Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Partnership Meeting Summary for the Chesapeake Bay Program's Implementation Committee July 19, 2007 I. Strategic Implementation Planning (SIP) Jeff Lape, EPA, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jeff provided an update and led a discussion on SIP development, process, and schedule. The GAO Report (October 2005) recommended that the Chesapeake bay program develop an integrated and strategic implementation plan to show how Bay restoration and health goals would be met. Senate Appropriations language for FY 2008 would hold bak $5,000,000 of CBP funding until the SIP is completed and certified by GAO. Jeff also shared feedback on his meeting with Senator Mikulski and her keen interest in development of the SIP. Jeff provided an outline of an overall plan and approach for developing the SIP, including the proposal that the SIP be developed in phases, beginning with the Federal piece followed by integrating key actions to be implemented by the State and other partners. Next Steps: Jeff Lape laid over several next steps: Jeff will personally lead the SIP development and announced the addition of Julie Winters to the CBPO with her focus being the staff lead for development of the SIP. Jeff will introduce Julie and the next IC meeting Jeff will convene a small workgroup to frame out a comprehensive approach for development of the SIP. This draft approach will be shared with the IC and discussed at the next meeting Jeff and Peter Marx will draft a follow up letter to Senator Mikulski laying out a broad approach and milestones for SIP development. This letter will be shared with the IC. CBPO will meet with GAO to confirm our collective understanding of the status of the GAO Report recommendations and expectations for the SIP Jeff will provide a full update at the IC meeting on August 23. ------- II. New-Development Task Group Reggie Parrish, EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office & Norm Goulet, Northern VA Regional Commission Norm and Reggie updated the Implementation Committee (IC) on the progress of the new development task group. The purpose of the task group is to develop a framework and principles for new development that achieves no net increase of nutrients and sediment to the bay. Since March the task group has reviewed and discussed case studies and regulatory drivers available to state and local governments for addressing stormwater and new development. At its June meeting, the task group explored the definition of no net increase of nutrients and sediments and began to develop principles and a draft framework for no net increase. The Implementation Committee requested that in addition to no net increase, the task group explore implications of achieving a net decrease in nutrients and sediment. Several of the States discussed their efforts to make improvements in their respective storm water programs. Jeff posed a challenge to the workgroup to consider new methods and approaches for development and redevelopment that would achieve themes such as "no net increase", "nutrient neutral development", and "no impact development" IC members acknowledged that this "blue sky" thinking would be parallel t to and separate from the States efforts to enhance their existing (e.g. regulatory) programs. Next Steps: During August and September the task group, with the help of a contracted facilitator, will: 1) Continue to develop principles and a framework for no net increase. ¦ The task group will conduct individual state and sample local government brainstorm sessions to explore existing requirements and ways to achieve no net increase ¦ The task group will refine draft principles and framework based on state/local input ¦ The task group will hold a meeting to discuss findings to date 2) Seek greater input from development community ¦ The task group will work with state/local/NGO community to identify and engage key developers as formal members of the task group 3) Expand its charge to consider redevelopment and existing development. ¦ The task group will tailor state/local brainstorm sessions to also address no net increase on watershed scale considering retrofit and redevelopment 4) The task group will explore implications of achieving a net decrease of nutrients and sediment. October/November (pending IC schedule of meetings) - Norm and Reggie will return to the IC to present the Task Force's outputs and findings as part of the sector approach ------- III. Forest Conservation Goals Sally Claggett, U.S. Forest Service, Forestry Workgroup Coordinator Sally led a discussion of a draft proposed new Chesapeake Executive Council (EC) directive to establish forest conservation goals in response to EC Directive 06-1. Jurisdiction-specific strategies for forest conservation, including forest protection goals, were briefly described by Mike Lester for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Brad Williams for the Commonwealth of Virginia, Frank Dawson for the State of Maryland, Sheila Besse for the District of Columbia and Sally Claggett for the federal agencies. The IC concluded that the proposed 2007 EC Directive needs further coordination, drafting and identification of issues that need to be elevated for resolution.. A team of foresters and IC members will help to make commitments more specific with quantitative interim and final targets, and will form consensus on bay-wide forest conservation goals and sustainable forestry policies. Next Steps: - Sally Claggett will coordinate with the State Foresters (or their designees) and IC members, including those from West Virginia, New York, and Delaware, to further develop a draft Directive on forest conservation goals for Executive Council adoption in 2007. Specifically, the group will: ¦ Develop a single text for the Directive which reflects agreement from the members by (date). ¦ Will identify and explain the specific issues that could not be resolved by the group ¦ Incorporate an implementation component that lays out the needed actions to implement the Directive o Each and every implementation action included in the proposal document should include the following essential elements: a. What is the specific action? b. Who is going to implement it? c. With what resources will the action be implemented? d. What is the timeline for completion? e. What is the expected outcome? f. How and how often will progress toward the expected outcome be measured and reported? ¦ Explore and pursue forest presentation and conservation goals from NY, DE and WV ¦ The state foresters and/or representatives will present their product to the Nutrient Subcommittee for approval before bringing it to the IC. o The NSC should answer the following question for the IC: What is the quantitative impact of the proposed forest conservation goals on the CBP's mission-critical outcome, namely water quality restoration and protection? In other words, when the proposed goals are achieved, what is the expected outcome in quantitative terms of tributary-specific nutrient and sediment cap load maintenance? To the extent practicable, this question should be answered at the geographic scale that is most relevant to public accountability for tributary strategy implementation. ------- ¦ If consensus on any significant component of the proposal is not achievable at the NSC, then the proposal document should clearly articulate the major options for that component and the pros and cons of each option for IC consideration. - Sally Claggett and the State Foresters (or their designees) will provide a status report at the Aug. 23rd IC meeting. IV. Water Quality Steering Committee Meeting Summary Diana Esher, EPA, Deputy Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office Detailed minutes of the June 20-21, 2007, Water Quality Steering Committee (WQSC) meeting are available on the Chesapeake Bay Program web site. Highlights of the meeting are as follows: • The WQSC referred the issue of climate change and its impact on the Bay to the Implementation Committee for discussion and decisions on how the Bay Program will address climate change issues. • The WQSC received a progress report on the evaluation and revision of BMP efficiencies. There will be a July conference call to explain specific BMP reviews and efficiencies. The WQSC will review and approve BMP efficiencies for incorporation into the Phase V watershed model during the Steering Committee's August 27 conference call. • The Principals' Staff Committee (PSC) asked the WQSC to ensure the TMDL and reevaluation are on the same track. The PSC also asked the WQSC to develop a policy analysis of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirement for the Bay. The WQSC decided to draft a set of responses for the PSC which address: (1) what will a TMDL look like and how will it be different from what is currently in place; (2) what are the policy implications to the federal, state and local partners of having a TMDL; and (3) what are the PSC's options for handling the TMDL. The EPA will take the first step to draft a response/briefing paper and then work with the states (through their WQSC members) to get comments to finalize a briefing paper in time for a fall PSC meeting. Next Steps : - Chesapeake Bay Program Office staff will prepare a concise, 2-3 page climate change briefing paper including: ¦ What's happening nationally and regionally? ¦ List of the potential implications of climate change on Bay restoration. ¦ Several options for how the Chesapeake Bay Program can work as a partnership to address Bay restoration-related climate change issues. - CBPO staff will update the IC on the status of the paper at August 23rd IC meeting. V. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management Jonathan Kramer, Director Maryland SeaGrant Jonathan described the approach and organizational structure proposed by MD Sea Grant, and supported by the Fisheries Steering Committee, for the pursuit of ecosystem based fisheries management implementation for Chesapeake Bay fisheries. The emphasis will be on management actions to affect sustainable fisheries as opposed to holistic ecosystem management. The approach includes a new organizational structure of technical groups that must be reconciled with the existing organizational CBP workgroups, particularly those within the Living Resources Subcommittee, during the ongoing discussion of CBP reorganization. ------- Next Steps: - EPA will issue a grant to MD DNR who will sub-contract with Maryland Sea Grant to provide facilitation of the implementation of the proposed approach. - Jonathan Kramer will work up a plan to identify when, who, and how the various players will be needed in the process. VI. Follow up to the May 23rd, 2007 Principals' Staff Committee (PSC) Meeting Frank Dawson, Assistant Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources In response to a request from the PSC, Matt Fleming reported that Frank Dawson (MD DNR) and Diana Esher are co-chairing an ad-hoc committee to consider past efforts to assess the organizational effectiveness of the CBPO and to develop options for the reorganization of the CBP. Next Steps: - The adhoc reorganization workgroup will meet again on August 10th and August 31st. - The workgroup will provide an update at the August 23rd IC meeting VII. Announcements and Emerging Topics A. Climate Change: The IC discussed whether global climate change should be an implementation priority for the CBP, without resolution. Jeff Lape proposed that the CBP partners collaborate to develop a 2-3 page document summarizing what is being done in the region on this issue, and that the IC then use that document as a basis for discussion whether to do more in the CBP context. B. Julie Winters has joined the EPA CBPO staff. Julie has a wide range of experience in EPA and knows the Bay very well. She will be assisting with the development of the SIP. C. Brainstorming Ideas for an Executive Council Meeting The IC brainstormed a wide range of substantive and style options for a 2007 EC meeting. Additional suggestions regarding the EC can be provided to Matt Fleming. This will remain an ongoing topic for discussion. VIII. Agenda for the next Implementation Committee Meeting The group spent some time brainstorming possible topics for the next IC meeting. Jeff Lape expressed his desire for the IC to determine the need for, content, and timing of future IC meetings, rather than relegating that task to the "Gang of Nine". The IC then brainstormed the following topics for the next IC meeting: Strategic Implementation Plan - update on the framing and timing for development CBPO Reorganization - s report and update from the ad-hoc Reorg Committee Climate Change - status of the white paper to describe CBP efforts to evaluate Climate Change impacts - Forestry Directive - quick update on the workgroups efforts to reach agreement on a single text for the Directive The group expressed a strong desire for a face-to-face meeting on August 23. Jeff asked Mike Fritz to take the lead in drafting an agenda for the IC's consideration. ------- VIII. Future IC Meetings Mike Fritz, EPA, IC Coordinator Mike distributed a list of suggested topics for future IC meetings, leading with the SIP, reorganization of the CBP, reorganization of the CBPO, and a range of implementation topics. The IC agreed that the next IC meeting on August 23 should be face-to-face. Jeff Lape informed the IC that he wants IC agendas to be the product of IC discussion, not a subgroup of signatory partner representatives. Next Steps: - Mike will work with IC members to draft an agenda for the August 23 meeting. ------- Attendance List First Last Name Name Affiliation E-mail Phone Number Brad Williams VA Dept of Forestry brad.williams(3).dof.virqinia.orq (202)288-5589 Rich Eskin MD Dept of Env. reskin(®mde. state, md. us (410)533-3572 Mike Fritz EPA fritz. mike(3).epa.qov (410)267-5721 Eileen McClellan Env. Defense emclellan(3>environmentaldefense.ora (443)680-2331 Erin Taylor Alliance for Ches Bay etavlor(®acb. online, ora (410)377-6270 Jeff Corbin VA office of Sec. of Natural Resources ieff.corbin(3>aovernor.virainia.aov (804)692-5174 Jessica Blackburn Alliance for Ches Bay iblackburn (3>acb. online, orq (410)377-6270 Elizabeth Van Dolah Chesapeake Research Consortium vandolahe(®si.edu (410)798-1283 Steve Giordano NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office steve. qiordano(3).noaa.qov (410)267-5647 Susan Pultz NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office susan. pultz(3).noaa.qov (410)295-3241 Scott Phillips USGS swphilli(3).usqs.qov (410)267-5356 Jane Ballentine Alliance for Ches Bay iballent(3)chesapeakebav.orq (410)267-5664 John Wolf CBP-NPS iwolf(3)chesapeakebav. net (410)267-5739 Brian Burch CBP-EPA burch. brian(3).epa.qov (410)267-5736 Doug Lipton STAC dlipton(3).arec. umd.edu (301)405-1280 Steve Early MD DNR searlv(®.dnr.state.md.us John Schneider DE DNREC iohn.schneider(®state.de.us (302)739-9939 Normand Goulet Northern VA Regional Counsel nqoulet(3).novareqion.orq (703)642-4634 Katharine Dowell EPA dowell. katharine(3).epa.qov (410)267-5757 Keely Clifford EPA Clifford. keelv(3).epa.qov (410)267-9853 Diana Esher EPA esher. diana(3).epa.qov (215)814-2706 Sally Claggett USFS sclaqqett(®fs.fed.us (410)267-5706 Carin Bisland EPA bisland. carin(3).epa.qov (410)267-5732 Eric Sprague Pinchot Institute espraque(3).pinchot.orq (202)797-3454 Karl Blankenship Bay Journal baviournal(3).earthlink.net (717)428-2819 Reggie Parrish EPA parrish. reqinal(3).epa.qov (410)267-5772 Jonathan Kramer MD SeaGrant kramer(3).mdsq. umd.edu (301)405-7500 Matt Robinson Chesapeake Research Consortium robinson.matt(3>epa.qov (410)267-5737 Ann Swanson Chesapeake Bay Commission annswanson(®covad.net (410)263-3420 Matt Fleming MD DNR mf 1 e m i n q (3>d n r. state. md. u s (410)260-8719 Frank Dawson MD DNR fd awso n (®d n r. state. md. us (410)260-8110 Peter Freehafer NY DEC pbfreeha(®qw. dec. state, nv. us (518)402-8272 Penny Gross LGAC mason(®fairfaxcountv.qov (703) 256-7717 Jonathan Doherty CBP-NPS idohertv(®.chesapeakebav. net 410-267-5147 Jennifer Greiner USFWS qreiner.iennifer(®epa.qov (410) 267-5783 John Wolflin USFWS iohn wolflin(3>fws.qov 410-573-4574 Ken Pattison PA DEP kpattison(®state. pa. us (717) 772-5652 Mike Lester PA Dept of Forestry milester(3>state.pa.us (717)783-7938 Jeff Lape EPA lape.ieff(®epa.qov (410)267-5709 Pat Buckley PA DEP pbucklev(®.state. pa. us (717) 772-1675 ------- |