the same way as development impacts when it comes to the natural resource. Future action items and milestones must include far more implementation-focus metrics rather than the number of workshops hosted or data collected. As mentioned above, the actions associated with this “Stream Restoration” goal need to be focused on creating and implementing a streamlined process for stream restoration permitting that significantly accelerates plan review – or substitutes it with annual reporting on the part of local or state governments – and that tracks local stream restoration implementation efforts. Without significant modification of the state and federal review process, these stream restoration goals (and the accompanying improvements in local water quality) will be impossible to achieve in a timely fashion.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, and please do not hesitate to contact me if there is a need for any clarification in the points made above.
Erik Michelsen
Administrator
Watershed Protection and Restoration Program
Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works
Pwmich20@aacounty.org
410-222-7520
Erik Michelsen
March 31. 2014 16:37
March 31, 2014
Rather than debate the specific merit of each line item Ann’s Backyard Forest, Ltd. would rather emphasize the overall goals; asking each agency leader to prioritize investment in Bay restoration and protection based on maximization of benefits at each step. Each project should have a component devoted to informal STEM education. Outreach to new groups should focus on introducing current environmental values to new audiences. Recruiting new participants to join the fight will ensure improved upstream care of the entire Bay watershed.
Effective informal STEM education messages require refinement and distribution. Messages should connect small, everyday decisions to large, downstream impacts. Homeowners should be challenged to question purging properties of habitat variety, use of pesticides, fertilizers, and insecticides. Homeowners could be challenged to ask nurseries for the native selections. Professional groups of master gardeners, arborists, and landscape architects should be co-opted into promoting pro-native choices. Furthermore, Bay access could be more effectively used to force education; permission to use Bay resources should be associated with basic knowledge of habitat protection.
Consideration of land use should be of prime importance to agency leadership. Investment priorities focusing on tree canopy will improve flooding, pollution, erosion, streambed stability, water quality and temperature. Large trees reduce runoff through multiple mechanisms; all improve stream quality while increasing recreational opportunities. Even with tree canopy as a focus, soil management basics need to reach homeowners more effectively. Reducing fertilizer, pesticide use and maintaining healthy soils with appropriate structure is imperative for Bay health. Largely misunderstood, causes and effects of soil compression are lost on large segments of residents within the Bay watershed.
Interagency co-operation in the development of a Land Development Calculator would be of great help to a wide variety of organizations, officials, and individuals. Potential range of effects of change in permeable surface area due to land use could easily be developed using satellite imagery, computer image processing, and scientists with a variety of disciplines. A highly useful calculator would require agency co-operation but the utility would easily justify the investment.
Ann’s Backyard Forest, Ltd. encourages federal agencies and officials to prioritize:
1. Enculturation of citizens through environmental science literacy and outreach projects in a number of languages through:
a. Conversion of familiar, general Save the Bay messages into much more specific messages,
b. Providing homeowners with specific messages related to personal management of their natural resources with special attention to native plants, arboriculture and reduced use of chemicals as pesticides and fertilizers,
2. Planting, preservation, and protection of large, canopy trees throughout the watershed,
3. Association of resource use with fundamental ecological training.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the conversation.
Yours,
Ann Gallagher
Founding Director
Ann's Backyard Forest, Ltd.
Ann Gallagher
March 31. 2014 17:04
DDOE is also actively pursuing stream restoration as a way to reduce loads to the Bay while also improving local water quality. This work by its nature requires significant coordination among implementers, stakeholders and permitting agencies. However, in several cases, ambiguity surrounding what types of stream restoration projects can or will be permitted has resulted in unnecessary delays. This has particularly occured when projects using a regenerative stormwater conveyance (RSC) or regenreative stream channel have been proposed. In order to meet the ambitious goals of the Ches. Bay WIP, local jurisdictions need certainty that projects that they spend time identifying, coordinating, planning, and permitting can actually be constructed.
As such, I am requesting that under the "Restore Clean Water" goal, a specific task of resolving and streamlining permitting of stream restoration projects be added as a goal. This goal should have a deadline for completion (perhaps by 12/2014 so that all federal agencies involved can focus their efforts in a constructive and timely fashion.
By resolving these uncertainties, the federal permitting agencies (EPA, ACE, USFWS) can greatly help the local jurisdictions in their planning and restoration efforts. With this clarity, local jurisdictions can focus on doing the work that needs to be done to restore the bay.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
sincerely,
Pete Hill
Branch Chief
Watershed Protection Division
District Department of the Environment
202-535-2241
Pete Hill
April 1. 2014 09:49
The District of Columbia Department of the Environment takes a holistic approach to restoring its local waterways and the Chesapeake Bay. We are working to implement upland low impact development while simultaneously performing stream restoration work. Federal agencies sometimes negatively impact the District’s ability to perform this needed work primarily in two ways:
1) Federal agencies control a great deal of land in the District - more than in any other Bay State. Because of this it is imperative that federal landholders take action to install upland low impact development retrofits, restore stream and wetland habitat, and aid the District in their efforts to do the same on federal lands.
2) Federal agencies oversee certain restoration permitting activities such as stream and wetland restoration permits. The District respects the important role that these agencies play in restoration oversight, however in the past several years the pace of reviews has slowed and there has been some inconsistency over the type of projects permitted and the conditions under which they are allowed to proceed.
Based on these two issues, I am requesting that under the “Restore Clean Water” goal, two tasks be added:
1) Federal agencies (EPA, USACE, USFWS) work to resolve and streamline permitting of stream and wetland restoration projects. This goal should have a deadline for completion (perhaps by 12/2014). By resolving these uncertainties, the federal permitting agencies (EPA, ACE, USFWS) can greatly help the local jurisdictions in their planning and restoration efforts. With this clarity, local jurisdictions can focus on doing the work that needs to be done to restore the Bay.
2) Federal agencies with lands in the District develop specific and detailed plans in cooperation and coordination with the District of Columbia for retrofitting impervious areas to treat stormwater pollution and for restoration of natural areas such as wetlands and streams. These activities would be included in the Federal two year milestones and federal agencies would dedicate funds to their installation. To the extent possible these activities should follow the types and pace of activities laid out in the District’s Sustainable DC Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Steve Saari
District of Columbia Department of the Environment
Steve Saari