Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
T
he Chesapeake Bay (Figure S-1) is North America’s largest and most
biologically diverse estuary, as well as an important commercial
and recreational resource. However, excessive amounts of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment from human activities and land development
(e.g., agriculture, urban and suburban runoff, wastewater discharge, air
pollution) have disrupted the ecosystem, causing harmful algae blooms,
degraded habitats, and diminished populations of many species of fish and
shellfish. In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) was established,
based on a cooperative partnership among the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), the state of Maryland, the commonwealths of Penn-
sylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia, to address the extent,
complexity, and sources of pollutants entering the Bay. By 2002, the states
of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia committed to the CBP’s water
quality goals by signing a Memorandum of Understanding.
In 2008, the CBP launched a series of initiatives to increase the trans-
parency of the program and heighten its accountability, and in 2009 an
executive order1 injected new energy into the Chesapeake Bay restoration.
By 2010, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) was established by the EPA
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 adopted water quality standards in the Bay, and each
of the Bay jurisdictions (i.e., the six states and the District of Columbia)
developed watershed implementation plans outlining the pollutant control
1 Executive Order 13508.
1
OCR for page 2
2 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
FIGURE S-1 The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.
SOURCE: CBP (2008). Available at http://www.chesapeakebay.net/maps.
aspx?menuitem=16825. Figure 1-1 AND S-1.eps
bitmap
measures that would be implemented by 2025 to reach the TMDL. In
addition, as part of the effort to improve the pace of progress and increase
accountability in the Bay restoration, a two-year milestone strategy was
introduced aimed at reducing overall pollution in the Bay by focusing on
incremental, short-term commitments from each of the Bay jurisdictions.
OCR for page 3
3
SUMMARY
The National Research Council (NRC) established the Committee on
the Evaluation of Chesapeake Bay Program Implementation for Nutrient
Reduction to Improve Water Quality in 2009 in response to a request from
the EPA and with funding from EPA Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
the District of Columbia. The committee was charged to assess the frame-
work used by the states and the CBP for tracking nutrient and sediment
control practices that are implemented in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
and to evaluate the two-year milestone strategy. The committee was also
charged to assess existing adaptive management strategies and to recom-
mend improvements that could help the CBP to meet its nutrient and sedi-
ment reduction goals (see Box S-1).
BOX S-1
Statement of Task
The Water Science and Technology Board appointed a committee
to undertake an evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s nutrient
reduction program. Specifically, the committee was to address the fol-
lowing questions:
Evaluation Theme I: Tracking and Accountability
1. Does tracking for implementation of nutrient and sediment point
and nonpoint source pollution (including air) best management practices
appear to be reliable, accurate, and consistent?
2. What tracking and accounting efforts and systems appear to be
working, and not working, within each state (i.e., the six states in the
watershed and DC), including federal program implementation and fund-
ing? How can the system be strategically improved to address the gaps?
3. How do these gaps and inconsistencies appear to impact reported
program results?
Evaluation Theme II: Milestones
4. Is the two-year milestone strategy, and its level of implementation,
likely to result in achieving the CBP nutrient and sediment reduction
goals for this milestone period?
5. Have each of the states (i.e., the six states in the watershed and
DC) and the federal agencies developed appropriate adaptive manage-
ment strategies to ensure that CBP nutrient and sediment reduction
goals will be met?
6. What improvements can be made to the development, implemen-
tation, and accounting of the strategies to ensure achieving the goals?
OCR for page 4
4 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
TRACKING AND ACCOUNTING
The term “tracking,” as applied in the CBP, describes approaches to
document the implementation of urban and agricultural nutrient and sedi-
ment reduction practices (also called best management practices, or BMPs)
and treatment technology upgrades as well as the basic associated practice
characteristics. The term “accounting” describes the process of analyz-
ing and reporting the practice information and estimating the resulting
load reductions. Accurate tracking of BMPs is of paramount importance
because the CBP relies upon the resulting data to estimate current and
future nutrient and sediment loads to the Bay. However, many Bay juris-
dictions and localities are struggling with limited resources, complex and
rapidly changing data reporting mechanisms, data privacy constraints, and
quality assurance/quality control needs. Verifying the continued function-
ing and effectiveness of historical activities presents a significant challenge.
Although state tracking and accounting programs are unlikely to be identi-
cal, the CBP has recently made strides toward common reporting goals and
data requirements.
The current accounting of BMPs is not consistent across the Bay juris-
dictions. Additionally, given that some source-sector BMPs are not tracked
in all jurisdictions, the current accounting cannot on the whole be viewed
as accurate. Although the Bay jurisdictions have a good understanding
of point-source (i.e., wastewater) discharges, numerous issues affect the
accuracy, reliability, and consistency of BMP reporting to the CBP. Only
five of the seven Bay jurisdictions conduct any level of field verification of
agricultural practices, and there are known problems with double counting
that agencies are working to resolve. Only one Bay jurisdiction specifies a
lifespan for practices recorded in the database, and few jurisdictions have
mechanisms to identify and remove from the database practices that are
no longer functioning or even in place. Current tracking systems do not
account for agricultural practices that are not cost-shared by a government
agency. Given these limitations, current accounting can be considered, at
best, an estimate.
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 cur-
rently 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
OCR for page 5
5
SUMMARY
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 discrep-
ancies 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. A regional BMP program
with incentives for participation as well as penalties for lack of partici-
pation has been used effectively in Florida to increase participation and
improve data quality. Geo-referencing enables managers and modelers to
identify the parcel-level location of BMPs, which would aid in inspecting,
tracking, and assigning proper delivery ratios and BMP efficiencies, thereby
improving the accuracy of the modeled estimates of nutrient and sediment
loads delivered to the Bay.
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. Current BMP load reduction efficiency esti-
mates used in the Watershed Model are reasonable estimates of the short- to
intermediate-term reduction efficiencies of newly installed BMPs at the field
scale and gross representations of the same at the watershed scale. These
estimates contain significant uncertainties caused by site-specific factors,
practice design, extent of maintenance, and challenges in scaling up the data
from the plot or field scale. Pilot studies in several sub-watersheds should be
conducted to quantify BMP performance, particularly for the most common
practices with the greatest uncertainty in their efficiency estimates. The CBP
has recently implemented a review process to refine BMP efficiencies used
in the Watershed Model based on emerging research findings.
Additional guidance from the EPA on the optimal extent of field veri-
fication of practices in relation to expected benefits would improve track-
ing and accounting of both cost-shared and voluntary practices. Field
verification is costly, and several states have questioned its value given the
resource constraints that limit BMP implementation. Although independent
random, or probabilistic verification programs increase public confidence
that reported data are accurate and reliable, attention should be given to
developing ways to optimize field verification efforts that enhance the reli-
ability of the BMP data sets, perhaps through the combined use of remote
sensing data, written surveys, phone calls, and in-person visits.
Electronic tracking and data transfer systems are likely to improve the
quality of reporting and reduce the jurisdictions’ tracking and account-
ing burden but may currently be contributing to delayed assessments of
implementation progress. Despite the concerns in tracking and accounting
noted above, a great deal of information is available, and a plausible and
OCR for page 6
6 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
collective effort seems to be under way to resolve some of the hindrances
to data access, collection, and standardization. However, because imple-
mentation data are now reported electronically, several jurisdictions noted
that the data are less accessible for assessments of statewide progress. Some
Bay jurisdictions have mechanisms in place to compile progress updates as
needed, but others have to wait approximately 9 months after the end of
the reporting period for a summary of BMP implementation progress from
the CBP. The recently launched tracking and accountability system for the
TMDL (BayTAS) and ChesapeakeStat, which documents each jurisdiction’s
progress in a publicly accessible website, should incorporate mechanisms
for more timely reporting and consolidation of federal and state data
submissions.
TWO-YEAR MILESTONES
To accelerate Bay restoration efforts and increase accountability, the
CBP introduced two-year milestones in May 2009. In the past, Bay recovery
goals involved decadal increments and did not identify particular strategies
for achieving the necessary pollution reductions. Thus, the prior strategy
was considered “a ladder without rungs” (CBP, 2009b). The two-year
milestone strategy requires Bay jurisdictions to meet short-term implemen-
tation goals for nutrient and sediment reduction. The CBP envisioned that
through a series of two-year milestone periods with routine assessments
of the pace of progress by 2025 the Bay jurisdictions could implement all
of the nutrient and sediment control practices needed for a restored Bay,
although actual Bay water quality response and recovery might lag behind
the 2025 implementation target.
The two-year milestone strategy 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. The two-
year timeframes should encourage frequent reevaluations and adjustments
for Bay jurisdictions that fall short of their intended implementation goals.
However, without timely updates and synthesis of statewide progress from
the CBP, some states lack the information necessary to make appropriate
mid-course corrections.
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 jurisdictions reported numerous efforts to control urban and agricul-
tural nutrient and sediment loads, although they experienced greater suc-
cesses in implementation of some practices than others. Without associated
load reduction estimates for the implemented practices, the committee was
OCR for page 7
7
SUMMARY
unable to evaluate how implementation shortfalls in some areas or greater
than expected progress in others affect the likelihood that the Bay jurisdic-
tions will meet their overall nutrient load reduction goals.
The first two-year milestone goals will likely be the easiest to achieve.
Not surprisingly, the states are investing in the “low-hanging fruit”—
the least expensive or most cost-effective among the nutrient reduction
options—for the first accounting period. Large gains have been made with
advanced treatment technologies applied to large publicly-owned wastewa-
ter treatment facilities, which to date have been relatively cost-effective per
pound of nutrient removed compared to land-based BMPs. Additionally,
states are working to document practices implemented prior to the current
milestone period but not yet credited in the Watershed Model. Available
water quality improvement options during subsequent milestone periods
will likely become less cost-effective. It is possible that nonstandard control
strategies, especially those that do not require high capital investments (see
Chapter 5), may need to be considered.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Since 2008, the CBP has advocated for the use of adaptive management
at both the state and federal levels as a way to enhance overall management
of the program and to strengthen scientific support for decision making.
The committee examined the partners’ efforts to implement adaptive man-
agement and the potential barriers to and possible successful applications
of adaptive management for nutrient and sediment reduction in the Bay
watershed.
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. Reviewing activities, assessing progress toward goals, and
adopting contingencies were cited as examples of adaptive management.
However, effective adaptive management involves deliberate management
experiments, a carefully planned monitoring program, assessment of the
results, and a process by which management decisions are modified based
on new knowledge. Learning is an explicit benefit of adaptive management
that is used to improve future decision making. The committee did not find
convincing evidence that the CBP partners had incorporated adaptive man-
agement principles into their nutrient and sediment reduction programs.
Instead, the current two-year milestone strategy approach is best character-
ized as an evolutionary (or trial and error) process of adaptation in which
learning is serendipitous rather than an explicit objective. In the trial and
error process, when failures occur, jurisdictions have limited capacity to
understand why, and contingencies represent the next thing to try rather
than a deliberate adaptation.
Successful application of adaptive management in the CBP requires
OCR for page 8
8 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
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.
Each CBP goal brings with it uncertainties, not all of which can or should
be addressed through adaptive management. Therefore, the EPA and Bay
jurisdictions should carefully and realistically analyze uncertainties associ-
ated with potential actions to determine which are candidates for adaptive
management. Bay jurisdictions may be more successful using adaptive
management for a limited number of components or for programs in
smaller basins, where effects of management actions can be isolated and
well-designed monitoring and evaluation can be undertaken to clearly
quantify outcomes.
Targeted monitoring efforts by the states and the CBP will be required
to support adaptive management. Monitoring plans need to be tailored to
the specific adaptive management strategies being implemented. Presently,
CBP and jurisdictional monitoring programs have not been designed to
effectively support adaptive management. In addition, adaptive manage-
ment will require better integration of monitoring and modeling activities.
Excessive reliance on models in lieu of monitoring can magnify rather than
reduce uncertainties.
Additional federal actions are needed to fully support adaptive man-
agement in the CBP. The federal accountability framework being pro-
moted through the TMDL and the threatened consequences for failure will
dampen the Bay jurisdictions’ enthusiasm for adaptive management. To
support adaptive management, the EPA should modify its accountability
framework and offer explicit language indicating that carefully designed
management experiments with appropriate monitoring, evaluation, and
adaptive actions are acceptable, and that failures resulting from genuine
adaptive management efforts will not be penalized. If the Bay jurisdictions
perceive that the costs of failure are too high, then they may not be willing
to pursue the benefits that adaptive management can offer. Additionally,
federal guidance and training to the states on effective adaptive manage-
ment strategies at the local or state level are needed. One or more examples
of adaptive management designed and implemented at the federal level,
perhaps on federal land, would be helpful to the states as they seek accept-
able and effective management options.
Without sufficient flexibility of the regulatory and organizational struc-
ture within which CBP nutrient and sediment reduction efforts are under-
taken, adaptive management may be problematic. Depending upon how
Clean Water Act (CWA) language and TMDL rules are interpreted, oppor-
tunities for certain types of adaptations may be limited. Truly embracing
adaptive management requires recognition that the TMDL, load alloca-
tions, and possibly even water quality standards might need to be modified
OCR for page 9
9
SUMMARY
based on what is learned through adaptive management. However, the
jurisdictions may find that the formal processes required under the CWA
to modify load allocations, TMDLs, or water quality standards constrain
or even preclude using adaptive management. Successful application of
adaptive management in the CBP will require greater regulatory flexibility.
Approaching the TMDL as a process, not an endpoint, and facilitating
adaptive implementation of the TMDL is one way to provide that flexibility.
STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE GOALS
Reaching the long-term CBP nutrient and sediment reduction goals
will require substantial commitment from each of the Bay jurisdictions and
likely some level of sacrifice from those who live and work in the watershed.
Jurisdictions are required not only to significantly reduce current loads,
but they will need to take additional actions to address future growth and
development over the next 15 years. Additionally, the Bay partners will
need to adapt to future changes (e.g., climate change, changing agricultural
practices) that may further impact water quality and ecosystem responses to
planned implementation strategies. To reach the long-term load reduction
goals, Bay jurisdictions and the federal government will need to prepare
for the challenges ahead and consider a wide range of possible strategies,
including some that are receiving little, if any, consideration today.
Success in meeting CBP goals will require careful attention to the
consequences of future population levels, development patterns, agri-
cultural production systems, and changing climate dynamics in the Bay
watershed. Nutrient and sediment management efforts are taking place
in the context of a quickly changing landscape and uncertain outcomes
that could significantly affect the strategies needed to attain the TMDL
goals. For example, an increase in the concentration of livestock or dairy
animals near processing and distribution centers would mean a greater
concentration of manure nutrients in these areas than has existed in the
past. Additionally, Bay jurisdictions may need to adjust future milestone
efforts to larger than anticipated population and more intensive land-use
development scenarios, as well as climate change influences. Further and
continued study of future scenarios is warranted to help Bay partners
adapt to a changing future.
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. Although
the science and policy communities generally recognize the uncertainties
inherent in water quality modeling, load projections, and practice effective-
ness and expect that water quality successes will lag implementation, the
OCR for page 10
10 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
same may not be true of the broader public. If the public expects visible,
tangible evidence of local and Bay water quality improvements in fairly
short order, they will almost certainly become frustrated. In the absence
of a concerted effort to engage Bay residents in a conversation about the
dynamics of the Bay and how and when improvements can be expected,
CBP partners should anticipate and be prepared to respond to an impatient
or disillusioned public. By developing small watershed-scale monitoring
efforts that highlight local-scale improvements and associated time lags
in water quality as they occur, the CBP can better understand and inform
the public about anticipated responses to, and expectations for, nutrient
control measures.
The committee identified potential strategies that could be used by the
CBP partners to help meet their long-term goals for nutrient and sediment
reduction and ultimately Bay recovery. The committee did not attempt
to identify every possible strategy that could be implemented but instead
focused on approaches that are not being implemented to their full potential
or that may have substantial, unrealized potential in the Bay watershed.
Because many of these strategies have policy or societal implications that
could not be fully evaluated by the committee, the strategies are not pri-
oritized but are offered to encourage further consideration and exploration
among the CBP partners and stakeholders. Examples include:
Agricultural Strategies
• Improved and innovative manure management. Possible strategies
include expanded concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permit-
ting programs, guidelines and/or regulations to control the timing and rates
of manure application, innovative manure application methods, transport
of manure to watersheds with the nutrient carrying capacity to accept it,
alternative uses (e.g., bioenergy production), animal nutrition management
to reduce nutrient loading, and limits on the extent of animal operations
based on the nutrient carrying capacity of the watershed.
• Incentive-based approaches and alternative regulatory models.
Several approaches have been used successfully elsewhere to increase the
use of agricultural BMPs for the purpose of improving water quality.
Florida developed a voluntary, incentive-based BMP program that provides
regulatory relief in exchange for BMP implementation, maintenance, and
reporting. Denmark’s nutrient management program provides an alterna-
tive model that couples agricultural regulatory requirements with incentives
and has resulted in large reductions in nutrient surpluses. The Chesapeake
Bay Program could facilitate an analysis of the costs and potential effective-
ness of various incentive-based and regulatory alternatives.
OCR for page 11
11
SUMMARY
Urban Strategies
• Regulatory models that address stormwater, growth and develop-
ment, and residential fertilizer use. Watershed-based permitting for urban
stormwater can lead to cost savings if a consortium of permittees chooses to
organize to distribute pollutant load allocations and contribute to monitor-
ing and tracking efforts in their local or regional watersheds. Restrictions
on nitrogen and phosphorus residential fertilizer application are cost-effec-
tive methods of nutrient load management in urban and suburban areas.
Communities could also adopt regulations to restrict land-use changes that
would increase nutrient loads from stormwater runoff or cap wastewater
treatment plant discharges at current levels, requiring offsets for any future
increases.
• Enhanced individual responsibility. Enhancing individual respon-
sibilities, either through education and incentives or through regulations,
can also contribute to the success of Bay restoration and to water quality
improvements. Examples of actions that individuals can take to improve
water quality include increasing application of low-impact design and resi-
dential stormwater controls, changing residential landscape management,
maintaining and upgrading septic systems, and changing diets.
Cross-cutting Strategies
• Additional air pollution controls. Although the Chesapeake Bay
has realized substantial benefits from the Clean Air Act, the atmosphere
remains a major source of nitrogen entering the Bay. More stringent con-
trols on nitrogen emissions from all sources, including NOx and agricultural
ammonia emissions, will benefit both the Bay and the people who reside in
its watershed.
Innovative funding models will be needed to address the expected costs
of meeting Bay water quality goals. Targeting agricultural BMP cost-share
programs is not always politically popular, but it can produce greater reduc-
tions at lower cost than will distributing resources broadly with little atten-
tion to water quality impacts. Although nutrient trading among point and
nonpoint sources is often cited as a mechanism to reach nutrient reduction
goals at lower cost, its potential for reducing costs is limited. Stormwater
utilities offer a viable funding mechanism to support stormwater manage-
ment efforts of municipalities. Funding for monitoring will also be needed,
and successful regional monitoring cooperatives in other parts of the United
States may be useful models.
OCR for page 12
12 NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION GOALS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Establishing a Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory would ensure that
the CBP would have access to a suite of models that are state-of-the-art and
could be used to build credibility with the scientific, engineering, and man-
agement communities. The CBP relies heavily on models for setting goals
and evaluating nutrient control strategies; thus, the models are essential
management tools that merit substantial investment to ensure that they can
fulfill present and future needs. Currently, only a few technical profession-
als are fully knowledgeable of the details of the models and their develop-
ment. The models are not widely used outside the CBP and, therefore, are
unfamiliar to the broader scientific community. Credibility of the models
is essential if the CBP goals and strategies are to be accepted and have
widespread support. A Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory would bring
together academic scientists and engineers with CBP modelers to examine
various competing models with similar objectives and work to enhance
the quality of the simulations. An important component of the work of a
modeling laboratory would be the integration of monitoring with modeling
efforts. Joint research investigations focused on evaluating the success of the
Bay recovery strategies could be centered in the laboratory, such as studies
on the role of lag times in the observed pollutant loads and Bay responses.
A close association with a research university would bring both critical
review and new ideas. A laboratory could also facilitate improvements to
the models to support the 2017 reevaluation of the TMDL and the WIPs.
***
Recovery of the Chesapeake Bay from excessive nutrient and sediment
loads will require profound changes in the Bay watershed. These changes
include a greater awareness of each watershed inhabitant’s contribution to
the Bay nutrient load, extensive adoption of urban and agricultural nutri-
ent control practices, and widespread willingness to balance the cost of
restoration programs with the quality of life values provided by the Bay
and its land uses. The CBP has taken important steps toward improving
the pace of implementation and accountability, including implementing the
two-year milestone strategy. However, opportunities exist to improve upon
the current tracking and accounting strategies, provide support for effec-
tive applications of adaptive management, and enhance the credibility of
modeling strategies. To reach the long-term goals, Bay partners will likely
need to consider innovative strategies, including some that are receiving
little attention today. Meanwhile, given that nutrient legacy effects in the
watershed will significantly delay the Bay’s full water quality response to
land-based BMPs, the CBP should help the public understand lag times
and uncertainties and develop program strategies to better quantify them.
