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 CBP’s 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 CBP’s 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 Agency’s (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 Principal’s Staff Committee (PSC) • Justifications accepted (which are necessary to begin work with NAS) by EPA’s 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 EPA’s mission and programs; inform the Agency of relevant scientific and technical data and provide the related views of experts about EPA’s 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 Agency’s 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@dnr.state.md.us410-260-8705 • Julie Winters – Action Team CoordinatorEPA CBPOwinters.julie@epa.gov410-267-5754