1. Local Government Advisory Committee Meeting
Carin Bisland, Associate Director
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. EPA
October 5, 2017

2. The Chesapeake Bay and Watershed
The watershed is big – 6 states and DC
Estuary is shallow – what we do on the land affects what happens in the water
Everybody is doing something that impacts the health of the Bay and Watershed, therefore everybody can do something to improve that health

3. NY DC VA MD PA DE WV
Bay Commission
Federal govt
There are currently 9 signatories to the Agreement who are committed to achieving the goals and outcomes in the Agreement:
The Governors of the 6 states in the watershed MD PA VA NY WV DE
The Mayor of DC
The chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission (tristate legislative body for MD, PA and VA)
The Administrator of EPA on behalf of the Federal government
A vast partnership of all the major players in the Chesapeake region, working collaboratively on science, policy and restoration efforts

4. The Bay Cleanup Involves Partners at All Levels
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
USEPA, USGS, USFWS, NRCS, FS, NPS, NOAA, DOD, USCG
STATE
GOVERNMENT:
NY, PA, MD, DE, VA,WV, DC
RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS
REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PRIVATE INDUSTRY/
BUSINESSES
CHESAPEAKE BAY CLEANUP
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
UNIVERSITIES & RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
CONCERNED CITIZENS
Chesapeake Bay Program – A Watershed Partnership

5. Executive Order 13508 Federal Leadership Committee EO Strategy
May 12, 2009 – President Obama issues EO for the Protection and Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
Federal Leadership Committee
EO Strategy
Annual Action Plan and Progress Report

6. CBP Organizational Structure and Leadership
Citizens’ Advisory
Committee
Chesapeake Executive Council
Principals’ Staff Committee
Independent
Evaluator
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Management Board
CBP Director
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
Action Teams
Communications
Workgroup
& Office
Goal Implementation Teams
Science,
Technical Analysis,
and Reporting
Work is done through an organizations structure that not only includes these 9 signatories but picks up many other parners, stakeholders, NGOs, Federal agencies, along the way who are equatlly committed to achieving one or more of the goals in the Agreement
The EC is at the top (PSC)
The GITs are responsible for working together to achieve goals/outcomes of the Agreement
SME and stakeholders
Citizens, scientists, and local governments are appointed by the Governors and advise the Program
MB is responsible for managing up, down, and sideways
Sustainable
Fisheries
Protect &
Restore
Vital Habitats
Protect &
Restore Water
Quality
Maintain
Healthy
Watersheds
Foster
Chesapeake
Stewardship
Enhance
Partnering,
Leadership
& Management
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups 7 7

7. CBPO Organizational Structure and Leadership
Immediate Office 3CB00
Nicholas DiPasquale
Director
James Edward
Deputy Director
Office of Science, Analysis & Implementation 3CB10B
Office of Partnerships and Accountability 3CB10C
Rich Batiuk
Associate Director
Carin Bisland
Associate Director
Implementation/Evaluation Team
Science Integration
Team
Accountability and Budget Team
Partnerships & Assistance Team

8. Role of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Section 117(b) of the Clean Water Act directs the EPA Administrator to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and states:
117(b)(2)(B)The Chesapeake Bay Program shall provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by:
What Section 117(b)(2)(B) says:
What We Do:
Maintain a comprehensive 30+ year tidal and nontidal monitoring network with consistent and comparable data
Develop and maintains an internationally recognized series of models and technical support systems to run the models.
Maintain a repository of data and analyses that is available to the public and used by states, universities, local implementers
(i) Implementing and coordinating science, research, modeling, monitoring, data collection, and other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program
CBPO is foundational as the coordinating mechanism and the reason the partnership works and the Bay waters are getting cleaner and the Bay ecosystem is getting healthier.

9. Role of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Section 117(b) of the Clean Water Act directs the EPA Administrator to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and states that:
117(b)(2)(B)The Chesapeake Bay Program shall provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by:
What Section 117(b)(2)(B) says:
What We Do:
(ii) Developing and making available, through publications, technical assistance and other means, information pertaining to the environmental quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
(v) Implementing outreach programs for public information, education and participation to foster stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay
Ensure communication and outreach with a focus on restoration and protection of the ecosystem of the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed
Annual Bay Barometer
Chesapeakebay.net
ChesapeakeProgress

10. Role of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Section 117(b) of the Clean Water Act directs the EPA Administrator to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and states that:
117(b)(2)(B)The Chesapeake Bay Program shall provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by:
What Section 117(b)(2)(B) says:
What We Do:
(iii) Assisting the signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State and local authorities.
(iv) Coordinating the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency with the actions of other Federal agencies and State and local authorities in developing strategies to improve the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem;
Manage the development and implementation of management strategies to meet goals/outcomes of the Agreement by:
Convening forums to deliberate and agree on policy decisions that transcend state lines.
Convening and supporting subject matter experts for issues related to fisheries, habitat, stewardship, water quality, and other areas of partnership concern.
Convening and supporting advisory committees to ensure decisions are informed by advice from key stakeholders and by sound science.

11. Role of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Section 117(b) of the Clean Water Act directs the EPA Administrator to maintain a Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) and states that:
117(b)(2)(B)The Chesapeake Bay Program shall provide support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by:
What We Do:
What Section 117(b)(2)(B) says:
Manage the development and implementation of management strategies to meet goals/outcomes of the Agreement by:
Convening forums to deliberate and agree on policy decisions that transcend state lines.
Convening and supporting subject matter experts for issues related to fisheries, habitat, stewardship, water quality, and other areas of partnership concern
(iii) Assisting the signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State and local authorities.

12. Role of the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Provides grants to state and local jurisdictions and other partner organizations for implementing the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, including water quality monitoring grants
Coordinates and oversees the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and helps ensure accountability through the Bay jurisdictions’ Watershed Implementation Plans and Two-Year Milestones.
The Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act (CBARA) requires the EPA Administrator to appoint an independent evaluator for the Chesapeake Bay Program who reports on restoration activities and other to the Chesapeake Executive Council

13. Proposed to be Eliminated
History
Fiscal Year
Federal Funding levels
(in millions)
EPA Funding Levels
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Funding Levels
2014
$484
$184
$70
2015
$462
$186
$73
2016
$536
$194
2017
2018 President’s budget
Proposed to be Eliminated
2018 House Bill
$60 with $5 for SWG and $5 for INSR
The partnership was formed in The Bay Program formed after the governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania; the mayor of the District of Columbia; and the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congress funded scientific and estuarine research of the Bay, and the findings pinpointed three areas that required immediate attention: nutrient over-enrichment, dwindling underwater Bay grasses and toxic pollution. Once the initial research was completed in 1983, the Bay Program was formed to restore and protect the Bay.
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement - established the Bay Program's goal to reduce the amount of nutrients-primarily nitrogen and phosphorous-that enter the Bay by 40 percent by In 1992, the Bay Program partners agreed to continue the 40 percent reduction goal beyond 2000 and to attack nutrients at their source, upstream, in the Bay's tributaries. To help meet this goal, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia developed tributary strategies: river-specific cleanup plans for reducing the nutrients and sediment that flow into the Chesapeake Bay. In addition to the 1983 Agreement signatories, the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission signed this Agreement.
Chesapeake In June 2000, the Bay Program partners adopted Chesapeake 2000 , a Bay agreement intended to guide restoration activities throughout the Bay watershed through In addition to identifying key measures necessary to restore the Bay, Chesapeake 2000 provided the opportunity for Delaware, New York and West Virginia to become more involved in the Bay Program partnership. These headwater states now work with the Bay Program to reduce nutrients and sediment flowing into rivers from their jurisdictions.
The partnership was expanded through a Memorandum of Understanding to include the jurisdictions of DE, NY and WV to
Work cooperatively to achieve the nutrient and sediment reduction targets that we agree
are necessary to achieve the goals of a clean Chesapeake Bay by 2010, thereby allowing
the Chesapeake and its tidal tributaries to be removed from the list of impaired waters.
• Provide for an inclusive, open and comprehensive public participation process.
• Collaborate on the development and use of innovative measures such as effluent trading,
cooperative implementation mechanisms, and expanded interstate agreements to achieve
the necessary reductions.
Standards/Allocations/Tributary Strategies/NPDES Permits
new water quality standards for the Bay and its tidal tributaries that protect living resources and are both more attainable and more valid scientifically, incorporating innovative features such as habitat zoning and adoption of area-specific submerged aquatic vegetation acreage targets;
adoption of nutrient and sediment allocations for all parts of the watershed, to meet the new standards, which reflect a consensus of all six basin States, the District of Columbia and EPA;
tributary-specific pollution reduction and habitat restoration plans (“tributary strategies”) which spell out the treatment technologies, best management practices (BMPs) and restoration goals for riparian forest buffers and wetlands which must be employed to achieve the allocations; and
a common NPDES permitting approach for all significant wastewater treatment facilities that unites both upstream and downstream States in the enforcement of the new water quality standards and allocations, including implementation of watershed permitting and nutrient trading.
Blue Ribbon Finance Panel - The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel was charged with developing innovative solutions to financing the multi-billion dollar Bay restoration effort. On December 9, 2003 the Chesapeake Executive Council asked the panel “to consider funding sources to implement the tributary strategies basin-wide, and to make recommendations regarding other actions at the federal, state and local level to the Executive Council .” On October 27, 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel called on Bay states and the federal government to make a six-year, $15 billion investment in the creation of a regional Finance Authority charged with prioritizing and distributing restoration funds throughout the Bay's 64,000-square-mile watershed. In its 40-page report, “Saving a National Treasure: Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay ,”the panel praised the work of the Chesapeake Bay Program for its “unparalleled cooperative efforts and pioneering] clean-up strategies that have resulted in measured gains in reducing the flow of pollutants into the Bay.” But it also concluded that “The Program cannot meet the future challenges of restoring the Bay because it lacks the funds to do so.”
Crafted by grantmakers for grantmakers, the Chesapeake Bay Funders Network is a goal-oriented organization that fosters opportunities to collaborate on shared interests in Bay and watershed restoration issues and activities. The Funders Network creates opportunities for funding organizations to make a real difference by providing current and objective information on policy issues, by helping organizations focus on the most pressing Bay and watershed problems, and by providing networking opportunities with other funders which lead to leveraged, effective outcomes aimed at protecting and restoring the health of Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. 

14. Total Spending

15. Federal Agency Spending

16. State Program Spending

17. State Grant Allocations from EPA

18. CBP Organizational Structure and Leadership
Citizens’ Advisory
Committee
Chesapeake Executive Council
Principals’ Staff Committee
Independent
Evaluator
Local Government
Advisory Committee
Management Board
CBP Director
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
Action Teams
Communications
Workgroup
& Office
Goal Implementation Teams
Science,
Technical Analysis,
and Reporting
Sustainable
Fisheries
Protect &
Restore
Vital Habitats
Protect &
Restore Water
Quality
Maintain
Healthy
Watersheds
Foster
Chesapeake
Stewardship
Enhance
Partnering,
Leadership
& Management
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups
Implementation
Workgroups 19 19

19. What is the Midpoint Assessment?
Review of progress towards meeting the % interim target and the 2025 Chesapeake Bay TMDL goal
Optimize implementation of the Bay jurisdictions’ WIPs and ensure we’re on track for development of Phase III WIPs
Gather, review, and incorporate new data and science into the Partnership’s decision support tools

20. Midpoint Assessment Guiding Principles
Continue implementation, tracking progress and reporting results, with stable tools through at least 2017
Enhance decision support and assessment tools to enable successful engagement of local partners
Incorporate new or refined BMPs and verification of practices into existing accountability tools and reporting protocols
Address emerging issues (e.g., climate change)
Prioritize midpoint assessment actions and use adaptive management to ensure goals are met

21. Current Status of Midpoint Assessment Priorities and Impacts to the Phase III WIPs

22. Average Load + Inputs * Sensitivity
Completed 1 Year Partnership Review of Phase 6 Modeling Tool Refinements
Phase 6 Watershed Model Structure
Average Load Inputs * Sensitivity
Land Use Acres
BMPs
Land to Water
Stream Delivery
River Delivery * * *
Direct Loads * *

23. Advanced from 30 Meter to 1 Meter Resolution of Land Cover Basinwide
Phase 6
Phase 5
Phase 6
Phase 5
Urban/Suburban Settings
Rural Settings

24. Partnership Approved Local Planning Goal Recommendations

25. Monitoring Trends to Support Phase III WIPs
The commitments we have undertaken as a Partnership over these last few decades have been making a demonstrable, positive difference in not only the Chesapeake Bay but its hundreds of rivers, streams, and creeks throughout the watershed.
The bottom line is we are making progress and we are seeing tangible results of our collaborative efforts to improve the water quality of the Bay and its local waters, as well as to the living resources so essential to the health of the larger Bay watershed.
USGS and other Bay partners are currently focused on conducting analyses of water quality changes to better understand and explain the factors affecting water quality response to BMPs; analyzing trends of nutrients and sediment in the watershed; and assessing attainment of WQ standards.
Monitoring data provides a direct measure of progress toward reducing pollutant loads and attaining the states’ and District of Columbia’s Chesapeake Bay water quality standards.
Efforts are underway to show state and local jurisdictions where we are seeing positive trends and areas where there is little improvement or degrading trends. This could help with targeting implementation.
During the 2013 to 2015 assessment period, an estimated 37 percent of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries met water quality standards.
Long-term trends in total nitrogen loads delivered to tidal waters indicate improving conditions at the majority of the River Input Monitoring stations, including the five largest rivers.
Long-term trends in total phosphorus loads indicate improving conditions at 4 stations (and degrading conditions at another 4 stations).

26. STAC Workshops & Peer Reviews
The Partnership’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee has played a critical role in the Midpoint Assessment through their peer reviews of the Phase 6 modeling tools (e.g., Scenario Builder/Nutrient Input approach (complete), Watershed Model (finalizing), and Water Quality Sediment Transport Model (finalizing)) and the approaches taken to factor climate change impacts into the 2017 Midpoint Assessment (underway).
There is also an upcoming STAC workshop on climate-resilient BMPs, to assist jurisdictions in the development and implementation of their Phase III WIPs and future two-year milestones.
These peer reviews and workshops provide further credibility and confidence in the decision support tools we use to support implementation efforts, adapt to changing conditions, and measure progress.

27. Communications & Engagement

28. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Current Estimated Load
Common currency across the multiple states to ensure discussion on equity in determining how the responsibility for the pollution load reduction is divided among the partner jurisdictions.
2017

29. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
2017
2025

30. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Growth +
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
2017
2025

31. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Conowingo +
Growth +
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
2017
2025

32. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Climate Change +
Conowingo +
Growth +
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
2017
2025

33. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Climate Change +
Conowingo +
Growth +
Total load reductions needed by 2025
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
2017
2025

34. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Climate Change +
Conowingo +
Growth +
Total load reductions needed by 2025
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
Planning Targets
2017
2025

35. Setting the Stage for the Jurisdictions’ Phase III WIPs
Climate Change +
Conowingo +
Growth +
Total load reductions needed by 2025
Current Estimated Load
Assimilative Capacity
Planning Targets
Local Area Goals
2017
2025

36. Learn more at
watershedagreement