|
 By Karl Blankenship, Bay Journal News Service
Standing inside a tent while rain drizzled outside, regional leaders gathered in June 2000 to sign a new partnership agreement to restore Chesapeake Bay and usher in a future in which sprawl development would be reined in, oyster populations rebuilt and Bay water quality restored.
"This new agreement is historic, without a doubt," proclaimed then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner, as she and other Bay leaders signed the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
That formal agreement expired in December 2010, leaving the Bay Program at a crossroads.
The state-federal program, which started in 1983 as a voluntary partnership between states and the federal government, achieved or exceeded some of the agreement’s 102 commitments, such as permanently protecting 20 percent of the watershed from development, establishing more than 500 miles of water trails, and opening more than 1,357 miles of river to migratory fish.
Others, such as a tenfold increase in oyster population and restoring 25,000 acres of wetlands, fell far short. One was a spectacular misfire: States couldn't even agree how to measure the goal to slow the rate of "harmful sprawl" by 30 percent.
But the program’s failure to restore Bay water quality by 2010 dwarfed all other accomplishments and disappointments. As a result, at the end of December, 2010 as the remaining Chesapeake 2000 commitments - many still unmet - quietly expired, EPA officials announced another "historic" Bay initiative: a highly regulatory program, known as a total maximum daily load (TMDL). The program requires states to hit pollution targets, or risk punitive consequences.
Instead of negotiating among equals, the TMDL is an EPA requirement. The agency has the power to sanction states that fail to achieve nutrient reductions. Further, EPA actions during the TMDL development process were seen as heavy-handed, and left the state-federal relationship strained.
"The implementation of the TMDL has, I believe, fundamentally altered the nature of the program," said Peyton Robertson, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Chesapeake Bay Office. "You can't reasonably argue that it is a voluntary approach anymore."
That has ramifications. He and others are worried that the TMDL will make it difficult to forge agreements with states on other Bay issues that deal with land protection or habitat restoration.
There's good reason for worry. The EPA has said that if states don't make progress implementing cleanup plans, it may force greater nutrient reductions for wastewater treatment plants - something that would have a huge price tag. In the eyes of state agencies, that threat elevates water quality issues over all other Bay priorities.
"That is our primary focus," said John Hines, executive deputy secretary for programs with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. "While we recognize that there are a number of broader commitments within the agreements, our number one priority has to be improvement of water quality."
But is the Bay Program about more than just water quality?
Nutrient reductions have always been a cornerstone of the Bay Program since its 1987 agreement, which called for a 40 percent nutrient reduction by the year 2000, a goal that was missed.
But that agreement also called for rebuilding fish and crab populations, restoring healthy habitats such as reefs and natural shorelines, and combating ecosystem-altering invasive species. Additionally, it had a goal for more public access to the Bay, and greater efforts to engage the public — both issues that remain a challenge.
"One of the greatest problems we have in restoring the Chesapeake Bay is being able to explain to people how the health of the Bay and the waters draining to it is relative to their lives," said Frank Dawson, assistant secretary for aquatic resources with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. "We haven't been able to do that to the level that people would want to invest as they may need to do to restore the Bay."
Programs that engage citizens - such as efforts to improve fish and waterfowl populations, create more public access and conserve land - are critical, he said.
Many involved in the Bay restoration think a new Bay agreement is needed to address such issues, but so far, the idea of writing one has gotten, at best, a lukewarm reception as states and agencies remain tied up with TMDL-related goals.
The TMDL resulted because of the perception that voluntary agreements achieved too little progress. Yet some programs exceeded the goals. The Bay Program created the nation’s first regional effort to plant forested buffers along rivers and streams, an initiative that mobilized legions of volunteers over the years who planted 2,010 miles by 2002, well before the 2010 date for that goal.
"Whole programs and whole organizations were created around the forest buffer goal," said Carin Bisland, associate director for ecosystem management with the EPA Bay Program Office. "So I do think that paradigm of setting the goals works when the partners all feel there is an added value to achieve them."
While much of any new agreement may be voluntary, Jim Edward, acting director of the EPA Bay Program Office, said he expected state and federal agencies to use regulatory muscle where appropriate. For instance, he noted fishing regulations, such as those for blue crabs, have gotten tougher to help resources recover.
DNR’s Dawson noted those blue crab regulations happened outside the formal Bay Program partnership, an example of the kinds of other forums needed if the Bay Program can't deal with issues not related to water quality.
Others worry that without an overarching agreement, opportunities for coordination will be lost. The stream buffer initiative thrived because local organizations, state agencies and others saw the benefit to both local streams' health and broader Bay goals.
Ann Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, said agreements negotiated among all Bay partners are essential to provide the "blanket of policy" that has driven goals such as land preservation. But writing a new agreement “is going to take all of the intelligence, all of the political savvy, and all of the tolerance of the people in the Bay Program," Swanson said. "And if we do it, it will be groundbreaking, as every agreement before it has been."
To view the complete article, including bay restoration highlights, visit bayjournal.com.
Distributed by Bay Journal News Service
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
