Chesapeake Bay Program
Monitoring Realignment:
Reprogramming to Address
Senior Management Partnership
Priorities
Peter Tango USGS/CBPO
and
Rich Batiuk USEPA CBPO
Chesapeake Bay Program
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
Watershed Monitoring
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
Chesapeake Bay Program
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
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
Watershed Monitoring
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
Chesapeake Bay Program
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