Conference Call Minutes for the Chesapeake Bay Program's Implementation Committee Chesapeake Bay Program Office November 16, 2006 A Watershed Partnership ACTION ITEMS The IC accepted the recommendation to not separately attempt to track "efforts" to reduce harmful sprawl as an indictor and remove "Reducing Sprawl" from the "Restoration and Protection Efforts" portion of the Indicators Framework. In doing this the CBP would emphasize that there are other indicators that are tracked that in aggregate account for efforts to reduce harmful sprawl. The IC emphasized that it did not want to lessen the importance that the reducing the rate of harmful sprawl keystone plays, but wants to better define how we measure this for management purposes. The IC wants to discuss the implications this decision will play for the pillar management framework at a future meeting. The IC accepted the findings of the SAV BPA study and suggested that the LRSC further review the results in their SAV workgroup with the help of STAC. The IC added that STAC and the LRSC SAV workgroup should examine some of the emerging technologies discussed in the report. The LRSC will keep MASC informed on this and will come back to the IC within the next sixth months. Nancie Imler requested that the IC members send her the names of their jurisdictional agency chief enviromnental information officers so that IMS may be restructured to accommodate future work of this nature as well as the standard IMS operations. Kari Cohen (USDA NRCS) will keep the CBP updated on the development of the USDA NRCS water quality trading demonstration project at future IC meetings. The IC may contact Carl Lucero with any future questions regarding this MOU and the Chesapeake Bay demonstration project. Updates about the agriculture secretaries biannual meetings will be circulated through the Gang of Nine. Dave Bancroft will give a full report of the February agriculture secretaries' meeting during the March IC conference call. [NOTE: This was not done.] If the states have any ideas for options on how best to report what level of technical assistance is necessary for them to meet their agricultural goals, they should send this to Brian Kittler by January 4th 2006. The newly formed wastewater workgroup will come back to the IC in January with some details about their formation. INDICATORS GAP FILLING Documents: Assessment of Efforts to Reduce Harmful Sprawl Discussion: Carlton Haywood (ICPRB) introduced this topic by saying that there was a suite of indicators for the CBP's Health and Restoration Assessment last spring, one of these indicators was supposed to be about our efforts in reducing harmful sprawl and we were unable to do this. In order to fill this gap a proposal that was generated by LGSS and agreed to by MASC is now presented to the IC. Carlton also suggested that this sprawl indicator is a key indicator for the five pillar management approach and commented that our efforts to quantify reductions in harmful urban sprawl are both difficult and important. 4^ Chesapeake Bay Progran Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Committee - 11-16-06 ------- Ted Graham (MWCOG) continued on this theme explaining that the Maintaining Healthy Watersheds pillar of Bay restoration contains a keystone commitment to reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development by 2012. After three years of effort, the Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee (LGSS) was unable to develop a definition and methodology to track "harmful sprawl development." In lieu of developing an indicator for the keystone commitment, the LGSS approved the development of an indicator to track impervious cover in the watershed to be reported in "Factors Impacting Bay Health.'The LGSS notes that local and state governments have programs, policies, laws and regulations associated with new development. However, mere tabulation of programs, policies, laws & regulations could not be quantified into a measurable indicator. The effect of these actions on the rate of reducing "harmful sprawl development" is unclear, and data to measure such change is unavailable in all but one jurisdiction. . The LGSS finds that existing CBP Restoration and Protection Efforts measures adequately address and track development's impact on water quality. These indicators include: Watershed Land Preservation, Watershed Management Plans Developed, and Urban/Suburban Pollution Controls. Aspects of each of these relate to efforts to reduce harmful sprawl. As these efforts continue to be tracked, we anticipate corresponding declines in the impacts of new development on water quality. The recommendation to the IC is that the CBP should not separately attempt to track efforts to reduce harmful sprawl as an indictor in its suite of Restoration and Protection Effort indices, rather the CBP should revise the Indicator Framework and remove Reducing Sprawl from the Restoration and Protection Efforts portion of the Indicators Framework to reflect the findings of the LGSS. In doing this the CBP would emphasize that there are other indicators that are tracked that in aggregate account for efforts to reduce harmful sprawl. The IC accepted the LGSS recommendation and approved the removal of the Reducing Sprawl from the Restoration and Protection Efforts portion of the indicators framework. Carlton Haywood added that this decision may impact the keystone commitment management pillar of Maintaining Healthy Watersheds. The IC should continue to discuss the issues associated with reducing the rate of harmful sprawl. Carlton believes that the CBP has made it difficult to have certain management indicators that are difficult to measure; this may negatively impact the rate of implementing measures of keystone attainment. Carin Bisland (EPA CBPO) suggested that as far as the impact on the Maintaining Healthy Watersheds pillar is concerned, it is not whether or not reducing harmful sprawl remains a keystone, the issue is more about how we measure the rate of reducing this. Carin felt that if other members of the IC want to discuss how this affects the keystones then it should be discussed. Pat Buckley commented that the LGSS recommendation did not address whether the commitment to "reduce the rate of harmful sprawl development" should remain a keystone commitment. Should the IC wish to address this issue, she recommended that the discussion be held at a future meeting. She added that discussing this is not an abandonment of the notion that sprawl is damaging, it is a discussion about the CBP's ability to measure reductions in harmful sprawl. Ted Graham added that the CBP is revisiting how we measure this through the 2030 land use projections activities and suggested an update of this be included in a future IC meeting. Matt Fleming (MD DNR) contended that this decision is conditional on the fact that we are accepting these "second cousins" in aggregate as a surrogate for our efforts to reduce harmful sprawl. As for the impacts on the pillars, we should frame the discussion to track watershed plans, stream corridor restoration etc. The IC emphasized that it did not want to reduce the importance the reducing the rate of harmful sprawl keystone plays, but wants to better define how we measure this for management purposes. The IC wants to discuss the implications this decision will play for the keystones in the future. kkkkkkkkkk IMS SAV DATA COLLECTION Documents: IMS - SAV BPA Presentation SAV BPA Final Report SAV BPA Appendix C SAV Data Collection and Processing Tasks Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Committee - 11-16-06 ------- Discussion: Nancie Imler (IMS Chair, PA DEP) presented the SAV data collection business process analysis report that was completed per request of the IC. In April of 2005 the IC listed data collection efforts being used for key indicators that the CBP was using that had issues with being consistent with our reporting cycle. The IC tasked IMS to look at the CBP's method of SAV data collection first and define any barriers for data collection that would keep it from being a quality data reporting piece for the reporting cycle. Nancie explained that IMS agreed to do a business process analysis without compromising the previous data collection process and with the assumption that the SAV data would get to the CBP by the end of March. IMS utilized an existing CBP contract with SAIC to use there expertise to do the technical work for this study. The goal is for most data types collected by the CBP to eventually go through this type of data business process analysis. The SAV data collection BPA was our first attempt at doing this type of work. One of the ideas that IMS had was to keep all data in a repository at the CBPO in an orderly fashion. VIMS had a decent quality management plan and were willing and able to work with this process, VIMS actually directed some of their resources to work with this. The CBP should really take a look at this SAV study for both the importance of SAV data for the CBP jurisdictions and to get a better understanding of the difficulties involved in and the benefits of using this type of analysis. This will inform future efforts to enhance our data collection methods. Our short term recommendations are that VIMS should continue to support the CBP data collection. We recommend that the CBP examine whether or not CBP is able to meet the true costs of the SAV data collection and again review the scope of what the SAV survey is trying to accomplish and adjust funding accordingly. Nancie noted that the report identified an issue with the timing of the SAV fly over in restricted air spaces. There are only a few time periods in which we can do the SAV flyover needed to collect SAV acreage data. Matt Fleming added that Aberdeen Proving Grounds is one of the main locations where this is an issue and it is important to monitor SAV acreage in the Susquehanna flats. Nita Sylvester (EPA CBPO) told the IC that VIMS has been working out this issue with DoD on this with DoD. She suggested that we may be able to aid the SAV data collection through leveraging agency funds at the FAC level. Nancie concluded her presentation by saying that she thinks IMS should be recognized for their ability to pull this report together through finding the necessary funding. She also mentioned that IMS is currently under funded to administer the tasks it is being asked to perform. She said that if the IC wants to continue to ask IMS to do this kind of work, a restructuring of IMS is necessary. Nancie asked for the jurisdictions to provide her with the contact information of the chief environmental information officers in their jurisdiction. She noted that one of the missing players in this IMS restructuring is EPA region III. The IC accepted the findings of the SAV BPA study and suggested that the LRSC further review the results in their SAV workgroup with the help of STAC. The IC added that STAC and the LRSC SAV workgroup should examine some of these emerging technologies discussed in the report. Carin Bisland informed the IC that our SAV data collection occurs through a patchwork of funding. At the last BSC meeting the EPA CBP activities budget was adjusted to reflect an increase in cost based on a COLA that was assessed after a five year contract. Matt Fleming has encouraged the states through the BSC to look at alternative funding for this study. Steve Sarri commented that it would be good for the LRSC to examine if we invest in some of these emerging technologies which may have a high up front cost, could the overall cost of the survey decrease over time, or would the initial start up cost outweigh the return on this investment? Nancie Imler commented that the CBP does not do this kind of return on investment for activities and she expressed that this could be a good topic to work on in the future. Melissa Fagan (CRC) informed the IC of STAC's method of doing a review of the SAV BPA's recommendations. The best course of action would be for LRSC to draft a one pager and submit this to Carl Hershner (STAC Chair) and Melissa Fagan to go through STAC. The LRSC will Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Committee - 11-16-06 ------- take the lead, work with STAC, work with DoD on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds fly over issue, and will work with IMS to better understand the results of the BPA, and will work with the BSC on strategic planning of resources for the SAV data collection in the future given options for new technologies. The LRSC will keep MASC informed on this and will come back to the IC within the next sixth months. TRADING MOU BETWEEN EPA AND USDA NRCS Documents: EPA OW - USDA NRCS MOU on Water Quality Credit Trading Discussion: Carl Lucero (USDA NRCS) told the IC that this agreement stems from the second National Water Quality Trading Conference with NRCS and EPA. Both of these federal agencies believe in market based approaches and that water quality trading in particular is an important tool. The MOU affirms this and acts as an agreement to work collaboratively in accelerating the process of this. This is an agency partnership agreement, however there are no funding stipulations attached to this agreement, we will be using our existing funds for this. This partnership agreement gives us an over arching push to accelerate the development of market based tools and to implement water quality trading on a broad scale. The intent is to ensure that we have a document that sets a precedent for mutual agreement on common standards, protocols and measurements. We believe that this MOU agrees to do this. The MOU also explicitly states that a demonstration project in the Chesapeake Bay basin will be coordinated by these agencies to provide a national model. In developing this MOU, NRCS highlighted conservation and innovation grants and EPA grants and the study highlighted how these grants fund EPA "BMPs" and NRCS "conservation practices." The agreement acknowledges that these activities are similar on the ground; but may be credited differently in a water quality credit trading regime. The agreement is meant to lay the groundwork to resolve these differences and is meant to help facilitate the crediting of load reduction activities for water quality trading. Another area resolving these differences between the language used by NRCS and EPA is in monitoring and modeling these watersheds and this agreement will help NRSC in their development of models to track pollution reduction credits. EPA is willing to work with NRCS on the effectiveness of these models and their application. The MOU addresses the fact that in order to make these trading regimes broad, we need agency cooperation. NRCS and EPA are working on a number of tools to identify appropriate areas for trades and to identify groups that are appropriate to broker these trades. Nancie Imler commented that she is chairing an EPA grant for nonpoint source data exchange. The grant is meant to map practices in place in Pennsylvania according to EPA and NRCS codes, and this has taken a long time. The first year of this grant was spent working out the differences of the various practices as defined by EPA and NRCS. The different states collect non point source practice management data through the funding source codes. Carl Lucero and Nancie agreed that they should work together to consider the work that IMS has completed on this issue to date. Pat Buckley told Carl Lucero that Pennsylvania has been working with the World Resources Institute to develop the Nutrient Net tool using the Chesapeake Bay phase 4.3 watershed model. When phase 5 is ready, Nutrient Net will need to be updated. Pat encouraged NRCS and EPA to consider supporting the update of Nutrient Net to reflect the phase 5 watershed model. . Pennsylvania anticipates drafting their final draft trading policy soon, with the final adoption of this policy in February. Pat asked Carl, where NRSC is in the time table for the conservation and innovation grants? Carl told the IC that they are beginning to look at this now and the final announcement of awards will take place in the spring of 2007. Peter Freehafer (NY USC) asked about the role modeling will have in the trading regime and if there would be more inspection of on site BMPs to help verify actual nutrient reductions? Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Committee - 11-16-06 ------- Carl replied that since it is still a voluntary program NRCS will be working on how to address BMP inspections. Jeff Corbin (VA DCR) said that Virginia has applied for a targeted watershed grant to help do their water quality trading and that their proposal was denied. Jeff asked that NRCS consider their proposal again in the future. Carl responded that NRCS is looking for a Chesapeake Bay basin demonstration project that will be widely applicable across the nation. There is a high likelihood that there will be a special Chesapeake Bay fund again within these grants. Pat Stuntz (CBC) requested that NRCS establish some protocols for monitoring and establish some goals for monitoring a demonstration project. She highlighted that CBP monitoring is a big political issue at the moment. Pat reiterated the value for being able to verify the effects of monitoring as being very important to the public. Nita Sylvester told Carl Lucero that the Chesapeake Bay watershed model is a strong tool but the Chesapeake Bay monitoring network used in the watershed is a very costly network. With the high expense of water quality monitoring NRCS should consider integrating the CBP watershed monitoring network with any demonstration project's monitoring. Kari Cohen (USD A NRCS) will keep the CBP updated on the development of the USD A NRCS water quality trading demonstration project at future IC meetings. The IC may contact Carl Lucero with any future questions regarding this MOU and the Chesapeake Bay demonstration project. 2006 EC AGREEMENTS RELATED TO AGRICULTURE Documents: Assisting Farmers Agriculture Secretaries Resolution Discussion: Dave Bancroft (ACB) updated the IC on the recently signed agriculture secretaries' resolution as being a long term strategy to strengthen and build partnerships. Since the agriculture community is being asked to do a lot in the tributary strategies, it is important for the state agricultural secretaries to be in tune with CBP environmental goals. This will be achieved through biannual meetings hosted by a watershed state and facilitated by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. The first meeting will be held in mid February. Pat Buckley expressed concern that this is being developed independent of the CBP structure and requested to be included in all email correspondence about this groups activities. She also announced that PA will be including an agriculture secretary on the PSC in the future. Jeff Corbin remarked that pulling the agriculture secretaries into a biannual meeting is a great development. He requested that he be informed of any developments from these meetings. Updates about the agriculture secretaries biannual meetings will be circulated through the Gang of Nine. Dave Bancroft will give a full report of the February agriculture secretaries' meeting during the March IC conference call. Pat Stuntz thanked Dave for coordinating this effort and she informed the IC about the other agricultural resolution signed at the 2006 EC meeting. She noted that the agreement has five key actions and Chesapeake Bay Commission is working on the next steps for this. The CBC will send a conveyance letter for the states to concur on to send by the chair of the commission to Congress. Pat said that one major thing the agreement calls for is to determine if the states have an assessment of what level of technical assistance is necessary for the states to meet their agriculture tributary strategy goals. Pennsylvania has not done this and Maryland is starting to do this. Carin Bisland thought that it would be good if there were some proposed options for how the states should report on this. If possible, the states should send any ideas for options to start thinking about this to Brian Kittler by January 4th 2006. Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Committee - 11-16-06 ------- IC LOGISTICS, FOLLOW-UP AND ANNOUCNEMENTS Federal Principal's Meeting Logistics The Wastewater treatment workgroup was meant to come back to the IC in November with an update of its activities since its formation after the June IC meeting - the newly formed wastewater workgroup will come back to the IC in January with some details about there formation. Carin Bisland informed the IC that there will be a reorganization workshop on November 28 and 29 at the Hall of States in DC. This will be with two separate groups over the two days following the same agenda. The invitations, agenda, and survey/interview report has gone out. The list of workshop participants will be sent out to the IC soon. Since the PSC will not meet for a while, it seems like we will have some time to process the survey, interviews, and workshop discussions before their meeting. There will be a high level federal agencies meeting on November 29. Kyle Zieba (EPA) and Rebecca Hanmer (EPA CBPO Director) will be staffing this meeting. Brian Kittler (CRC) informed the IC of the decisions made at the November 14-15 Water Quality Steering Committee Meeting. In particular, that the WQSC decided to ask the PSC whether or not a Baywide TMDL would be necessary before proceeding further with work items associated with this activity. Pat Buckley announced that she was meeting with the EPA OIG regarding the CBP's point source program. Jeff Corbin reiterated that VA will present an update on their tributary strategies in December. Participants l-'irsi Dave Steve Carin Pat Bob Kari l.asl Name Bancroft Sarri Bisland Buckley Campbell Cohen Fagan Freehafer bisland.carin@epa.gov pbuckley@state.pa.us bcampbel@chesapeakebay.net l-'.mail dbancroft@acb-online.org Plume Number AITilialion 410-377-6270 ACB DC DOE 410-267-5732 USEPA/CPBO 717-772-1675 PA DEP 410-267-5747 NPS USD A NRCS 410-798-1283 CRC STAC 518-402-8272 NY DEC USD A NRCS 202-962-3352 MWCOG Melissa Peter Carl Lucero Ted Nancie Reggie Matt Fleming Katharine Dowell Kittler Graham Imler Parrish tgraham@mwcog.org faganm@si.edu pbfreehafer@gw.dec.state.ny.us PA DEP EPA CBPO MDDNR EPA CBPO Brian Ann Nita Jeff Swanson Sylvester Corbin Haywood Kittler.brian@epa.gov annswanson@covad.net Sylvester.nita@epa.gov 410-267-5737 CRC 410-263-3420 CBC 410-267-5711 EPA CBPO VADCR ICPRB Carlton Chesapeake Bay Program - Implementation Committee - 11-16-06 ------- |