1

Chesapeake Bay Partner’s Response to the National Research Council’s Report

Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee February 16, 2012

2

Response to NRC Report

Purpose: Obtain PSC decisions on key challenges and recommendations and to finalize the CBP Partner suggested responses

– BMP Effectiveness– Adaptive Management– Modeling Laboratory– Ongoing Function of Independent Evaluator

3

Documenting Actions

Create transparent public record of the Partnership’s formal response to the NRC Report:

– Finalize Key Challenges Document

– Finalize CBP Partnership Suggested Responses to May 2011 NRC Report

4

Charge and Direction

• EC Charge (Nov 2008): “that the Chesapeake Bay Partnership be evaluated by a nationally recognized independent science organization.” – Action Team convened at request and leadership of PSC

• The PSC (May 2011) directed the CBP Partnership:– To provide a formal written response to all 25 of the NRC

panel’s SBC conclusions– To recommend the next steps to the PSC on the ongoing

function of the Independent Evaluator and do so in the context of their written and formal response to the NAS report.

Proposal for Ensuring Full Accountability of Best Practices and

Technologies Implemented

Rich Batiuk

6

Proposal to Partnership

• Build a Partnership-wide BMP Verification Program working up through CBP Partnership– Workgroups GITs MB PSC

• Address full array of practices across all sources– Agricultural lands, forest lands, wetlands, developed

lands, on-site treatment systems, abandoned mine lands, wastewater dischargers, stream corridors, tidal shorelines

• Factor in innovative approaches taken by jurisdictions, local municipalities, districts

7

Verification Framework

• BMP verification principles

• Source sector-specific verification protocols

• BMP verification panel

8

Other Key Elements

• Fully account for federal cost shared practices

• Prevent double counting

• Commitment to clean-up of historic data

• Build in practice life spans

9

PSC review, approval of proposed process/schedule

MB review, approval of proposed process/schedule

WQGIT review, approval of proposed process/schedule

Source sector-specific verification protocols developed by workgroups

Workgroups with tracking, reporting and accountability systems, offset/trading program responsibilities work to resolve issues, refine existing systems

Weave together initial workgroup products into preliminary draft BMP verification principles and protocols

PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP APPROACH

Completed 2/9/2012

RequestedToday

Late March 2012

Work Underway

Completed 1/9/2012

WQGIT review/modification/ of preliminary draft BMP verification principles, and protocols

MB review/modification/approval to present proposed BMP verification principles, protocols to PSC

Preliminary draft BMP verification principles and protocols

PSC review/modification/adoption of BMP verification principles, protocols for the Partnership

PSC communication of the Partnership’s BMP Verification Program to partners/stakeholders through some formal agreement mechanism

PROPOSED PARTNERSHIP APPROACH (Con’t)

Briefings for CAC, STAC, and LGAC*; review of draft BMP verification principles, protocols by the other GITs**

BMP Verification Panel Reviews States’ Proposed Verification Programs

March*/April** 2012

May/June 2012

Summer 2012

Fall 2012

Starting Fall 2012

April 2012

11

Proposed Schedule

• Starting Fall/Winter 2012: jurisdictions present their proposed BMP verification programs to the Panel for review

• 2013: Following CBP Partnership approval of their BMP verification program, jurisdictions can track, verify, report, and receive credit for the full array of cost shared and non-cost shared practices

• 2014: Account for expanded verified practices, technologies when reporting on 2012-2013 milestones and developing 2014-2015 milestones

12

Requests for Decision

• Requested Decision: PSC agreement to proceed forward with the process/schedule as modified and recommended by the MB

• Requested Decision: PSC agreement to: 1) review, modify, and adopt the BMP verification program on behalf of the partnership and; 2) communicate adoption widely with stakeholders

13

Adaptive ManagementCarin Bisland

14

Adaptive Management

• Chesapeake Bay Program has been using adaptive management concepts for several years.

• There has been a call to be more rigorous in applying adaptive management from several sources, including:– GAO– STAC– EO 13508– NSF

15

PSC Decisions at May 2011 Meeting

• ChesapeakeStat should be phased in as the Decision Support Framework to describe work across all CBP Goal Implementation Teams and to be used as a tool for adaptive management.

• Phasing in the use of the decision support framework will begin with interested GITs (Habitat - SAV, WQ – Agriculture, Watersheds) and will use that process to form the basis for content in ChesapeakeStat.

• The PSC also requested CBP staff identify case studies that may be used in a demonstration at the July 2011 EC meeting.

16

Adaptive Management

Decisions sought from PSC on Adaptive Management:

– Adopt the Management Board recommendations for Adaptive Management.

– Assign GIT 6 with the responsibility for carrying out the Adaptive Management recommendations, relying on the Decision Framework.

– Request GIT 6 provide a work plan and time line for completing the assigned Adaptive Management recommendations to the MB.

17

Modeling Laboratory Mark Bennett

18

MB Recommendations on Modeling Lab

• Commit to proceeding forward with more in-depth evaluation of the recommendation for establishing a Chesapeake Bay Modeling Laboratory and other alternatives to achieve the recommendations of the NRC committee.

• Establish an action team charged with responsibility for developing a more definitive set of implementation options.

• Appoint action team members with well recognized expertise in modeling, monitoring data and management decision making in order to represent multiple perspectives.

19

MB Recommendations on Modeling Lab

The action team’s charge would include:

– Evaluation of other existing modeling laboratories and adaptive management programs that encompass modeling, addressing how they function and how applicable their structure and mandate is to the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership.

– Consideration of the range of options for what would constitute a Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory, a virtual laboratory, or responsive program reorganization that is capable of carrying out the functions outlined by the NRC committee and addressing the series of existing STAC and the jurisdictions’ recommendations on modeling.

– Development of options and recommendations for actual institutional sponsorship and how the laboratory would function for carrying out mandates.

– Assessment of the possible range of financial investments and funding mechanisms required.

20

• The action team would report back to the Management Board on its findings, options, and recommendations within nine months. In turn, the Management Board would then decide on what specific recommendations to put forward for deliberation and final decisions by the Principals’ Staff Committee.

MB Recommendations on Modeling Lab

21

Ongoing Function of the Independent Evaluator

Jeff Horan

22

Ongoing Function of Independent Evaluator

• Decisions sought on the Ongoing Function of the Independent Evaluator:

– Adopt the Action Team recommendation for the ongoing function of the Independent Evaluator.

– Assign GIT 6 with the lead responsibility, in coordination with CAC, STAC, and LGAC (based on LGAC interest), for completing the required analysis to establish an Independent Evaluator.

– Request GIT 6 provide a work plan and time line for the MB that outlines the steps for completing the analysis work. The work plan and time line shall define a date by when the Independent Evaluator will be established.

23

PSC Decision on CBP Suggested Responses Documentation

• Decision sought on the CBP Partner Suggested Responses to May 2011 NRC Report Document:– Adopt Key Challenges Document and CBP

Partnership Suggested Responses to May 2011 NRC Report

– Post on the Partnership’s web site along with the link to the NRC’s Report.