| Share this: | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Academy Of Sciences Releases Chesapeake Bay Program Evaluation
|
|
The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences this week released a pilot study that contains science-based conclusions and recommendations to help the Chesapeake Bay Program evaluate its efforts to achieve nutrient reduction goals and clean up the Bay. The study, “Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation,” validates and provides constructive feedback on the work the Bay Program has undertaken during the last 18 months to improve accountability.
“While supporting the program’s current efforts, the report also points out some critical challenges to consider in making decisions moving forward,” said Shawn M. Garvin, EPA regional administrator and chair of the Bay Program’s Principals’ Staff Committee.
The NAS study results reinforce the partnership’s current work, including the Chesapeake Bay “pollution diet,” or TMDL; the Bay jurisdictions’ Watershed Implementation Plans; and two-year milestones.
According to the report, the milestone strategy improves upon past strategies by committing states to tangible, near-term goals, but consequences for not attaining the goals remain unclear.
NAS recognized the Bay watershed’s complexity and the equally intricate tracking systems needed to accurately report on restoration progress, as well as the fact that the Bay Program is in the process of better integrating its voluntary and regulatory work.
The study also provides suggestions for strengthening processes for tracking and accounting of best management practices; assessing two-year milestones; adaptive management; and implementation strategies.
The report says that nearly all states have insufficient information to evaluate their progress in reducing nutrient pollution, limiting their capacity to make mid-course corrections. Additionally, tracking and accounting issues lead to an incomplete and possibly inaccurate picture of the bay jurisdictions' overall progress in meeting program goals. For example, jurisdictions face challenges tracking practices that are not cost-shared and verifying that practices are correctly implemented and maintained.
Another main concern of the report's authoring committee is the possibility of overly optimistic expectations among the public. While science and policy communities generally recognize the inherent uncertainties in modeling water quality, the general public "will almost certainly be frustrated" if they expect visible, tangible evidence of local and bay water quality improvements in short order. Legacy effects of nutrient pollution already in the Chesapeake Bay watershed will significantly delay results from the program's efforts.
"Sustaining public and political support for the program will require clear communication of these uncertainties and lag times and program strategies to better quantify them," the report states.
The report highlights approaches for improving the tracking and accounting of pollution control practices, including creating a consolidated regional best management practices program and increasing use of intensive small-watershed monitoring.
The committee also concluded that establishing a Chesapeake Bay modeling laboratory would likely build credibility with the scientific, engineering, and management communities and improve the integration of modeling and monitoring.
In addition, the report identifies potential strategies that could be used to meet the Chesapeake Bay Program's long-term goals. The strategies, meant to encourage further discussion, include improving manure management in agriculture, curbing residential fertilizer use, and exploring additional air pollution controls.
“As the states continue to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, we must regularly review and take steps to improve the management of our resources to achieve the most cost-effective results for our citizens and the Bay," said Maryland Department of the Environment Secretary Robert M. Summers. “We believe a healthy Chesapeake Bay is finally within our sights, and we look forward to working with our partners to determine how the Academy's recommendations can help.”
Reaction
Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker issued this statement following the release of the National Academy of Science evaluation of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
“CBF commends EPA for inviting this serious and substantive scientific review. While identifying some areas for improvement, the most important takeaway message from the report is that the new direction for Chesapeake Bay restoration, implemented over the last two years, is the right one. The report supports the establishment of the Bay’s pollution budget as well as the states’ plans to achieve that goal.
“The report also says that the two-year milestones are an improvement over past efforts. They are. But unless there are consequences that follow if the states fail to deliver on those commitments the milestones will be ineffective guideposts for restoration. The report also notes that the first milestones will be the easiest for the states to achieve and that reaching the long-term goals will require all who live in the watershed to do their part.
“CBF encourages EPA and the states to accelerate the pace in order to achieve the milestones set in 2009.”
Within 90 days, the Bay Program will provide a written response to all of the study’s recommendations.
The Bay Program solicited this self-evaluation in 2009 after the Chesapeake Executive Council requested at its 2008 annual meeting that a nationally recognized, independent science organization evaluate the program’s efforts to accelerate implementation of nutrient reduction goals to restore the Bay.
The evaluation was jointly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
For more information, including a link to a "report in brief," visit the National Academies website.
Study Backs National Strategy To Clean Up Chesapeake Bay |
|
5/9/2011 |
| Go To Preceding Article Go To Next Article |