Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(This is the second in a series of posts on What’s It Going to Take?: A look at how the environmental community can regain the initiative and build the political will necessary to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.)

(Posted by Doug Siglin.)

The New York Times’ Leslie Kaufman recently reported that in the wake of Congress’ failure to enact carbon-limiting climate change legislation, several national environmental organizations are changing tactics. She wrote: “On the strategy front… a three-prong approach is emerging: fight global warming by focusing on immediate, local concerns; reinvigorate the grass roots through social media and street protests; and renew an emphasis on influencing elections.”

I hope she’s right, although with a couple of exceptions, I don’t yet see much evidence that national groups are really moving in the direction of the locally oriented political work that Kaufman cites.

Cap and trade legislation to minimize greenhouse gas emissions never achieved the level of public support it needed to get through Congress.  We may be seeing a similar thing with regard to defending the pollution limits intended to ultimately improve water quality in the Bay watershed.  Local resistance to the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) “pollution diet” and its required Watershed Improvement Plans (WIPs) is already significant, and it will certainly grow over the next 11 months of electioneering.

Six U.S. Senate seats, 40 House seats, and innumerable state and local seats are being contested in our region.  The EPA, regulations, TMDLs, and WIPs will be an issue, and many candidates will be asked by voters to publicly state a position on the Bay TMDL. In the current political environment, the easy response will be to call it too costly or regulatory overreach, especially in the absence of information to the contrary.

It is easy to forget that Congress can stop the TMDL dead in its tracks if it so chooses. Most of what Congress is hearing about the TMDL right now is a barrage of negativity from industry groups who oppose it. We need to be able to counter those arguments on the substance.  But even more importantly, Members of Congress need to hear a more positive message from “common citizens” and local and state officials:  that there are real benefits to staying the course, even if there are short-term costs.

As a community, we must renew our commitment to educate elected officials about the positive aspects of the TMDL and WIPs. CBF is taking steps in that direction—the recent jobs report and our commitment to put more organizers in the field are two of them — as is the Choose Clean Water coalition.  I’m pretty sure that both are willing to offer help to others who understand the stakes and want to act.

Please make a commitment to do more to educate elected officials about the positive aspects of the TMDL and WIPs.  At the last meeting of the Senior Scientists and Policymakers group, former Maryland Senator Bernie Fowler reminded us once again that, when you cut through all the noise, getting our pollution under control is  simply the right thing to do. I’m confident that if we invest in letting our representatives know that over the next 11 months, we will see an extraordinary return on our investment.

(Doug Siglin is the federal affairs director in the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Capitol Hill office. He has worked in D.C. as a congressional staffer or environmental lobbyist for nearly 30 years.)

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Brenton McCloskey)

It takes the dedication and hard work of communities, businesses, individuals and – most of all, committed partnerships – to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) prescribed “pollution diet” mandating new reductions in the Bay watershed, partnerships are essential now more than ever.  In order to meet the EPA’s target date to improve the Bay by 2025, the combined efforts of these concerned citizens and organizations is essential to successfully fulfilling these goals.

Local governments have been asked by the State, via federal mandates, to submit individual Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) to meet local water quality goals. With the EPA requirements on a fast-track, it is important that Maryland maximize its available resources to ensure the Bay is healthy and economically viable now and into the future.

However, there has been much angst among local governments, to which the restoration effort falls, on how exactly they will be able to secure the financial and technical resources necessary to meet the pollution reduction requirements.  The financial resources needed to meet these requirements will reach into the hundred of millions, and the technical assistance needed in prioritizing efforts will most certainly be unmet with such limited staff resources.  While neither the state nor the locals can carry this burden alone, there is hope – the Watershed Assistance Collaborative.

The Watershed Assistance Collaborative is a partnership that includes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Chesapeake Bay Trust, the Center for Smart Growth and Environmental Finance Center, the University of Maryland SeaGrant Extension, the Maryland Department of Environment, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the EPA.  Since its inception three years ago, the Collaborative has been assisting local communities through planning and partnership building and determining the necessary design work required to speed-up implementation of Bay and coastal restoration projects.

Services offered by the Watershed Assistance Collaborative

• Watershed Assistance Grant Program – Led by Chesapeake Bay Trust, the WAGP provides planning and design grants which are needed before large scale restoration can begin.
• Financing Strategies and Stakeholder Development – The University of Maryland’s Environmental Finance Center and other consultants provide watershed planning, financing and stakeholder development to prepare groups for project implementation.
• Regional Watershed Restoration Specialists – Working with the University of Maryland’s SeaGrant Extension, this service provides “on-the-ground” personnel to local and county governments and their partners to accelerate nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts.
• (New!) Stormwater Financing and Outreach Unit – Led by the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center, and sponsored by DNR, this Unit is helping local governments create strategies for financing stormwater management (check out a spotlight on this program here).  The unit provides direct technical assistance and combines it with several outreach activities that help to engage and educate residents and businesses on stormwater issues within their community.  The unit will provide each community with detailed recommendations on how to pay for sustainable stormwater management program.

The Collaborative, with its dedicated staff of regional watershed restoration specialists, has given more than $1 million in hands-on technical assistance and has helped more than 35 communities in the identification, design and engineering of shovel-ready restoration projects. It identified more than 75 acres of necessary forested buffer plantings and also assisted several communities with innovative financing strategies and new stormwater utilities.

The Collaborative is not the end all be all by any means, but it has proven to be successful thus far in providing locals with relevant and timely assistance.  The Collaborative is planning a grand re-opening of sorts with a meeting in late Spring 2012 that will be open to local government and non-profit representatives responsible for meeting the pollution reduction targets set forth in their respective WIPs.

To learn more about how you can access the Collaborative and all of its available resources, click here or contact me at bmccloskey@dnr.state.md.us or 410-260-8722.

Brenton McCloskey is Assistant Director of Restoration Financing and Policy with the Maryland Department of Natural Resource’s Chesapeake and Coastal Service. 

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Hank Zygmunt.)

After attending the recent U.S. Agriculture Congressional Chesapeake Bay House hearing I recalled many conversations I had with a number of farmers throughout my career. At workshops, farm visits and town hall meetings, farmers shared concerns about local water quality and their desire to share in the responsibility to restore their local streams, creeks and rivers.

For farmers, saving the Chesapeake Bay is secondary to their concerns about the health of their local waterbodies. And understandably so, because most of them are not directly impacted by the degraded water quality of the Bay even though they are part of the overall process as it relates to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. However, whether located in the Shenandoah Valley, the Eastern Shore or Lancaster County, there is a strong recognition, from all sectors, for the need to address local water quality challenges that are dominated by agricultural production.

Nonetheless, neither the progress that has been made nor the work necessary yet to get done should be thwarted or clouded by disagreements about the accuracy of the Bay model. The model, based on TMDL reduction requirements, is not perfect, but provides an agreeable target. It has been said, “All models are flawed. Some are useful.” This model is useful; it is among the most sophisticated in the world and has served the Bay restoration efforts well.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the model will continue to evolve and be refined as more data is made available. But to stop and raise a time-out flag that thwarts ongoing progress and momentum is counterproductive to the Bay partnership commitments and to our stewardship of both the Bay and local waters. Not only does it send the wrong message to the farm community but also deters the confidence of the general public to support restoration efforts in recognition of the progress that has been achieved.

On-the-ground agricultural practices need to be accelerated now, while the Bay model continues to evolve. From a common sense standpoint we cannot afford to wait and wait, knowing that each year more controllable pollution is entering Bay waters. Identifying such a fine point for pollution control will not get the Bay restored; or satisfy the naysayers, as they will continue to question precision—an excuse for delaying action. We may also debate whether some of these nay-saying organizations and leaders may have other misguided aspirations.

So our focus must remain strong and steady on protecting and improving water quality, first in our own backyard and as a result for our downstream neighbors. Doing well by doing good. By taking responsibility and being backyard stewards we are serving the overarching mission of saving the Bay.

An analogy to consider would be the patient who is told by his doctor that he has a disease for which there is no cure. The doctor can either tell the patient to go home and wait for the cure to be discovered, or the doctor could recommend a number of things that could improve the patient’s odds and improve his quality of life.

We couldn’t and shouldn’t accept the “prescription” of no action currently being advocated by certain sectors and wait for the “cure.” We must continue to take responsible action to protect and improve the health of the Bay.

Hank Zygmunt served 36 years with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. During this time a number of environmental achievements defined Hank’s career. These included: EPA/OSM Abandoned Acid Mine Drainage initiative , Offshore Oil and Gas NPDES program, National Poultry Dialogue, CAFO rule development, Perdue Farms/USEPA Clean Bays Agreement, Science Advisor on toxic/water quality related legislation for the U.S. Senate and Nonpoint Source and Chesapeake Bay Program management.

Presently, Hank is a member of Resource Dynamics, Inc. working under a grant from the Keith Campbell Foundation.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Roy Hoagland.)

The Pew Environmental Group recently issued a report, “Big Chicken: Pollution and Industrial Production in America,” which included a focus on the pollution problems contributed by agriculture to the Chesapeake Bay. Agribusiness interests quickly condemned the report, claiming that as of today, the industry was both “diligent and innovative” in its work to achieve a healthier environment.

The most visible organizations responding to the Pew report were the National Chicken Council and the US Poultry & Egg Association—two of the organizations now leading the fight to undermine the current initiative to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

The current clean up initiative, an ecosystem-wide “pollution diet,” is recognized as one of the most promising ecological restoration efforts in the nation. Yet the Chicken Council and the Poultry & Egg Association are now, in their pursuit of “diligent and innovative” environmental stewardship, arguing in federal court and in Congress that we should shut down this unprecedented state-federal partnership to achieve a healthy Chesapeake Bay.

What hypocrisy.

Monitoring data and modeling results establish that agriculture is the number one source of nutrient and sediment pollution to the Chesapeake Bay, accounting for nearly 40 percent of nitrogen pollution and approximately 45 percent and 60 percent of the phosphorus and sediment pollution, respectively.

During my tenure as vice president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, we helped deliver literally millions of dollars to farmers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed for assistance in implementing pollution reduction efforts. In partnership with others, we not only helped lead a successful effort to obtain the largest amount of federal Farm Bill dollars ever for those working in agriculture in the watershed, but we also worked side by side with farmers on the ground from the New York/Pennsylvania border to Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley to improve barnyard management, establish streamside buffers, employ precision feeding, and implement many other progressive changes.

Conservation organizations across the watershed, from national groups like The Nature Conservancy to regional organizations like the Foundation to state agencies like the Chesapeake Bay Commission to local organizations like the James River Association have worked hard to help provide farmers with assistance and as a result more farmers are doing the right thing. The unfortunate reality, however, is that the industry as a whole has not done enough. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture says as much.
If we are to accomplish the restoration of local rivers and streams across the watershed and in the Chesapeake Bay itself, agribusiness, as well as developers, homeowners, and other pollution sectors, must do more. Thus, the need to put the Chesapeake Bay on a pollution diet—an ecosystem-wide pollution reduction initiative that calls on agriculture and others to cut back on the pollution they are feeding to the Bay.

For the Chicken Council and the Poultry & Egg Association to argue that its industry is being “diligent” in its Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts while attempting to stymie this pollution diet, the only legitimate initiative for restoring the Bay, is, quite frankly, a lot of chicken poop.

Roy A. Hoagland is the owner and operator of HOPE Impacts, LLC, Richmond, Virginia. HOPE Impacts works with nonprofits, funders, and governmental agencies on environmental matters, including work on reducing pollution from agricultural sources. He has served as co-chair of America’s Great Waters Coalition, chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and vice president of Environmental Protection and Restoration for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Mary Ann Lisanti.)

Two decades ago, when the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort began, the leadership of local officials was viewed as nice, but not essential. Times have changed. Today, with the deadline to develop local Watershed Implementation Plans looming, it’s clear that when it comes to improving the health of our local rivers and streams, and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay, the elected leaders of town and county governments and the appointed leaders of local soil conservation, storm water, and planning districts throughout the Chesapeake watershed will be the ones to make it happen.

However, the feedback coming from local government is simply this: They need information, direction, and flexibility in choosing approaches, otherwise budget challenges will keep them from reaching their goals.

As the chair of the Local Government Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Executive Council, it has become clear to me that there is a real disconnect between the expectations of the federal officials managing the new Chesapeake TMDL process and the understanding of many of the local government officials now charged with developing the plans to implement watershed improvements.

This is a critical moment that calls for clear, direct communication to local governments so local officials understand what they need to do, and understand the benefits their work holds for their communities.

Our committee, called LGAC for short, has begun to address this need. We worked with private funders and communication professionals to develop an initial education piece for local government leaders. We plan to follow it with more information. Last week in Richmond I presented the need for communication to the Chesapeake Executive Council and the Bay Program leaders. We now have their attention, but we need more help to get out the word.

There are 1,800 units of local governments in the watershed and nearly 11,000 elected officials. Reaching them all will take time. Individuals can help. The senior Bay leaders who created this blog and the Chesapeake Bay Action Plan can be of particular help. You are all influential, committed, and have been for a long time. You understand how the actions taken locally benefit not just that community, but the system as a whole. You can help us reach leaders in your communities.

Download a copy of our report, Our Waters, Our Towns, and put it in the hands of local elected officials and influential community leaders. Help us fill the information gap. Help them understand what they need to do, and how it will benefit them and their community.

Share on Facebook