DOCSLIB.ORG

Pennsylvania Phase 3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Public Comment Response Document Format June 17, 2019 DRAFT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pennsylvania Phase 3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Public Comment Response Document Format June 17, 2019 DRAFT Pennsylvania Phase 3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan Public Comment Response Document Format June 17, 2019 DRAFT TABLE OF COMMENTATORS Commentator Name and Address Affiliation ID # 1 Maryanne Tobin 1952 5880 Henry Ave Philadelphia, PA 19128 2 R John Dawes Foundation for PA Watersheds 9697 Loop Rd. Alexandria, PA 16611 3 Scott Rebert Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2301 North Cameron Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 4 Ronald Furlan 1903 Limestone Drive Hummelstown, PA 17036 5 David Lamereaux 135 Ash Street Archbald, PA 18403 6 Jessica Trimble PA DCED Center for Local Government 400 North Street Services Harrisburg, PA 17120 7 Jamie Yiengst South Lebanon Township 1800 S 5th Ave Lebanon, PA 17042 8 Keith Henn Tetra Tech, Inc. Suite 200 661 Andersen Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15220 9 Keith Salador Citizens Advisory Council PO Box 8459 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Commentator Name and Address Affiliation ID # 10 Kristopher Troup North Londonderry Township 655 E. Ridge Road Palmyra, PA 17078 11 Cheri Grumbine North Lebanon Township 725 Kimmerlings Road Lebanon, PA 17046 12 Eric Rosenbaum PA4R Nutrient Stewardship Alliance 20 Glenbrook Drive Shillington, PA 19607 13 Jeremy Rowland Coalition for Affordable Bay Solutions 1080 Camp Hill Road (CABS) Fort Washington, PA 19034 14 Joe Pizarchik former director, OSMRE, Dept of the 3000 Berry Lane Interior Harrisburg, PA 17112 15 Mary Gattis Mary Gattis LLC 27 South Cedar Street Lititz, PA 17543 16 Robin Getz Director of Public Works-City of Lebanon Room 220 400 S 8th Street Lebanon, PA 17042 17 Jennifer Reed-Harry PennAg Industries Association 2215 Forest Hills Drive, Suite 39 Harrisburg, PA 17112 18 Kevin Sunday Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and 417 Walnut St Industry Harrisburg, PA 17055 19 Brian Gallagher Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 800 Waterfront Dr. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 20 Sarah Diebel DoD Chesapeake Bay Program 1510 Gilbert Street Coordinator NorfolkVA 23511 2 Commentator Name and Address Affiliation ID # 21 Lisa Schaefer County Commissioners Association of PO Box 60769 Pennsylvania Harrisburg, PA 17106 22 Charles Hegberg reGENESIS Consulting Services & 256 Frederick Street Infinite Solutions Hanover, PA 17331 23 Alice Baker PennFuture 1429 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 24 Felicia Dell York County Planning Commission 28 East Market St., Suite 301 York, PA 17401 25 Julie Cheyney Lebanon County Clean Water Alliance 400 S. Eighth Street (LCCWA) Lebanon, PA 17042 26 Davitt Woodwell Pennsylvania Environmental Council Suite 201 810 River Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 27 Rick Meinke 267 Buckwheat Rd Fawn Grove, PA 17321 28 Joshua Billings Lycoming County Planning & Community 48 West Third Street Development Williamsport, PA 17701 29 Taylor Nezat Pennsylvania Choose Clean Water 610 N. Third St. Coalition [part of PennFuture] Harrisburg, PA 17101 30 Ronald Ramsey The Nature Conservancy, Pennsylvania Building #1, Suite 200 Chapter 2101 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 31 Grant Gulibon Pennsylvania Farm Bureau P.O. Box 8736 510 S. 31st St. Camp Hill, PA 17001-8736 3 Commentator Name and Address Affiliation ID # 32 HL Campbell PA Chesapeake Bay Foundation Ste 220 1426 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 33 Michael Sachs Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 33 Terminal Way, Suite (RES) W445A Pittsburgh, PA 15219 34 Jessica Blackburn Chesapeake Executive Council, CAC Suite 101 C 612 Hull Street Richmond, VA 23224 35 Allyson Gibson Lancaster Clean Water Partners 1383 Arcadia Rd Lancaster, PA 17601 36 Renee Reber American Rivers [for Pennsylvania 309 3rd Street Stormwater Workgroup for Clean Water] New Cumberland, PA 17070 37 James Wheeler Pa. State Assoc. of Township 4855 Woodland Drive Supervisors Enola, PA 17025 38 Katlyn Schmitt Waterkeepers Chesapeake Suite #820 6930 Carroll Ave. Takoma Park, MD 20912 39 Jenna Mitchell Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay Suite 302 37 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602 40 Patrick Thompson EnergyWorks Group 71 Old Mill Bottom Road North Annapolis, MD 21409 4 Outline General Comments • Shortfall in Meeting PA’s nutrient targets • Funding gap to meet targets • Overall Content Program Commitments (Section 2) • Legislative • Regulatory • Program Enhancement Numeric Commitments (Section 2) • Agriculture • Forestry • Stormwater • Wastewater Countywide Action Planning (Section 4) • Plans • Process Communication and Engagement Strategy (Section 4) Existing and Needed Resources (Section 5) Federal Role (Section 6) Data Reporting, Tracking, Verifying (Section 7) Climate Change (Section 8) Sector Growth (Section 9) 5 General Comments • Shortfall in Meeting PA’s nutrient targets 1. COMMENT 10. Kristopher Troup, North Londonderry Township - The draft plan states, “Pennsylvania commits to have practices and controls in place by 2025 necessary to achieve the final Phase 3 WIP phosphorus and nitrogen targets,” however, the actions outlined in the plan only account for two-thirds of the nitrogen reduction needed by 2025. The plan’s accounting for the additional required nitrogen reductions is nebulous at best. (10) Response: 2. COMMENT 21. Lisa Schaefer, County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania - … That said, we recognize that the pilot county plans, which were developed with intensive effort, do not appear to have met the goals that were laid out, and as of right now, the overall draft WIP gives the impression that Pennsylvania will not meet its targets. We are concerned that if EPA reacts by taking enforcement measures, that could translate into a corresponding effort by the state to enforce the countywide goals against counties. We would strongly oppose such an effort, and especially without funding or other resources. Not only would this undermine the relationships and efforts that have already been undertaken, any sense that this is another mandate on counties will chill any ability to move forward with the implementation of the pilot county plans and the creation of the remaining county plans going forward. County government and the commonwealth must develop and maintain the close working relationship necessary to cooperatively meet these challenges. (21) Response: 3. COMMENT 23. Alice Baker, PennFuture - 2. The Draft WIP3 Fails to Provide Reasonable Assurance That Expected Load Reductions Will Be Achieved. As articulated above, EPA must evaluate whether a TMDL provides reasonable assurance that controls will achieve expected load reductions. EPA has laid out its approach to ensuring that the reductions set forth in the Bay TMDL will be met. This includes each Bay jurisdiction’s development of phased WIPs and 2-year milestones for implementing practices to achieve load reductions, and EPA’s commitment to track and assess the jurisdictions’ progress and take appropriate federal actions if the jurisdictions fail to develop sufficient WIPs, effectively implement their WIPs, or fulfill their 2-year milestones.1 1 TMDL Section 7, at 7-5. 6 In June 2018, EPA provided the Bay jurisdictions with expectations to maintain accountability.2 EPA communicated its heightened expectations for reasonable assurance and included state specific expectations for Pennsylvania “given that three of PA’s source sectors are under enhanced or back-stopped levels of federal oversight, PA is significantly off track in meeting its programmatic and numeric WIP and two-year milestone commitments, and PA is not on trajectory to meet its Phase III WIP planning targets by 2025.”3 It is clear that EPA expects Pennsylvania to provide a convincing, detailed, and realizable plan in its Phase 3 WIP. Although the Department’s draft WIP3 seeks to address many of the expectations EPA outlines, significant gaps remain in Pennsylvania’s proposed path forward. Pennsylvania must address these gaps in its final WIP3 since without these elements the WIP fails to provide reasonable assurance that expected load reductions will be achieved. a. The Draft WIP3 Does Not Set Forth a Plan to Achieve the Required Nitrogen Reductions. Pennsylvania’s draft WIP3 fails to actually plan for the necessary nitrogen reductions. In order to successfully meet the 2025 target reductions Pennsylvania will need to reduce 34.13 million pounds of nitrogen and 0.756 million pounds of phosphorus annually.4 Despite the various initiatives described and the length of the Department’s proposal, the draft WIP3 only professes to address about 66% of the necessary nitrogen reduction.5 Despite the draft WIP3’s assertion that “Pennsylvania commits to have practices and controls in place by 2025 necessary to achieve the final Phase 3 WIP phosphorus and nitrogen targets,”6 a document that does not even set forth a plan to address the required reductions provides no assurance that expected load reductions will be achieved.7 Pennsylvania’s final WIP3 must address this significant shortcoming. (23) Response: 4. COMMENT 2 EPA, Expectations for the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/epa-phase-iii-wip-expectations-6- 19- 18.pdf [hereinafter EPA Expectations]. 3 Id. at 10. 4 WIP3, at 22. 5 WIP3, at 41, Table 2.2 (totaling nitrogen reduction to the Bay at 22,371,000 million pounds), and see 60, Table 2.4 (totaling edge of tide nitrogen reduction to 22,566,820 million pounds, approximately 66% of 34.1 million pounds). 6 WIP3, at 11, 26, 88, and 142. 7 It should be noted that the WIP3 does articulate an approach to achieve the required phosphorus reductions by 2025 and notes, without further description, that “[w]hen the phosphorus goal is exceeded, the excess phosphorus can be converted into nitrogen reductions.” WIP3, at 78. PennFuture questions the ability to convert excess phosphorus to nitrogen reductions. We assume the Department is referring to some sort of exchange of phosphorous reduction for nitrogen reduction based on the EPA’s provided conversion factors, as referred to on page 11 of the draft WIP3 and not discussed thereafter. However, this proposed exchange of through which Pennsylvania would achieve an additional 155,664 pounds reduction of nitrogen will still not reach the necessary nitrogen reductions. 7 24. Felicia Dell, York County Planning Commission - SECTION 10. CONCLUSION 56.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress
    Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress Updated August 3, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45278 SUMMARY R45278 Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and August 3, 2018 Issues for Congress Eva Lipiec The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. It is Analyst in Natural recognized as a “Wetlands of International Importance” by the Ramsar Convention, a Resources Policy 1971 treaty about the increasing loss and degradation of wetland habitat for migratory waterbirds. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Bay’s watershed is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. A combination of factors has caused the ecosystem functions and natural habitat of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed to deteriorate over time. These factors include centuries of land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, overfishing and overharvesting, the introduction of invasive species, and the spread of toxic contaminants. In response, the Bay has experienced reductions in economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient- driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Congress began to address ecosystem degradation in the Chesapeake Bay in 1965, when it authorized the first wide-scale study of water resources of the Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities, conducted by multiple agencies, have focused on reducing pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, restoring habitat, managing fisheries, protecting sub-watersheds within the larger Bay watershed, and fostering public access and stewardship of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Buffer Action Plan
    Chesapeake Bay Buffer Action Strategy for New York Current Effort Based on the targets set in New York’s Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan, New York plans to implement 2,606 acres of forest buffer and 1,020 acres of grass buffers in the agriculture sector by 2025. In the urban sector, New York plans to implement 3,095 acres of forest buffer and 1,853 acres of tree planting by 2025. Table 1 shows the current progress in 2020 towards achieving riparian forest buffer targets, the percent achieved, and acres remaining. Table 1 Amount of riparian forest buffer and tree plantings to achieve NY’s WIP III. Best Management Practice 2020 WIP III Percent Acres Acres Progress (acres) Achieved Remaining Needed (acres) per Year Pasture Forest Buffers 2,058 3,543 58% 1,485 297 Pasture Grass Buffers 1,166 1,815 64% 649 130 Cropland Forest Buffers 1,003 2,124 47% 1,121 224 Cropland Grass Buffers 405 776 52% 371 74 Urban Forest Buffers 37 3,132 1% 3,095 619 Opportunities for Implementation Participating Partners New York’s key partners in buffer implementation are the Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Upper Susquehanna Coalition, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Partners to be further engaged include Farm Service Agency, National Resources Conservation Service, local communities, nongovernment organizations, land trusts and members of the Climate Action Council. Strategy for Implementation As outlined in the Phase III WIP, New York proposes the following strategies to improve its riparian buffer delivery including increase voluntary implementation, explore new funding strategies, sustaining motivation and continuing to support technical capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 1 Overview
    Module 1 Educator’s Guide Overview What’s up with Geography Standards World in Spatial Terms Earth’s water • Standard 1: How to use maps and other geographic representations, tools, and technologies to acquire, resources? process, and report information from a spatial perspective Places and Regions Module Overview • Standard 4: The physical and This module addresses issues that are of human characteristics of places fundamental importance to life. Four case Physical Systems studies of a coastal bay, an inland sea, a river, and mountain snow pack • Standard 7: The physical pro- investigate water resources important to millions of people in North cesses that shape the patterns of America, Asia, and Africa. Each investigation focuses on the physical Earth’s surface nature of the resource, how humans depend upon the resource, and how • Standard 8: Characteristics and human use affects the resource creating both problems and opportunities. distribution of ecosystems Environment and Society Investigation 1: Chesapeake Bay: Resource use or abuse? • Standard 14: How humans modify Students play roles of concerned citizens, public officials, and scientists the physical environment • while learning about the Chesapeake Bay and its environs. They use data Standard 15: How physical and satellite images to examine how human actions can degrade, im- systems affect human systems prove, or maintain the quality of the bay in order to make policy recom- The Uses of Geography • Standard 18: How to apply mendations for improving this resource for future use. geography to interpret the present and plan for the future Investigation 2: What is happening to the Aral Sea? Students work as teams of NASA geographers using satellite images to measure the diminishing size of the Aral Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Literacy in Delaware
    DELAWARE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED PORTION Environmental Literacy in Delaware Why environmental literacy? How does Delaware compare to the The well-being of the Chesapeake Bay watershed Chesapeake Bay watershed? will soon rest in the hands of its youngest citizens: 2.7 Environmental Literacy Planning: School districts’ self-identified preparedness million students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. to put environmental literacy programs in place Establishing strong environmental education programs Delaware now provides a vital foundation for these future stew- 63% 25% 13% ards. Chesapeake Bay watershed Along with Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 9% 24% 8% 59% Washington, D.C., Delaware has committed to helping Well-prepared Somewhat prepared its students graduate with the knowledge and skills Not prepared Non-reporting needed to act responsibly to protect and restore their local watersheds. They will do this through: Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs): School districts that reported providing MWEEs to their students • Environmental Literacy Planning: Developing a MWEE Availability in Elementary Schools comprehensive and systemic approach to environ- Delaware mental literacy for students that includes policies, 13% 25% 50% 13% practices and voluntary metrics. Chesapeake Bay watershed • Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences 16% 13% 11% 59% (MWEEs): Continually increasing students’ under- MWEE Availability in Middle Schools standing of the watershed through participation in Delaware teacher-supported Meaningful Watershed Edu- 50% 13% 25% 13% cational Experiences and rigorous, inquiry-based Chesapeake Bay watershed instruction. 18% 14% 9% 59% MWEE Availability in High Schools • Sustainable Schools: Continually increasing the number of schools that reduce the impact of their Delaware buildings and grounds on the environment and 25% 25% 38% 13% human health.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Financing Chesapeake Bay Restoration in New York State
    StrategiesPrepared by the for University Financing of Maryland Chesapeake Environmental Bay Finance Center and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance RestorationCenter for the Chesapeake in New YorkBay Program State Office and the State of New York February 2019 efc.umd.edu efc.syr.edu Prepared by the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the State of New York March 2019 efc.umd.edu efc.syr.edu - 1 - This report was prepared by the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland (UMD-EFC) and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center (SU-EFC), with funding from the US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The EFC project team included Kristel Sheesley, Jen Cotting, Khris Dodson, and Bill Whipps. EFC would like to thank the following individuals for their input and feedback: Greg Albrecht, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets; Ruth Izraeli, Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ben Sears, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Lauren Townley, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and Wendy Walsh, Upper Susquehanna Coalition. Cover photos courtesy of Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center. About the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland The Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland is part of a network of university-based centers across the country that works to advance finance solutions to environmental challenges. Our focus is protecting natural resources by strengthening the capacity of decision-makers to analyze challenges, develop effective financing methods, and build consensus to catalyze action. Through research, policy analysis, and direct technical assistance, we work to equip communities with the knowledge and tools they need to create more sustainable environments, more resilient societies, and more robust economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Resource Guide
    Land Use Resource Guide The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), through its Maintain Healthy Watersheds Goal Implementation Team, has a goal of maintaining the long-term health of watersheds identified as healthy by its partner jurisdictions. In addition, under the leadership of the Land Use Workgroup, CBP is working to continually improve our knowledge of land conversion and the associated impacts throughout the watershed. This is a compilation of ongoing initiatives, databases, tools, other resources developed to support local governments and land use managers in designing sustainable landscapes. Land Use Planning Chesapeake Land Use Policy Toolkit: This toolkit provides information about land use policy tools local governments can use to slow the conversion of farmland, forestland, and wetlands from The National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education (NCSG) at the University of Maryland. Accounting for Growth: Factsheet on CBP Land Change Model (CBPLCM) Chesapeake Bay High-Resolution Land Cover: 2013 1-m and 10-m land cover and land use data Chesapeake Phase 6 Land Use Viewer: This data viewer allows you to explore the high-resolution land cover dataset. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Data Dashboard: The Data Dashboard provides information on the economic and community health benefits of pollution reduction and mapped opportunities for land policy, growth management, restoration and conservation practices to help guide watershed planning efforts. EnviroAtlas: Interactive tool from EPA that provides geospatial data, tools, and resources related to ecosystem services, their stressors, and human health to help inform policy and planning decisions. Holistically Analyzing the Benefits of Green Infrastructure: Guidance document for local governments on how to understand and evaluate the benefits of implementing green infrastructure from the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (Bmps)
    1 Prepared by Jeremy Hanson, Virginia Tech/Chesapeake Bay Program CBP/TRS-323-18 Support provided by Virginia Tech, EPA Grant No. CB96326201 Suggested citation: Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters. CBP DOC ID. <link> For individual BMP reference sheets: Chesapeake Bay Program. Title of specific BMP reference sheet. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, version date of the specific BMP reference sheet. Example: Chesapeake Bay Program. A-3: Conservation Tillage. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, MONTH DD, YYYY. 2 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 About the Chesapeake Bay Program ........................................................................................................ 5 About this Guide ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Understanding Best Management Practices and the Phase
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Protection: No Butts About It
    Stormwater Protection: No Butts About It Simple truths If you’re reading this, you probably live in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, along with 16 million other people. You may have never set foot in the Bay itself, but your footprint has been carried to its shores nevertheless. The Bay’s shallow aquatic ecosystem, with its peculiar mix of fresh and salt water, is sensitive to changes in water chemistry. Enter the cigarette butt. Cigarette butts accumulate outside buildings, in picnic areas, and along roadsides. These eventually make their way to the Bay via storm drains. According to the organization Clean Virginia Waterways, chemicals leached from a single cigarette butt in a two gallon bucket of Bay water are lethal to aquatic organisms (fish larvae, crustaceans, etc.). Hard Truths On occasion we may view ourselves as external to the Bay’s aquatic ecosystem. It is on those occasions (and when that view is shared by a few million people) that the situation pictured at left is created. Plastics, aluminum cans, cigarette butts, and Styrofoam™ all have one thing in common: buoyancy. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, stormwater is the fastest growing source of pollution affecting the Bay’s health. This surge in stormwater pollution invariably leads to more junk making its way to the Bay via stormwater. The end result is littered shorelines that compromise the health of underwater vegetation, crabs, oysters, and fish. If you’ve ever sat at a table lined with butcher paper, and uttered the phrase “Save the Crabs/Fish/Oysters So We Can Eat Them” this fact should stir you.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Chesapeake Bay Program and What Does It Offer Me?
    What is the Chesapeake Bay Program and what does it offer me? Fueled by science; driven by partnership. Welcome! All participants have been muted. Please use the Q&A function to ask any questions you have! They will be answered in the order they are received after the presentation. This webinar will be recorded. It can be accessed at https://www.chesapeakebay.net/who/group/communications_workgroup by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 25. Having technical issues? Please email [email protected]. What is the Chesapeake Bay Program? A unique regional partnership We are committed to A trusted A partnership. the Chesapeake authority. Bay. What is the Chesapeake Bay Program? ▪ A regional partnership from the federal to the local level working together for an Who is the environmentally and Chesapeake Bay economically sustainable Program? Chesapeake Bay watershed. Who are we not? We are not solely the Environmental Protection Agency. We are not any of the following organizations either. • Chesapeake Bay Foundation • Chesapeake Bay Trust • Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay • Chesapeake Bay Commission • Chesapeake Legal Alliance • Waterkeepers Chesapeake • Chesapeake Research Consortium • Chesapeake Conservancy • Chesapeake Conservation Partnership • Or any others! Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement ▪ Abundant Life ▪ Sustainable Fisheries ▪ Vital Habitats ▪ Clean Water ▪ Healthy Watersheds 5 themes ▪ Toxic Contaminants ▪ Water Quality 10 goals ▪ Climate Change ▪ Climate Resiliency 31 outcomes ▪ Conserved Lands ▪ Land Conservation ▪ Engaged Communities ▪ Environmental Literacy ▪ Public Access ▪ Stewardship https://www.chesapeakebay.net/what/what_guides_us/watershed_agreement Water Quality ▪ Clean Water Goal ▪ 2025 Watershed Implementation Plans ▪ Water Quality Standards Attainment and Monitoring ChesapeakeProgress A publicly-accessible website tracking our progress in meeting the outcomes of the Watershed Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Modeling Workshop
    Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Modeling Workshop August 22, 2019 GODDARD APPLIED SCIENCES NASA Earth Sciences Background and Overview Stephanie Schollaert Uz National Aeronautics and Space Administration Background and Overview • What is the role of NASA Applied Sciences? • Who is the Interagency Chesapeake Bay Working Group? • How have we progressed since last year’s workshop? • What are we doing today and why? NASA uses the vantage point of space to increase our understanding of our home planet, improve lives, and safeguard our future Upcoming NASA missions relevant to water quality? • Plankton Aerosol Cloud ocean Ecosystem (PACE) in Phase C – scheduled to launch in 2022 • Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) study phase – possible launch around 2027 • Geosynchronous Littoral Imaging and Monitoring Radiometer (GLIMR) new venture class award – possible launch around 2025/2027 How do we go from research to operations? Credit: Schollaert Uz, S., G. Kim, G., A. Mannino, et al., In review NASA Applied Sciences bringing the benefits of space back to Earth Managed programs Multidisciplinary areas Health & Water Ecological Food Security & Air Quality Resources Forecasting Agriculture John Haynes Brad Doorn Woody Turner Disasters Capacity Building New Missions International David Green Nancy Searby Collaborations Applied Sciences at Goddard Connecting societal challenges to our basic and applied research to improve life on Earth Water Resources & Food Security Disasters • Identify problems that can be addressed with Earth observations Climate Air
    [Show full text]
  • Cheapeake Bay Program
    The Nature Conservancy’s Chesapeake Bay Program Oyster farmers get an early start to the day near the mouth of the Rappahannock River, where it empties into the lower portion of the Chesapeake Bay. © Jason Houston Guided by Science Our Recipe for Success Like Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon, our Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. We bring a global network of experience and knowledge-sharing to But unlike Yellowstone, it is home to 18 million people who depend on the Bay as the bear on Bay conservation strategies. natural engine that powers our region’s economy. Yet in the past two hundred years, we have transformed the ecology of the Bay and much of its six-state watershed, We invest in large-scale, place-based resulting in the severe degradation of the nation’s largest estuary. conservation projects that require sustained funding and management to But science tells us that there is hope. Since the Chesapeake Bay Program was realize success. established in 1983, partners including The Nature Conservancy (TNC), have used We are the largest, non-partisan science to identify priorities, set targets, and track progress toward those goals. NGO working on the Chesapeake Bay The body of scientific knowledge within the Chesapeake Bay watershed is unrivaled, restoration. We deliver policy virtually anywhere else in the world, and TNC is a major contributor to that body of outcomes that no other organization scientific work. As the world’s largest conservation organization, TNC’s work in the Bay can accomplish. watershed helps shape conservation programs around the world. Our staff works on the ground, in local communities across the Bay watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • West Virginia
    WEST VIRGINIA Environmental Stewardship in West Virginia What is environmental stewardship? How does West Virginia measure up against To be an environmental steward, residents of the the Chesapeake Bay watershed? Chesapeake Bay watershed can install rain gardens and rain barrels on their properties, avoid using Residents reported tossing litter on fertilizers and pesticides, and take other actions to 4.5% 5.1% the ground when not near a trash can. protect clean water and environmental health. Residents reported flushing Residents can also volunteer in their communities and 8.7% 7.1% engage in civic activities on behalf of the environment. medicines down the drain or toilet. Residents reported using 32.2% 30.2% What is the citizen Stewardship Index? pesticides in or around their homes. The Chesapeake Bay Program surveyed 5,200 Residents reported putting 26.2% 35.6% randomly selected residents of the Chesapeake Bay fertilizers on their grass lawns. watershed portions of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Dog-owners reported seldom or 55.7% 36.1% Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District never picking up their pet's waste. of Columbia about their environmental stewardship actions and attitudes. This group included 600 people from West Virginia, whose answers were used Residents believe their actions to inform the first-ever Chesapeake Bay watershed- 28.2% 35.3% wide Citizen Stewardship Index. contribute to local water pollution. While a perfect Citizen Stewardship score would be possible if everyone in the region were to do Residents want to do more to help make local creeks, 73% 71.2% everything in their daily lives to better the rivers and lakes healthier.
    [Show full text]