Drafting the New Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Goals and Outcomes – Decision/Actions From Management Board Meetings June 13 and 18, 2013.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning for Our Future:
Advertisements

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Jonathan Doherty National Park Service.
Harris Creek Case Study: Oyster Restoration and GIT Collaboration Chesapeake Bay Program Management Board August 2, 2012 Peyton Robertson Fisheries Goal.
Current Planning for 2017 Mid-Point Assessment Gary Shenk COG 10/4/2012 presentation credit to Katherine Antos and the WQGIT ad hoc planning team.
1 The Chesapeake Bay Program James Edward, Deputy Director EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office CAC meeting, June 1, 2012 EO Action Plan, Progress Report.
 Jennifer Volk Environmental Quality Specialist; UD Cooperative Extension Chair, Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Goal Implementation Team.
The National Aquaculture Policy and The State Shellfish Initiative Perry Lund Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program 17 November 2011.
Update Chesapeake Action Plan – Report to Congress Strengthening the Management, Coordination, and Accountability of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership.
Chesapeake Bay Program Presented by: Elizabeth Mills, Heather Plumridge, Elizabeth Repko Possibilities, Problems, and Promise.
Maintaining healthy watersheds in the Chesapeake LGAC meeting December 4, 2014 Mark Bryer The Nature Conservancy Chair, Healthy Watershed Goal Team.
 Jennifer Volk Environmental Quality Extension Specialist University of Delaware Cooperative Extension.
Fisheries Goal Team (GIT 1) Management Board presentation 9/2/2012 Peyton Robertson, Chair Thomas O’Connell, Vice Chair Bruce Vogt, Coordinator.
GIT 6 Role in Advising Management Board on Alignment Issues Carin Bisland, GIT6 Vice-chair.
Update on Forest Goals and Progress in the Chesapeake Bay Partnership Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting, 8/23/13 Sally Claggett & Julie Mawhorter, US.
1 Jim Edward Chair, IRC April 13, 2014 Issues Resolution Committee: Recommendations to PSC on Key Issues Raised during the Public/Partner Comment Period.
Drafting the new Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Goals and Outcomes May 16, 2013.
1. Natural Resources Conservation Service Strategic Plan Strategic Plan
Being Accountable/Communicating Assessment Information to the Public in 2012 Update to the Management Board April 2012 Margaret Enloe, ACB CBPO and Nita.
Coastal Web Atlases in the Chesapeake Bay Region: Examples from Virginia and Maryland Marcia R. Berman Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia.
James Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency November 20, 2014 The Bay’s Health & Future: How it’s.
Coastal GEMS Virginia’s Coastal Geospatial and Educational Mapping System Nick Meade Coastal GIS Coordinator Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program George.
Drafting the new Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Goals and Outcomes May 16, 2013.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Leetown Science Center Research in the Shenandoah Valley Presented to the Shenandoah Valley Natural.
Progress on Coordinating CBP and Federal Leadership Goals, Outcomes, and Actions Principals’ Staff Committee Meeting 2/16/12 Carin Bisland, Associate Director.
A Decade of Working Together on Conservation & Sustainable Use of Canada’s Natural Assets CBS endorsed by FPT Ministers in April 1996 Federal, provincial,
CBP Agreement and EC Membership Options for Principals’ Staff Committee Consideration April 17,
Citizen’s Advisory Committee / Local Government Advisory Committee Joint Meeting December 5, 2013 Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program (EPA)
Jim Edward, Deputy Director Chesapeake Bay Program, EPA 1 CBP Program Update on Bay Agreement Comments, Final Draft, and 2-Year Milestone Status Citizens.
Citizen Engagement Of another sort. Fundamental problem in restoring Chesapeake Bay is a people problem “ there is a clear correlation between population.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey CBP Partnership Team- Enhance Monitoring in the Bay and its Watershed Scott Phillips, USGS Jonathan.
Sierra Water Workgroup Water Summit Kings Beach, California June 11, 2013 Barry Hill, Hydrologist Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service.
A Pivotal Moment for Leaders Across the Gulf Coast States and Connected Communities Throughout the Country.
1 NOAA Priorities for an Ecosystem Approach to Management A Presentation to the NOAA Science Advisory Board John H. Dunnigan NOAA Ecosystem Goal Team Lead.
Indicator Status Updates Overview Nita Sylvester, EPA CBPO Chair of STAR’s Indicator Workgroup.
CBP Agreement and EC Membership Options for Principals’ Staff Committee Consideration April 17, 2013 Draft 4/5/13 for MB Review 1.
Flathead River to Lake Initiative Conservation and restoration through a diverse collaborative effort Part I – How it began Part II – Conservation Successes.
SAV Management Strategy 1 Title of Presentation Date Image or Graphic.
Visual Decision Frameworks –Habitat GIT Adaptive Management based on annual review. Share progress and address challenges and opportunities Adjust management.
Abridged Chesapeake Bay Agreement: Initial Reactions WRTC September 6, 2013.
Jeff Horan, Habitat GIT Chair February 16, 2012 CBP Decision Framework in Action.
Habitat GIT Meeting October 14, 2015 Harvell Dam Removal Project – first blockage on the Appomattox River, Petersburg, VA provide access to 127 miles of.
JULIE MAWHORTER MID-ATLANTIC URBAN & COMMUNITY FORESTRY COORDINATOR CHESAPEAKE TREE CANOPY STRATEGY & WORKPLAN UPDATE CITIZEN’S ADVISORY.
Nick DiPasquale, Director Chesapeake Bay Program Office Environmental Protection Agency December 4, 2014 The Bay’s Health & Future: How it’s doing and.
For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Chesapeake Bay. Is the largest estuary in the United States The Bay’s watershed is 64,000 square miles (60% forested) and covers parts of 6 states These.
The Chesapeake Bay: How is it Doing? An Overview of The Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
CRC Staffer Update Megan Hession Habitat Goal Implementation Team.
Quarterly Progress Meeting - May 2017
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System:
Chesapeake Bay Program Budget & Finance Workgroup Meeting
Chesapeake Bay Program Updates
Quarterly Progress Meeting - May 2017
Quarterly Progress Meeting - August 2017
Local Planning Process…
Concepts and Timeline for Developing a CBP Biennial Strategy Review System (DRAFT) October 31, 2016 (DRAFT)
Riparian Forest Buffers
Public Access John Davy, National Park Service,
Washington County Parks and Open Spaces
Jim Edward Chair, IRC April 13, 2014
The Watershed Agreement and the Phase 3 WIPs
Concepts and Timeline for Developing a CBP Biennial Strategy Review System DRAFT August 29, 2016 DRAFT 12/4/2018 DRAFT.
CBP Biennial Strategy Review System:
Achieving the Goal of Stewardship
2016 – 17 Bay Barometer.
The Watershed Agreement and the Phase 3 WIPs
Achieving the Goal of Stewardship
I AM RACHEL FELVER. Hello!
LGAC Input on Outcomes.
Monitoring & Assessment, Adaptation Outcomes
VITAL HABITATS GOAL Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits,
Presentation transcript:

Drafting the New Chesapeake Bay Agreement, Goals and Outcomes – Decision/Actions From Management Board Meetings June 13 and 18, 2013

Goals

Management Board Discussion on Draft Goals to be Forwarded to the PSC At the June 13, 2013 meeting of the Management Board, draft goals offered by the Goal Implementation Teams were considered. Draft Goals were grouped into 3 categories : – Goals that will be forwarded to the PSC with no changes from the Management Board first draft Chesapeake Watershed Agreement – Goals where there were recommended modifications – New Goals to be considered On June 18, 2013, the Management Board had a follow-up conference call to discuss outcomes. The following changes were discussed by the Management Board for PSC consideration.

Recommended by MB for PSC Consideration with no changes Sustainable Fisheries Goal Restore, enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, their habitats and ecological relationships to sustain all fisheries and provide for a balanced ecosystem in the watershed and bay. Vital Habitats Goal Restore, enhance, and protect a network of land and water habitats to support priority species and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed Land Conservation Goal Conserve landscapes treasured by citizens to maintain water quality and habitat; sustain working forests, farms and maritime communities; and conserve lands of cultural, indigenous and community value. Public Access Goal Expand public access to the Bay and its tributaries through existing and new local, state and federal parks, refuges, reserves, trails and partner sites. Goals

Modified Goals To Be Considered by PSC ( Identified Management Board members and GITs have until June 19 to comment) Maintain Healthy Watersheds (VA, PA, NY and GIT 4 to vet) Protect state-identified healthy waters and watersheds, recognized for their exceptional quality and high ecological value. Environmental Literacy (VA to vet) Every student in the region graduates environmentally literate having participated in teacher supported meaningful watershed educational experiences. Water Quality (VA to vet) Reduce pollutants to achieve the water quality necessary to support the aquatic living resources of the bay and its tributaries while protecting human health. Goals

New Goals Proposed 1. To Be Considered by PSC (Identified Management Board members and Affected GITs have until June 19 to comment): Stewardship (VA, PA, DE, NY, WV to vet) Foster a dramatic increase in Promote and support initiatives that increase the number and diversity of stewards who support and carry out local conservation and restoration to achieve the goals and commitments of the agreement. 2. No Consensus Reached. Will not be forwarded by the Management Board for PSC Consideration as a new draft goal: Sound Land Use Support land use practices which protect and restore water quality and living resources. Goals

Outcomes

Blue Crab Outcome : Maintain sustainable blue crab population based on the current 2012 target of 215 million adult females (1+ years old) and continue to refine population targets between 2013 through 2025 based on best available science. Oyster Outcome : Restore native oyster habitat and populations in 20 _?_ tributaries by ** (Note: This outcome relates to oysters for habitat as well as populations. GIT1 is considering modifying this outcome to reflect ecological restoration outcome [in accordance with oyster metrics] and consider a separate goal in support of oyster aquaculture [oysters as seafood]. **GIT 1 agreed to keep tributary based approach, number of tributaries may change (from 6/18/13 GIT1 meeting) Outcomes Sustainable Fisheries Goal Restore, enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, their habitats and ecological

Fisheries Outcome: GIT 1 is considering one of the following three areas for a third outcome: – Forage fish outcome – Invasive species outcome – Ecosystem-based fisheries outcome Outcomes Sustainable Fisheries Goal Restore, enhance, and protect the finfish, shellfish and other living resources, their habitats and ecological

Wetlands Outcome: Restore a total of 30,000-83,000* acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands, primarily on resource and agricultural lands and enhance function of an additional 150,000 acres of degraded wetlands. – Black Duck: Restore wetland habitats to support a wintering black duck population in the watershed of 100,000 birds by **Not yet vetted by GIT Outcomes Vital Habitats Goal Restore, enhance, and protect a network of land and water habitats to support priority species and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed

Stream Health Outcome: Restore stream health and function by 10% above the 2008 level of sampled stream sites* throughout the watershed by 2025 rating far, good, or excellent as measured by the Index of Biotic Integrity, by 2025” **Note: STAR’s NTWG will re-assess baseline. Monitoring and assessment of IBI should be compiled by states between and between 2017 and – Brook Trout: Restore naturally reproducing brook trout populations with an 8% increase in total cumulative brook trout patch area by 2025 in Chesapeake headwater streams. Outcomes Vital Habitats Goal Restore, enhance, and protect a network of land and water habitats to support priority species and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed

Fish Passage Outcome: During the period , restore historical fish migratory routes by opening 1,000 additional stream miles, with restoration success indicated by the presence of river herring, American shad, Hickory shad, Brook Trout and/or American eel. **(Note from GIT1: The Brook Trout and Fish Passage outcomes both relate to fish. Should consider whether to consolidate under the Sustainable Fisheries Goal). Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Outcome: Achieve and maintain 185,000 acres of SAV or sufficient water clarity to support 185,000 acres of SAV in the Chesapeake Bay by Outcomes Vital Habitats Goal Restore, enhance, and protect a network of land and water habitats to support priority species and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed

Forestry Outcome: 1) Restore 900 miles per year of riparian forest buffer and conserve buffers until at least 70% of riparian areas are forested, and 2) Expand urban tree canopy by 1,000 acres per year in 120 communities by Outcomes Vital Habitats Goal Restore, enhance, and protect a network of land and water habitats to support priority species and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed

Water Quality Goal 2017 Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Outcome: Have practices and controls in place by 2017 that are expected to achieve 60 percent of the load reductions necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards compared to 2009 levels Watershed Implementation Plans (WIP) Outcome: Have all practices and controls installed by 2025 necessary to achieve the Bay’s DO, water clarity/SAV, and chlorophyll a standards. – Agricultural Conservation: Work with producers to apply new conservation practices on 4 million acres of agricultural working lands in high priority watersheds by 2025 to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Outcomes

Water Quality Goal Toxic Contaminants Outcome: o (a) Identify and Implement practices to reduce loadings of persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic (PBT) contaminants and non-PBT contaminants that have an effect on the ecosystem resources and human health. o (b) Improve knowledge of the effects of contaminants of emerging concern on the health of fish and wildlife so future strategies can be considered. * Proposed by Toxics Contaminants ad hoc workgroup. Outcomes

Healthy Watersheds Outcome: By % of state- identified currently healthy watersheds reaming healthy (baseline year: _____) Outcomes Healthy Watersheds Goal: Protect state-identified healthy waters and watersheds, recognized for their exceptional quality and high ecological value.

Protected Lands Outcome: Protect an additional two million acres of lands from the 2010 baseline year, throughout the watershed currently identified as high conservation priorities at the federal, state or local level by 2025, including 225,000 acres of wetlands and 695,000 acres of forest land of highest value for maintaining water quality and an additional 225,000 acres of wetlands by Outcomes Land Conservation Goal Conserve landscapes treasured by citizens to maintain water quality and habitat; sustain working forests, farms and maritime communities; and conserve lands of cultural, indigenous and community value.

Public Access Site Development Outcome: Increase public access by adding 300 new public access sites by (from the 2010 baseline) Outcomes Public Access Goal Expand public access to the Bay and its tributaries through existing and new local, state and federal parks, refuges, reserves, trails and partner sites.

Student Outcome: Increase the number of students participating in meaningful watershed educational experiences in elementary, middle, and high school. Educator Outcome: Improve Increase the number of teachers receiving access to sustained professional development opportunities, tools, and resources that support teacher efforts to provide and support students meaningful watershed with high-quality environmental educational experiences. **redline edits received from Education Workgroup on 6/12/113. Outcomes Environmental Literacy Goal Every student in the region graduates environmentally literate having participated in teacher supported meaningful watershed educational experiences.

School Outcome: Increase the number of schools in the region that maintaining their buildings, grounds, and operations using best practices to support positive environmental and human health outcomes. Local Education Agency Outcome: Increase the number of local education agencies implementing that establish and support a system wide approaches for to environmental education that includes meaningful watershed educational experiences. **redline edits received from Education Workgroup on 6/12/113. Outcomes Environmental Literacy Goal Every student in the region graduates environmentally literate having participated in teacher supported meaningful watershed educational experiences.

Identified Gaps Toxic Contaminants Social/Environmental Indicators Sound Land Use Planning Accelerating Implementation Outcomes