Independent Evaluator Chesapeake Bay Program

1
Independent EvaluatorChesapeake Bay Program

• Status Update
• February 2009

2
Independent Evaluator Charge from EC

• Executive Council Charge for the Independent
  Evaluator (IE)
• To increase the level of accountability and
  accelerate implementation in the Chesapeake Bay
  Program (CBP), in November 2008, the Executive
  Council requested that the CBP be evaluated by a
  nationally recognized, independent science
  organization.

3
Independent Evaluator Current Objective

• Current Objective
• Initiate the work of the IE by defining key study
  questions and determining the scope, recommending
  metrics, deliverables, timing and other
  requirements for the first evaluation to begin in
  2009.

4
Independent Evaluator Guiding Principles

• Guiding Principles and Assumptions
• The IE role is designed to identify, assess and
  evaluate shortcomings, delineate options, and
  recommend solutions that will increase the CBPs
  effectiveness.
• Study questions will be developed by the CBP
  Action Team, in consultation with STAC, CBP goal
  teams, and other appropriate partners or advisory
  committees, and the IE, and approved by the
  Principals Staff Committee (PSC).
• The recommendations of the IE are to be delivered
  in a way that can be used in the CBPs adaptive
  management strategies that dictate the
  implementation actions.
• A common nomenclature or terminology cross walk
  is necessary for there to be one Bay wide
  language so implementation requirements are
  expressed in the same way for the Total Maximum
  Daily Load (TMDL), Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
  Systems (MS4), and tributary strategies in the
  restoration goals.
• If timing allows, the Action Team and the IE
  should consider the effectiveness of reviewing
  the two year milestones as part of the review
  process.
• The IE will focus on water quality in the first
  two year review period.
• It is the intent, through an existing contract
  mechanism with Environmental Protection Agencys
  (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD),
  for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
  serve the role of the IE on a trial basis for the
  first two year review period.
• The IE will evaluate CBP implementation programs
  and progress, including and not limited to state
  by state and collective evaluations.
• The IE will usually evaluate discrete CBP program
  components (e.g., state tributary strategies or a
  specific goal area) but may periodically evaluate
  the entire CBP program.

5
Independent Evaluator Action Team

• Determine the scope of work for the organization
  contracted with to perform the IE function.
• Develop Independent Evaluator Study Questions in
  consultation with advisory committees, goal
  teams, appropriate partners, and approved by the
  PSC
• Identify evaluation metrics, expertise,
  deliverables, and timeframes for evaluation

6
Independent Evaluator Proposed Action Team
Composition

• Chair Jeff Horan, Watershed Services/MD DNR
• Coordinator Julie Winters, CBPO EPA
• Technical Liaison Richard Batiuk, CBPO EPA
• Doug Lipton, STAC, and/or Don Boesch, UMCES
• Nikki Tinsley with backup from Jessica Blackburn,
  CAC
• Matt Birnbaum, NFWF
• Ann Swanson, CBC
• Jeff Corbin, VA Asst. Secretary of Natural
  Resources
• Pat Buckley, PA DEP
• Diane Davis, DC DE
• Peter Freehafer, NY
• John Schneider, DE
• Bill Brannon and Teresa Koon, WVA

7
Independent Evaluator Timeframes and Next Steps

• February 17, 2009
• Kick-off conference call with Action Team
• February 19 or 20, 2009
• Provide CAC a status update on the IE
• April 1, 2009
• Draft scope of work for review and approval by
  the Principals Staff Committee (PSC)
• Justifications accepted (which are necessary to
  begin work with NAS) by EPAs Office of Research
  and Development (ORD)
• May 1, 2009
• Contract task order obtained with NAS and work
  begins
• Communications strategy or plan on the IE
  developed
• May through November 2009
• Follow up on requests from PSC and MB
• December 2009
• Target end date for Action Team

8
Independent Evaluator Mechanism to Conduct
Evaluation

• EPA/ORD contract with the National Academy of
  Sciences (NAS) to assess and validate the
  scientific and engineering excellence of EPAs
  mission and programs inform the Agency of
  relevant scientific and technical data and
  provide the related views of experts about EPAs
  research and science activities critically apply
  the judgments of science and engineering to
  public policy and otherwise contribute to the
  vitality and productivity of the Agencys
  scientific enterprises.

9
Independent Evaluator Funding Commitments

• FY2009 financial contributions from the following
  Partners are
• US EPA 250,000 (this is the total amount for
  use in FY2009 and 2010)
• MD 50,000
• PA 50,000
• VA 50,000
• DC 15,340

10
Independent Evaluator

• Communications and coordination
• Accountability liaison concept on goal team 6
  with role to assist IE
• Study director with IE to work with
  accountability liaison

11
Independent Evaluator Possible Study Questions

• Is each state achieving their specific allocated
  pounds to be reduced?
• Are the achieved reductions consistent in how the
  CBP counts pounds reduced?
• Are nutrient reductions credited in a consistent
  way?
• Are the right BMPs being used and what new
  strategies or approaches would work?
• How effective were the tributary strategies in
  what did/did not work? Assess what about the
  tributary strategies did not work, identify
  shortcomings and recommend solutions?
• What are the best approaches to engage local
  governments and watershed organizations to
  leverage their resources, tools, authorities to
  advance Bay restoration?
• What are the best approaches to get local
  accountability?
• Is a broad study of the entire CBP warranted, if
  so at what time interval?
• What is working/not working about the how the CBP
  is applying adaptive management to the CBP?
  Further evaluate what did not work, identify
  shortcomings and recommend solutions?
• Have the first round of two year milestones been
  structured to achieve overall results? Identify
  and evaluate shortcomings and recommend
  solutions?
• Has the CBP established an independent and
  objective reporting process? Assess what about
  the process did not work, identify shortcomings
  and recommend solutions?

12
Independent Evaluator

• Contacts
• Jeff Horan Action Team Chair MD
  DNRjhoran_at_dnr.state.md.us410-260-8705
• Julie Winters Action Team CoordinatorEPA
  CBPOwinters.julie_at_epa.gov410-267-5754