Text Size: A  A  A

Habitat Goal Implementation Team (GIT 2)

Scope and Purpose

The Habitat Goal Implementation Team seeks to facilitate the implementation of projects that restore and enhance a network of land and water habitats to support priority species and to afford other public benefits including water quality, recreational uses, and scenic value across the watershed by coordinating the efforts of Chesapeake Bay Program partners.  These habitats include tidal and non-tidal wetlands, living shorelines, submerged aquatic vegetation, islands, uplands and forests, and freshwater streams.

Objectives

  • PLAN: To advance habitat protection and restoration through integrated planning, targeting of funding and technical assistance, generating and testing hypothesis regarding priority species outcomes, identification of emerging issues likely to impact living resources and their habitats, and brainstorming solutions.
  • IMPLEMENT: To provide information and technical assistance needed to accelerate implementation of projects that are strategically placed, innovatively designed or of demonstrated successful design, outcome-oriented, and responsive.
  • EVALUATE: To promote and support the collection, synthesis, and trend analysis of monitoring data for Chesapeake Bay living resources to evaluate impacts of habitat management actions.
  • COMMUNICATE: To provide a forum for technical information transfer on restoration techniques and consolidation of performance data across various partner agencies and organizations.
  • ADAPT: To provide adaptive management recommendations regarding the Bay watershed’s priority habitats to the Chesapeake Bay Program's Management Board. Implementation Strategy 

The Habitat GIT and associated workgroups will meet periodically to:

  • Align annual work plan with priorities established by the Management Board;
  • Collaborate on implementation of on-the-ground habitat activities;
  • Track and report performance toward two-year milestones identified in the Chesapeake Action Plan annual progress report;
  • Advise Management Board on barriers to progress and recommend policy and administration changes to overcome such barriers.

  • Jana Davis (Chair), Chesapeake Bay Trust
  • Christine Conn (Vice-Chair), Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Jennifer Greiner (Coordinator), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Kyle Runion (Staff), Chesapeake Research Consortium

  • Troy Anderson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Mary Andrews, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • Alicia Berlin, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
  • Greg Breese, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Gwen Brewer, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Bevin Buchheister, Chesapeake Bay Commission
  • Nancy Butowski, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Heather Cisar, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District
  • Sally Claggett, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
  • Bruce Corley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Dave Davis, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
  • Patrick Devers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Robert Gano, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
  • Rebecca Golden, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Mitch Hartley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Jim Hedrick, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
  • Alan Heft, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Tom Ihde, ERT, Inc., NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
  • Amy Jacobs, The Nature Conservancy
  • Ann Jennings, Chesapeake Bay Commission
  • Lee Karrh, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Bryan King, District of Columbia Department of Energy & Environment (DOEE)
  • Brooke Landry, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Genevieve LaRouche, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Wayne Lehman, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
  • Karl Lutz, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
  • Julie Mawhorter, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
  • Erin McLaughlin, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
  • Callie McMunigal, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Mike Millard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Lori Mohr, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
  • David Norris, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
  • Scott Phillips, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
  • Peyton Robertson, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office
  • John Schmidt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • John Schmidt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Angie Sowers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District
  • Christopher Spaur, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District
  • Bill Stack, Center for Watershed Protection
  • Douglas Stang, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
  • Rich Starr, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • David Stilwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Steve Strano, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  • Ann Swanson, Chesapeake Bay Commission
  • Bruce Vogt, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • Tony Watkinson, Virginia Marine Resources Commission
  • Alan Weaver, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
  • Matt Whitbeck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
  • Julie Winters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Kristen Wolf, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
  • Lora Zimmerman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Past Meetings & Events

  • May 3, 2016 to May 4, 2016 - Habitat GIT Spring 2016 Meeting
  • October 14, 2015 - Habitat GIT Fall 2015 Meeting


  • Habitat Goal Implementation Team Fact Sheet

    A brief overview of the Habitat Goal Implementation Team and its workgroups.


      Chesapeake Bay Living Resources - 1998

      Publication date: November 01, 1998 | Type of document:

      Then Living Resources Subcommittee (LRSc) is committed to the restoration, enhancement, protection and management of the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay.  Living resources include fish, shellfish, birds and waterfowl, as well as...

      Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Outcome: Sustain and increase the habitat benefits of SAV (underwater grasses) in the Chesapeake Bay. Achieve and sustain the ultimate outcome of 185,000 acres of SAV Bay-wide necessary for a restored...

      Tree Canopy Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Tree Canopy Outcome: Continually increase urban tree canopy capacity to provide air quality, water quality and habitat benefits throughout the watershed. Expand urban tree canopy by 2,400 acres by 2025.

      Forest Buffer Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Forest Buffer Outcome: Continually increase the capacity of forest buffers to provide water quality and habitat benefits throughout the watershed. Restore 900 miles per year of riparian forest buffer and conserve existing buffers until...

      Fish Passage Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Fish Passage Outcome: Continually increase available habitat to support sustainable migratory fish populations in freshwater rivers and streams. By 2025, restore historical fish migratory routes by opening 1,000 additional stream miles,...

      Brook Trout Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing brook trout populations in Chesapeake headwater streams with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.

      Stream Health Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Stream Health Outcome: Continually improve stream health and function throughout the watershed. Improve health and function of 10% of stream miles above the 2008 baseline for the watershed.

      Black Duck Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Black Duck Outcome: By 2025, restore, enhance and preserve wetland habitats that support a wintering population of 100,000 black ducks, a species representative of the health of tidal marshes across the watershed. Refine population...

      Wetlands Outcome Justification

      Publication date: | Type of document: Outcome | Download: Electronic Version

      Wetlands Outcome: Continually increase the capacity of wetlands to provide water quality and habitat benefits throughout the watershed. Create or re-establish 85,000 acres of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and enhance the function of an...

      Chesapeake Bay Coordinated Split Sample Program Implementation Guidelines (Revision 3).

      Publication date: May 01, 1991 | Type of document: Report | Download: Electronic Version

      The major objective of the Coordinated Split Sample Program is to establish a measure of comparability between sampling and analytical operations for water quality monitoring basin wide. The second objective is to evaluate the in-matrix...

      1995-Synthesis of Nutrient and Sediment Data for Watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin

      Publication date: January 01, 1995 | Type of document: SedimentReport | Download: Electronic Version

      Documents the findings of the two-year information gathering process of the strategy reevaluation but also recommends an approach for undertaking future toxics reduction and prevention actions in the Bay watershed.


    410 Severn Avenue / Suite 112
    Annapolis, Maryland 21403
    Tel: (800) YOUR-BAY / Fax: (410) 267-5777
    Directions to the Bay Program Office
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
    ©2012 Chesapeake Bay Program | All Rights Reserved