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.