Pillar 2: Restoring Health Habitats Meeting Location: Fish and Wildlife Chesapeake Bay Field Office 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401 Date: Friday June 22, 2007 Time: 10:00 am - 3:00 pm Conference Call: Ext. Access Code: Minutes Presentations are available at: http://www. chesapeakebav. net/calendar. cfm?EventDetails=8817&DefaultView=2&ReauestDate=06/21/2007 Attendance: Name Affiliation Contact Information Jackie Johnson ICPRB/CBPO iiohnson@chesaDeakebav.net Peter Bergstrom NOAA/ CBPO peter, berastrom@noaa.aov Lee Karrh DNR I ka rrh @ d n r. state. md. us David Sutherland USFWS david sutherland@tws.aov Matt Fleming MD DNR mflemina@dnr.state.md.us (410) 260-8719 Diana Esher EPA/ CBPO esher.diana@eDa.aov (215) 814-27016 Randy Pomponio EPA/ EAID DomDonio.iohn@eDa.aov (215) 814-2702 Allison Dunaway VADEQ acdunawav@dea.virainia.aov (804) 698-4047 Marcia Berman VIMS/ CCRM marcia@vims.edu (804) 684-7188 Elizabeth Zinecker NRCS/ PMC elizabeth.zinecker@md.usda.aov (301) 504-8175 Sarah Hunter NRCS/ PMC CRC sarahehunter@comcast.net Scott Phillips USGS swDhilli@usas.aov (410) 238-4252 Chris Judy DNR ciudv@dnr.state.md.us (410) 260-8259 Rick Hill VADCR rick.hill@dcr.virainia.aov (804) 786-7119 Mark Mansfield USACE mark.t.mansfield@usace.armv.mil (757) 201-7764 Mark Mendelsohn USACE mark.mendelsohn@usace.armv.mil (410) 962-9499 David Rider EPA rider.david@eDa.aov (215) 814-2787 Regina Poeske EPA Doeske.reaina@eDa.aov (215) 814-2725 Steve Strano USDA/ NRCS steve.strano@md.usda.aov (443) 482-2928 Nancy Butowski DNR n butowski@d n r.state. md. us (410) 260-8268 Denise Clearwater MDE dclearwater@mde. state, md. us (410) 537-3781 Jennifer Greiner FWS/ CBP areiner.iennifer@eDa.aov (410) 573-4553 Kirsten Luke ACJV/FWS/USGS kluke@usas.aov Mark Bryer Nature Conservancy mbrver@tnc.ora (301) 897-8570 Chesapeake Bay Program A Watershed Kirinerabip ------- John Wolfin USFWS iohn wolflin@fws.aov (410) 573-4573 Becky Thur CRC thurb@si.edu (410) 798-1283 Kirk Mantay Ducks Unlimited kmantav(®.ducks.ora (302) 233-8925 Genevieve Trafelet CRC trafelet.aenevieve@eDa.aov (410) 267-9718 Krystal Freeman CRC freeman, krvstal@eoa.aov (410) 267-9830 Action Items: ¦S Legacy sediments associated with dam removal, wetlands, and fish passage/fish removal permitting could be topics for smaller workgroups to work on to put in the SIP. Dam removal and sediment removal could lead to required wetland restoration. Define how it has been managed and how it should be managed in the strategies. ¦S Lee Karrh, Jackie Johnson, and Scott Phillips to make sure soft bottom species and SAV are represented in the living resources priority area maps. ¦S Lee Karrh (need to get data from VIMS) SAV should be added to the targeted map. Need to figure out how to combine the 5 target species map with the SAV maps; they are on different scales. ¦S Howard Weinberg and Scott Phillips to overlay high nutrient loading area maps with fish blockage maps to determine what fish are swimming in to once the blockage is removed. Is the water quality adequate for fish survival in these areas? ¦S Howard Weinberg to color code the sub-watersheds on the maps to make it easier to identify potential areas. ¦S Howard Weinberg to identify the specific type of blockage at each point on the map to determine what type of project needs to be completed where. ¦S Lee Karrh to amend SAV strategy to reflect the newer and more realistic goal. ¦S This group will meet in late July to develop a Strategy 5 for the wetlands SIP. They need to answer the question "How can this strategy help drive/influence the mitigation programs within regulatory program?" Denise Clearwater (MDE) will lead the group, Mark Mansfield (Norfolk Corps), Alison Dunaway (VA DEQ), Randy Pomponio (EPA), Steve Strano (NRCS), Frank Payer (PA DEP) and David Rider (EPA). ¦S VA has done a condition assessment of the wetlands in the state; Delaware, MD and PA. Marcia Berman (VIMS) is working on this as well. Regina Poeske has the data and will give it to Scott Phillips and Kirsten Luke. ¦S Scott Phillips to answer for the Fish Passage Workgroup "Is the water quality in the freshwater streams of the two watersheds, Susquehanna and James Rivers, adequate? This is an opportunity for the Water Quality Workgroup to coordinate with Fish Passage Workgroup. ¦S Dave Sutherland to contact Mike Thabault (FWS R5) for possible funding sources. ¦S Pillar 1 and Pillar 4 should be looking at the same maps if we are to better collaborate efforts. The BCR 30 maps have not been specifically given to Pillar 4; they are available ------- at CBP. Land protection for habitat values is not a priority for Pillar 4; sound land use management for water quality is their priority at this time. Volunteers to work on the Targeting Workgroup with Jennifer Greiner (FWS) for Pillar 2: Bill Jenkins (volunteered by attendee), Denise Clearwater (MDE), Dave Sutherland (FWS), Lee Karrh (MD DNR), Steve Strano (NRCS), Regina Poeske (EPA), Dave Rider (EPA), Mark Bryer (TNC), Grace Battitta (Ducks Unlimited) and John Wolflin (FWS). They will meet with Scott Phillips and John Wolf. Welcome, Introductions, and Expectations Marvin Moriarty (Director, FWS Northeast Region and Pillar 2 Champion) Announcements: S Marvin gave a background on the history of the pillar effort through the Chesapeake Bay Program. The overall goal is to have coordinated and strategic targeting for implementation between federal and state agencies. S The Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) for each group is due in December 2007; it does not have to be perfect at this point. These will be adaptive management plans. State Perspective and Timeline for the SIP Matt Fleming (MD DNR, Pillar 2 Co- Champion) Discuss 3 draft sub-strategies for Wetlands, SAV and Fish Passage Purpose: Fill in the blanks and identify next steps for the 3 draft sub-strategies. o Wetlands- Jennifer Greiner, FWS Discussion: Straegy 1 Targeting- Need state people to step up with regulatory strategies. Mitigation and restoration need to be clearly differentiated in discussions and plans. A clear statement of how these terms are interconnected is needed. Some people are not comfortable with targeting because it will restrict areas that you can work in. People are concerned that it will take more time to reach the goal if you are targeting for specific areas. The point of targeting is to look at ways within our existing program to achieve goals along with creating new ways of working to achieve our goals. New York suggests that there be an allotment for restoration in non-targeted areas (ie.70% restoration occurs in target areas while 30% are allowed to be in other locations). It is important to understand that targeting does not have to eliminate projects in non-targeted areas; targeting is a tool to help decision makers place their money. The idea is not to drop everything and only work on targeted areas; it will be a transition to focus more on targeted areas. The areas could be linked to tributary strategies. Another way to look at targeting is as a method to figure out where to spend money for projects. For example, NRCS could give extra points to applications if the projects fall in targeted areas. It is very important to have a marketing effort in the targeted areas to explain why these targeted areas are important to work in. Part of targeting is educating the public. Targeting does not mean all agencies put all of their money is those identified areas only; rather, it makes it a priority for agencies to get the information out to the public and governments in those targeted areas. Some people expressed concern that targeting will put projects in more of a political realm. We must consider what is really drawing people to conserve and restore the Bay. We've already involved the people who feel passionate about it. Money is what will drive other homeowners to put up their wetlands for easements. Landowners want certainty about what they can do with and how much money they will get for their land. VA DEQ has seen this in their targeting programs and is doing a reverse ------- auction program to obtain lands. Farm Bill programs can be used as an advantage to reach our goals. For example, Delaware went from $700 per acre for easements to $3000 per acre. The easements and these prices are only offered to the people that live in targeted areas so they can be certain they will receive what is offered. When considering the idea of increasing the financial incentives we must recognize that the administration budgets vary among state and federal agencies and they each have to conform to different yet specific standards. It is important to sell your projects effectively to ensure you receive adequate funding from the administration. Be sure to effectively communicate between other agencies working toward common goals so that you don't duplicate efforts. Targeting can tell you where to do things but it can also tell you where not to put your money. A good location today may not be a good location in 50 years due to sea level rise and climate change; we need to look long term in our targeting. You also need to take money away from projects that are not working and make it available for new projects in targeted areas. For example, can you look at legacy sediments and apply it to targeting areas? The EPA has historically neglected the disinvestments side of the budget. Some important questions to consider include: What is the opportunity cost of what is NOT being done today? Is it in line with the current CBP goals and if not that money needs to be reinvested in something that is a current goal. Would eliminating a project that is no longer a goal make room for legacy sediment to be addressed? o Submerged Aquatic Vegetation- Lee Karrh, MD DNR Discussion: Strategy 1- Water quality is the single most important factor for SAV (Pillar 1 link). Water clarity criteria are in regulation at this time. This work in terms of SAV group is done. The water quality goals won't be reached by 2010. Strategy 2- Need to identify what threatens SAV beds in the bay so people know how to protect existing SAV beds. SAV beds migrate overtime and this makes regulation difficult and makes fishermen upset as well. Mute swans have posed threats to restoration projects along with cow nosed rays in MD. When doing research it is important not to discount what seems like excess information because the workgroups can use it and provide feedback. Some areas are considering a cow nosed ray predator restoration project to protect SAV beds. It was suggested to create a regional funding source for research and development projects. Climate change impacts are unknown; most likely will be very disastrous. Eel grass is very sensitive to water temperature change. It is also important to consider and promote how SAV and wetlands mitigate the impacts of climate change. What mitigating impacts can SAV beds have on climate change? Can they provide shelter for species seeking refuge from increased temperatures? Research needs to be done to determine the impact of impervious surfaces on SAV beds. Climate change could benefit tidal fresh species that like warm waters. Strategy 3- Accelerate restoration through planting and transplanting new beds. Targeting is updated annually in MD. MD values every 50m2 of SAV in their targeting scheme. Need to identify the purpose of targeting and then create flexible models to identify those ideas. MD and VA have maps that show targeted SAV areas. They can identify areas that would be good for SAV restoration, but the water quality is not appropriate there yet. Targeting helps to focus water quality BMPs in order to reach SAV goals. Realistic goals can be put in place of the goals from Chesapeake 2000; that goal won't be met. The goal will not be met due to two consecutive warm years which ------- resulted in great losses of SAV beds. The SAV workgroup is hoping to reach % of the original goal. The SIP should reflect the newer and more realistic goal. Strategy 4- Improve coordination of protection and restoration activities. Currently they are doing this through the SAV workgroup which has lots of participation from many groups. The SAV workgroup holds several workshops and large meetings a year. Strategy 5- Enhance public communication and education (links with Pillar 5) Strategy 6- Research is desperately needed to improve efforts. Funding is limited for research. Funding and research should be made a priority in the SIPs. ACOE has looked into ways of combining research money for cow nosed rays, native oysters, SAV, and marine worms. o Fish Passage- Dave Sutherland, FWS Discussion: Goal is to identify, fund, and complete fish passage projects (ie. dam removals). PA is national leader in dam removal project completion. They are well on their way to reaching their 2014 goal. Need to reinitialize the funding for travel expenses for fishway projects. It is important to keep the best interest of the fish as the priority in the planning process and not the fish passage structure or removal of a dam. Strategy 1 Funding Sources- FWS 08 budget has money for geographically targeted areas $6 million; ACOE (Norfolk) is enthusiastic about doing dam removal in VA Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)- The Harvell Dam Removal has not occurred yet; this project needs to be completed. There needs to be some strategy on how to choose which projects to complete and where. Where do you go after high profile projects are completed? Need to identify areas where CBP can work together to make an impact; FERC re-licensing project for Conowingo Dam is one example. Historic permitting and stinging funding together is a problem for fish passage in MD and VA. If there are projects the Fish Passage Workgroup wants done and faces difficulties, then they need to approach it with the weight of CBP's collaborating organizations and use their collective power to complete projects. It is important to work together to have a stronger impact and be more effective. Strategy 4- Is the water quality in the freshwater streams of the two watersheds, Susquehanna and James Rivers, adequate? (Fish Passage Taskgroup does not know.)This can be an opportunity to work with the Water Quality group to coordinate efforts. Strategy 2- Need to develop projects for MD and VA managers; PA is not so much an issue. Historic dams provide some stumbling blocks to get work done in terms of permitting. Need to integrate projects in watershed management plans; managers don't have time to attend watershed meetings. PA has dam removal as a high priority so they have completed many projects. Riverkeepers, local watershed groups, and tributary teams would be good groups to tap into to help with fish passage projects and to help with outreach efforts. They can sell projects to locals and help to identify problems within the river or watershed. (This links with Pillar 4 and watershed management) Need to integrate (NOT JUST IDENTIFY) fish passage into watershed management plans. Need to have language in the SIP so that integration among pillars occurs in the future. Ex: Look at needs of other pillars and see how we can integrate their needs in our SIP. Fish passage and dam removal projects can be linked with other projects ------- such as legacy sediments and wetland restoration. These issues need to be addressed so that there are not problems later on from the dam removal itself. Linking projects in different areas can also increase funding sources to complete projects. Atlantic Coast Fish Passage initiative and another one are possible funding sources. (Nancy Butowski and Marvin Moriarty gave examples) Dave Sutherland to contact Mike Thabault (FWS R5) and follow up. Need to include specific numbers of projects needed per year to reach the targets in the SIP. The SIPs need to be reviewed and revised overtime to make sure that the Pillars are working together and the living resource is the focus. ~ Geographic Targeting Component of the Pillar 2 Strategy o Overview- Scott Phillips, USGS Targeting is meant to be a supportive approach and not to take away funding from other projects. This is a collaborative approach for integrated geographic targeting. It will help to focus efforts; where should work be done first? There are many tools available and presently being used by CBP partners. Living resources (5 target species) restoration and protection is the main goal of targeting. o CBP's 5 Priority Species- Jackie Johnson, ICPRB The Living Resources Priority Areas (LRPA) map is based on what is considered good habitat based on HR2; it is where the 5 target species should be living and not necessarily where they are currently living. The map includes all of the life stages of the organisms and for all seasons. Question- Considering the food webs of these 5 species, what is being left out? Discussion: There are ecologically important species that are not harvested that could be included instead. There are concerns about the use of the 5 target species because they are all harvested species and they migrate in and out of the bay. Alosids spend their first year in the bay-most critical time for them. Striped bass spend first 3-5years in the Bay. Crabs spend time throughout their life cycle in the Bay. CBP does not have much control over these species. There needs to be soft bottom species represented along with SAV. The bay serves as an important over-wintering ground for migratory waterfowl. There are no waterfowl species considered in the map. Another concern with the map is that there is no weighting of the areas; some areas are more important than others in regards to different species and their specific life stages. Need to look at the maps for each species and compare to the compiled map. There would initially be more emphasis on de-listing the tributaries before the mainstem to have greater impacts and benefits. Is it possible to de-list segments to provide adequate habitat for the target species? Striped bass and menhaden have HSM being developed now and they should be ready in a few years. o Fish Passage- Howard Weinberg, UMD There are 2800-3000 blockages to fish passage in the watershed. PA is the national leader in fish blockage removal. There are maps with blockages of impaired waters and non-impaired waters available now. Discussion: The map of fish blockages would be very powerful in the hands of Pillar 3 members. It would be useful to overlay high nutrient loading areas with fish blockage areas to determine what are the fish are swimming into once the blockage is removed. Is the water quality adequate for fish survival? Also include toxic waters in ------- the maps. Compare with these sites with areas you will never have fish traveling; different for alosids and eels. The database the maps are based on has lat/long, historical fish location, fish blockage type, etc. The data can be obtained by clicking on a point on the map. The public does not have access to this information. Contact Howard Weinberg for the maps. If they were to color code the sub-watersheds on the maps it would make it easier to identify potential areas. They could identify potential problems/obstacles for the future. Some blockages are dams and some are road culverts. It would be helpful to identify the specific type of blockage at each point on the maps. They currently don't have historical habitat data for locations upstream. This information could be useful in prioritizing next sites for fish passage projects. They need to identify potential problems from fish blockage removals. This could help with spatial targeting. It is important to identify if fish are even present before the removal of that blockage is done. Sediment build up and release is not the main problem with dam removal projects; unwilling home owners are. o Bird Conservation Region 30 (BCR 30)- Kirstin Luke, USGS-Patuxent Areas are broken down in to shorebird, waterbird, landbird, and waterfowl focus areas. There are maps for each type of bird; some areas overlap between the different types of species. There is also a waterfowl focus area map. Protected lands on the maps are public or private lands; does not mean "protected" in terms of regulatory protection. Discussion: These maps would be good for Pillar 4 to integrate in to their targeting maps. The maps show where they are seeing the birds and where the habitat is good for the species. Melanie Steinkamp is the contact person. A new BCR plan has recently been released. The maps are based on various sources of "data"; the maps are based on people's knowledge of the species. The focus areas are for habitat areas that could be blended with other focus areas. Focus areas identify land preservation sites. ACJV- Atlantic Coast Joint Venture was developed in the 1980s based on levels of populations in the 1970s. It is a collaborative effort between federal, state, local, NGO and other interested parties to restore and preserve bird habitat. BCR 29 maps are in the works; not sure when it will be done. Neo-tropical birds may be pulled out and put in to the maps as well. o Biodiversity layer- Mark Bryer, The Nature Conservancy They have their own method of identifying where to focus conservation efforts. TNC uses ecoregions and not state boundaries for targeting. TNC identifies threats to biodiversity and sequences action by looking at various factors. Their landscape assessment is based on three different assessments. TNC created a map that identified priority areas in the Chesapeake Bay region. The map tried to prioritize areas with better WQ. Wetlands and other targets not in CBP maps were included in this map. Overall, it is very similar to the CBP maps; it would be useful to compare them. Marxan Software: There are biodiversity land cost layers overlaid to identify places to focus on. Cost layer is human threat. An example of a cost layer would be Peter Claggett's vulnerability layer. Discussion: NO QUESTIONS ------- o Examples of decision matrix and supporting maps- Kirk Mantay, Ducks Unlimited Their decision matrix is based on similar questions that the Pillars are answering. Mission of DU is to conserve, manage and restore wetlands and associated habitats for North American waterfowl. Spring migration food availability is a key factor in the upper Chesapeake region; there really is not much food available for these birds due to land conversions. Habitat use varies seasonally. There is a graph that breaks use it into spring and autumn habitat use. There are even differences in wetland use preference. A key question to answer is: Is this project efficient and effective habitat? Discussion: The results of their projects have followed the goals of their targeting tools. The tool should be used loosely as a guiding instrument; don't use it as a binding tool. o Next steps- How do we overlay these in a composite map that maximizes co- benefits?- Scott Phillips, USGS There will be to different decision trees based on whether you are protecting or restoring habitat. Discussion: Volunteers to work on the Targeting Workgroup for Pillar 2: Bill Jenkins (volunteered by attendee) Denise Clearwater (MDE) Dave Sutherland (FWS) Lee Karrh (MD DNR) Steve Strano (NRCS) Regina Poeske (EPA) Dave Rider (EPA) Mark Bryer (TNC) John Wolflin (FWS) Grace Battitta (DU) Notes provided to be added to the SIP posters: Wetlands • MD DNR will fly the entire state at 3m resolution in August 2007. Also, 1/3 of the state in leaf off per year will be flown. • Overlay of waterfowl focus area with NWI. Consider identifying most vulnerable (least protected ie. not even regulated wetlands). • Determine how living resources can contribute toward reducing or mitigating climate damage. • In VA, tidal wetland creation is being done as part of living shoreline projects, but it is not tracked. Contact Shep Moon VA DEQ (804) 698-4527 • VA DEQ Costal Zone Management Program has given 2 grants to Hampton Roads Planning District Commission to develop "Conservation Corridors" in its localities. Target areas for wetland conservation, restoration and mitigation. Starting in 2008, VA DEQ Coastal Zone Management will have funds to develop the corridors. The goal is to create corridors throughout coastal zones in VA. Contact Shep Moon VA DEQ (804) 698-4527 • Need to incorporate state wetland monitoring data. Could/should be used as baseline for wetland protection maps. Virginia is completed and Maryland is being completed. They could incorporate other metrics and should be used for consistency. • The group needs to strategize how to integrate monitoring of projects in all future projects for wetland restoration. This needs to be done to ensure goals are being met and for adaptive management to be effective. One idea is to incorporate a random sampling (EMAP) protocol. ------- • Targeting should be done up front with stakeholders to ensure buy-in. • State wetland monitoring information should be used for this pillar team. VA has data on all NWI wetlands and can map contributing drainage area. Could be used to "produce wetland focus area map highlighting" areas within high nutrient areas. Contact Regina Poeske (215) 814-2725 • Some people feel the 11-digit HUC as a targeting tool has no validity. When targeting is done, more meaningful criteria need to be used such as water quality improvement, waterfowl habitat areas, etc. • The Farm Bill program doesn't allow us to put easements on wetlands restored through CRP. The program rules are meant to prevent double-dipping, but in this case it's not double-dipping because it's adding a level of protection that doesn't exist alone with ERP. Somewhat ironically, WRP will allow us to pay for easements on wetlands that were previously restored by other federal and state agencies, and private organizations. (Steve Strano) • Legislation in House that would remove "navigable waters" and insert "waters of the US" A huge push from all Bay Partners should be made to get this passed. • Targeting is not very logical for wetland restoration because, for the most part, funding is not a problem. The main problem is finding willing landowners. Incentives for restoration can help, but they need to be relative to land values and agricultural land preservation easement values. If the incentives are pumped up high enough to increase demand beyond available funding, then targeting may become more viable. SAV • Controls on development, including, but not limited to sediment and erosion control enforcement, reduction in sprawl need to be put in place. • Regional Funding for Research and Development is needed to meet the research needs. • VA DEQ's Costal Zone Management Program funds SAV mapping ($60k/yr) and restoration of eelgrass from seed on seaside of Eastern Shore Contact: Laura McKay VA DEQ (804) 698-4323. Fish Passage • For all restoration activities (buffers, fish passage, wetlands, etc.) that involve private landowners, create a referral service at the Chesapeake Bay Program that would market and connect interested land owners with the people and programs that want to do the work. • Elevate FERC re-licensing on Susquehanna River as a priority action for the regional partnership. They need to identify specific recommended actions for the EC. • Additional Funding: FWS ($6million available in '08 plus out yr.), ACOE- Harvell under continuing authority (VA GIF State Partners) • Explore possibility with FERC of doing watershed review which leads to one watershed permit for FERC facilities (like VA's watershed permit for wastewater treatment plants) • Investigate "legacy sediment" opportunities to achieve multiple goals (dam removal, sediment reduction, and wetland restoration) across multiple pillars. • Target disinvestment areas as well as investment areas. Where are we currently inspiring/ facilitating/ crediting restoration that is not meeting Bay goals? Reinvest that money in to projects that will meet our goals. ~~~ Adjourn ------- |