Chesapeake Bay recovery efforts are poorly focused, says committee of scientists

The Chesapeake Bay Program's efforts to remove polluting nutrients and  sediments from the Chesapeake Bay recovery are poorly focused and badly monitored, says an NRC committee.

That is the conclusion of a report from the National Research Council, "Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation," just published by the National Academies:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/13131.html

The CBP was established in 1983,  as a partnership of the watershed states and federal EPA. It's goal was to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phophorus (which go by the name "nutrients") and sediment going into the heavily polluted estuary and a help the natural resources that depend on its ecosystems (crabs and oysters and commercial and sport fishing), bringing back underwater grasses.

In 2008, the CBP launched a series of initiatives to increase the transparency of the
program and heighten its accountability. In 2009 a presidential executive order injected new energy
into the restoration effort. 

In 2010 EPA set up a "total maximum daily load (TMDL)" [of nutrients] that determined the limits (maximum loads) on the amount of nitrogen,phosphorus, and sediment from point and nonpoint sources that would be necessary to attain the water quality standards in the Bay, and each of the Bay jurisdictions (the six states
and the District of Columbia) developed watershed implementation plans outlining the pollutant
control measures that would be implemented by 2025 to reach the TMDL. 

In addition, a series of two year milestones for water quality was adopted to speed progress and increase accountability in the Bay restoration. The aim is to reduce overall pollution in the Bay by focusing on incremental, short-term commitments from each of the Bay jurisdictions. to document the implementation of urban and agricultural nutrient and sediment reduction practices (also called best management practices, or BMPs) and treatment technology upgrades.

The study committee found:

• The current accounting of BMPs is not consistent across the Bay jurisdictions.Additionally, given that some source-sector BMPs are not tracked in all jurisdictions, the current accounting cannot on the whole be viewed as accurate.
• The committee was unable to determine the reliability and accuracy of the BMP data reported by the Bay jurisdictions. Independent (third-party) auditing of the tracking and accounting at state and local levels would be necessary to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the data reported. 
• The committee was not able to quantify the magnitude or the likely direction of the error introduced by BMP reporting issues. On the one hand, there is under-counting of BMPs because the jurisdictions do not currently report non-cost-shared (or voluntary) practices,although the model calibration may include the effects of some of these practices . On the other hand, there is over-counting of BMPs because few states account for the loss of BMPs when they are no longer properly maintained, functioning, or in place. Furthermore, there are errors introduced by site-level variability in BMP effectiveness, insufficient data on the location of BMPs, and discrepancies between state and CBP definitions of BMP management.
• A consolidated regional BMP program to account for voluntary practices and increase geo-referencing of BMPs presents opportunities to improve the tracking and accounting process.
• Targeted monitoring programs in representative urban and agricultural watersheds and subwatersheds would provide valuable data to refine BMP efficiency estimates, particularly at the watershed scale, and thereby improve Watershed Model predictions.
• Electronic tracking and data transfer systems are likely to improve the quality of reporting and reduce the jurisdictions’ tracking and accounting burden but may currently be contributing to delayed assessments of implementation progress.
• The two-year milestone strategy [adopted in 2009] commits the states to tangible, near-term
  implementation goals and improves accountability and, therefore, represents an improvement upon past CBP long-term strategies. However, the strategy, in and of itself, does not guarantee that implementation goals will be met, and consequences for nonattainment remain unclear.
• CBP jurisdictions reported mixed progress toward their first two-year milestone
  goals. However, data were insufficient to meaningfully evaluate implementation or
  anticipated load reduction progress relative to the goals.
• The first two-year milestone goals will likely be the easiest to achieve.

 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

• Neither the EPA nor the Bay jurisdictions exhibit a clear understanding of adaptive
  management and how it might be applied in pursuit of water quality goals. 
• Successful application of adaptive management in the CBP requires careful assessment of uncertainties relevant to decision making, but the EPA and Bay jurisdictions have not fully analyzed uncertainties inherent in nutrient and sediment reduction efforts and water quality outcomes.
• Targeted monitoring efforts by the states and the CBP will be required to supportadaptive management. 

• Additional federal actions are needed to fully support adaptive management in the CBP.
• Without sufficient flexibility of the regulatory and organizational structure within which CBP nutrient and sediment reduction efforts are undertaken, adaptive management may be problematic.

STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE GOALS

• Success in meeting CBP goals will require careful attention to the consequences of future population levels, development patterns, agricultural production systems, and changing climate dynamics in the Bay Watershed.
• Helping the public understand lag times and uncertainties associated with water quality improvements and developing program strategies to account for them are vital to sustaining public support for the program, especially if near-term Bay response does not meet expectations.

 Agricultural Strategies

• Improved and innovative manure management.Incentive-based approaches and alternative regulatory models.
• Incentive-based approaches and alternative regulatory models.

Urban Strategies

• Regulatory models that address stormwater, growth and development, and residential fertilizer use.

• Enhanced individual responsibility.

Cross-cutting Strategies

•  Additional air pollution controls.
• Innovative funding models will be needed to address the expected costs of meeting
  Bay water quality goals.
• Establishing a Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory would ensure that the CBP would have access to a suite of models that are at the state-of-the-art and could be used to build credibility with the scientific, engineering, and management communities.

Lester Brown: Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization

I watched  a PBS video called "Journey to Planet Earth:  Plan B: Mobilizing to Save Civilization."  Framed as a "road trip" by Lester Brown, from DC to Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, and other major cities of the world, by the former head of the Worldwatch Institute.  The message:  Climate Change is coming and will lead to loss of water supplies from Himalayan and other mid-latitude glaciers, global food shortages, loss of biodiversity, and ultimately "failed states" around the world. In short, break down of Civilization.

Food supplies are  often implicated in civilizations' collapse (e.g., Sumerians, Great Zimbabwe, and Mayans).

Why didn't the leaders  make the connections? He wonders if food shortages could bring down our civilization?  Already, India and China are turning toward meat and cars, etc. And ethanol for vehicles (one fourth of the US corn crop goes to ethanol--which is very very wasteful).

 The number of "failing states" is rising.  Haiti--deforestation and soil erosion.  Haiti must develop the strengths to deal with its environmental problems.

The film features quotes from Thomas Friedman , Paul Krugman, Bruce Babbitt, Thomas Lovejoy and other luminaries.

TBrown's Bottom line:  We need to cut CO2 and other GHGs  80% by 2020! The recent UN agreement has an implied  deadline of 2050.  We must turn entirely to renewable sources (wind, solar, and huge amounts of geothermal. [GEOTHERMAL!!]) are the key.  Nuclear is too expensive [?].  We also need to put a tax on carbon.

He notes with approval the rise of anticoal protests, which have resulted in a "moratorium on coal." These protests seem to have petered out.  My utility has just announced a brand-new coal-fired plant.  The power grid is half coal already.

So it is going to be costly. We will need to look out for our grain supplies and markets, owing to China's spending power .

This, he says, would require putting the economy on a war footing, as Roosevelt did in WWII.  He quotes Roosevelt, telling car manufacturers that the must turn to tanks and aircraft and other war material. He notes with relish that you could get arrested for driving a private car. 

It would also require four things:  

•  Cut GHGs  80% by 2020
• Stabilize  Population at no more than 8 billion
• Eradicate poverty through the and family planning magic and micro-credit and female education (as in Bangladesh and Istanbul;
• Restore the natural resources on which we depend