chesapeake bay program monitoring realignment

Chesapeake Bay Program

Monitoring Realignment:

Reprogramming to Address

Senior Management Partnership

Priorities

Peter Tango USGS/CBPO

and

Rich Batiuk USEPA CBPO


Bay/Basin Monitoring Porgram

Realignment

Presentation Outline

• Monitoring Program Overview

• Budget issues led to a Monitoring Program Review

• Partnership supported a rebudgeting process supporting the realignment

• Lessons Learned from the process

Watershed Monitoring

Bay Water Quality

Monitoring

Shallow Water Habitat

Phytoplankton, Benthos

Monitoring

Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Networks

$4.3 Million

Annual Budget

You are here

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1. Mainstem and

Tidal Tributary

Water Quality

Monitoring

2. SAV

3. Shallow Water

4. Toxics Assessment

5. Phytoplankton

6. Zooplankton

7. Benthic

8. Ecosystem Process

9. Nutrient limitation

10. River Input

11. Nontidal Network

2002

20021990

2003

2004

Background: Chesapeake Bay

Program Monitoring History Timeline

1990 1998

Program Elements


Multiple Network Funders

• Watershed network

funded with existing

funds from multiple

partners

• A multi-agency

commitment to

maintaining the

network is necessary

25%

6%

14%

1%24%

30%

USEPA CBP 117 grants

EPA 106 grants

State/organziation general

fund

State special funds

USGS

Other (mostly local stream

gage cooperators)

2007

Budget

Steering

Committee


The Recent Past

In response to the 2007 CBP Budget

Steering Committee, by January 2008,

there was a $685,000 budget adjustment

$123,000 was from the Long term Water

Quality Monitoring Program.

2007

Budget

Steering

Committee

2007-08

MASC

Proposal

To STAC.

Accepted

March 2008

The Recent Past

In response to the 2007 CBP Budget Steering Committee:

• Realigning Monitoring funding (about $1M) was requested by CBPO.

• A proposal was developed for a STAC Review for guidance to the monitoring program realignment.

A Proposal to STAC Regarding an

Independent Review of the Structure,

Function and Efficiency of the

Chesapeake Bay Basin-wide

Monitoring Program:

Request for Recommending CBP

Funded Monitoring Program

Modifications and Identifying

Implications for the Partnership.

February 2008

Science,

Technical Analysis,

and ReportingPartnering,

Leadership

& Management

Maintain

Healthy

Watersheds

Protect &

Restore Water

Quality

Sustainable

Fisheries

Protect & Restore

Vital Habitats

Foster

Chesapeake

Stewardship

Goal Implementation Teams

Dennison

UMd

Bennett

USGS

Tango

USGS

Barnes/Gorka

CRC

Implementation

Workgroups

Implementation

Workgroups

Implementation

Workgroups

Implementation

Workgroups

Implementation

WorkgroupsImplementation

Workgroups

CBP Organizational Structure and Leadership 8-25-11

Management Board

Chair

Nick DiPasquale, EPA

Scientific & Technical

Advisory CommitteeChair – Chris Pyke

US Green Bldg. Council

Local Government

Advisory CommitteeChair – Mary Ann Lisanti

Harford County

Citizens’ Advisory

CommitteeChair – Nikki Tinsley

NT Inc.

Action Teams

Independent Evaluator

Chair – Horan, MdDNREC/FLC Alignment

Chair – Bisland, EPAChesapeakeStat/Adptv. Mgt.

Co-Chair – Stewart, MdDNR

Co-Chair – Muller, USNA

Chesapeake Executive CouncilChair – Lisa Jackson, EPA

Principals’ Staff CommitteeChair – Shawn Garvin, EPA

Independent

Evaluator

Robertson

NOAA

O’Connell

MdDNR

Vogt

NOAA

Davis

CRC

Horan

MdDNR

Vacant

Greiner

USFWS

Hession

CRC

Merrill

EPA

Perkinson

VaDCR

Antos

EPA

Streusand/Kilbert

CRC

Bryer

NGO(TNC)

Hall

MdDP

Fritz

EPA

Burnett

CRC

Maounis

NPS

Barrett

PaDCNR

Handen

NPS

Brzezinski

CRC

Chair

ViceChair

Cdtr

Staff

Foreman

VaDCR

Bisland

EPA

Allen

EPA

Wilke

CRC

Communications

WorkgroupChair—Carol Riggs, DE DNREC

Vice– Dawn Stoltzfus, MDE

Proposal requests:1. Provide an assessment of how well

the current package of Bay Program funded monitoring programs support Bay Program objectives. And decision making in the watershed.

2. Provide recommendations that will enable more efficient use of scarce resources and improved ecological assessments in support of Bay Program objectives.

1. Explain implications, pro and con, of recommended changes.

2. Prioritize recommended changes.

Proposal Response Plan

• Workshop 1: Unpack objectives into a series of management endpoints

• Workshop 2: Given three levels of resources/uncertainty, how could you monitor to address each management endpoint? At which scale?

• Workshop 3: What are the priority questions?

Present recommendations

to the CBP Management

Board for approval

Implement program

changes

Assess the ability of

changes to address

priorities

Report results

Repeat as necessary (every 2 to 3 years)

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

2007

Budget

Steering

Committee

2007-08

MASC

Proposal

To STAC.

Accepted

March 2008

The Process2008-09

STAC

Workshops

I,II,III

Workshop Findings:

STAC Review of CBP Monitoring (2008) asked

senior managers what are key information needs

and are they getting what they need.

2007

Budget

Steering

Committee

2007-08

MASC

Proposal

To STAC.

Accepted

March 2008

The Process2008-09

STAC

Workshops

I,II,III

STAC Workshop Findings:

• Delisting the tidal segments of the Bay, and

• determining the effectiveness of management actions in the watershed should be the priorities of the CBP funded monitoring programs.

• The current allocation of monitoring resources does not reflect these priorities.

• There should be some rebalancing.

STAC Review of CBP Monitoring (2008) asked

senior managers what are key information needs

and are they getting what they need.

2009

Monitoring

Realignment

Action Team

March 2009

Rebalancing Options

presentation

to the new

CBP Management

Board

2007-08

MASC

Proposal

To STAC

The Action Team Goes to Work!• CBP monitoring team

developed and presented

options for ―rebalancing‖.

• The CBP Management

Board accepted STAC

findings but wanted more

information about options.

2007

Budget

Steering

Committee

2008-09

STAC

Workshops

I,II,III

$500K

$1 M$1.5M

3 Reprogramming Options

Options Response Plan

Refining Pros and Cons of Monitoring

Reprogramming Options

• Nearly 6 months of weekly conference calls with

Managers and Scientists

•Full Report created and presented –

November 2009

2007

Budget

Steering

Committee

2008-09

STAC

Workshops

I,II,III

2009

Monitoring

Realignment

Action Team

Revised

Options/

Management

Board decisions

2009

March

Options

presentation

2009

State

Budget

issues

2007-08

MASC

Proposal

To STAC

The Recent Past

Getting to a decision


Bay Water Quality

Monitoring

Shallow Water Habitat

Phytoplankton, Benthos

Monitoring

Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Programs

November 2009

CBP Management

Board Decision 1.

Move $134K from tidal

monitoring

to support watershed

monitoring

Maintain support for

regulatory based tidal

monitoring

Current and future Watershed Network Water

Quality Monitoring sites where loads can be

calculated within the Chesapeake Bay BasinSPRING 2010

IMPLEMENTATION


Implementation of $134K

budget realignment

• Adjusted and maintained Bay

network

• 3 small watershed sites were added

to the watershed network

• Additional data management and

analysis support provided for those

3 stations.

2

1

Adjusted and

Maintained

Bay network

2010 and beyond

Implementation of

recommendations is

underway!

Recall: Original

Request was for >$1

million monitoring

program adjustment

2011-2012 Actions:

37 new sites proposed

with criteria• Small watershed

monitoring

• Ag,Urban gaps, coastal

plain gaps

• a total network of 120 sites

by the end of 2012.

+$1 M new Chesapeake Bay Program

Monitoring funding through USEPA

for FY2011

Fiscal Year

2011-12• New $1M USEPA funding

• Sites were given priority if they met many of the criteria for funding

• Brings DC online as a monitoring partner and increases monitoring coverage MD, PA, VA, and WV

Lessons Learned

– Our monitoring program was not providing Senior Managers with the information they needed.

– Refocus work endpoints with scientific communication for decision-makers in mind.

– Monitoring gaps were identified

– Manage expectations e.g. Data maturity – Our watershed network is young.

By engaging our partners in a open, community-based,

repeatable process, we learned:

Lessons Learned in Budget

Realignment

– Programs unified in their monitoring approach (i.e., common protocols) across jurisdictional boundaries had the strongest support.

• Defensibility

• Added explainability

• Programs with proven support to regulatory needs had the strongest support.

– 3 Options helped define limits to financial adjustments in programming to maintain program integrity

Thank youCBPO Staff (especially Jeni, Katie, Jackie, MEL, Jake, Mike)

Chesapeake Bay Management Community

Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Community

Chesapeake Bay Academic Community

MRAT Co-chairs Carlton Haywood and Denice Wardrop

MRAT Synthesis Team

CBPO Management Board

chesapeake bay program monitoring realignment

Documents