Assessing Progress. Progress toward building the knowledge and capacity of local officials will be assessed every two years. At the December 2014 workshop, many officials agreed to participate in this initial effort to determine success factors and develop progress criteria. Throughout the initial assessment period, local officials will be a part of the process to determine how progress is determined, which will include criteria, scope, scale and the utilization of adaptive management techniques. It is anticipated that this strategy may require one or more two-year cycles to fully determine whether the initial effort has been successful.
Assessing Progress. Assessing programmatic progress (making sure planned activities are completed) will be at least annual so that adjustments to the biennial workplan can be made to accommodate changing circumstances and availability of resources. Formal review of programmatic progress will be completed through the update of the biennial workplan. Assessment of environmental conditions and change will be done less frequently (every 2 to 5 years) depending on availability of contaminant monitoring results. We will utilize the biannual reporting for impaired waters (305b) done by each state and DC to assess conditions for selected contaminants that monitored for these efforts. Monitoring for additional contaminants will be done less frequently due to efforts needed to collect, compile, and analyze information. The planning, completion and publishing of research is usually a multi-year process which affects the advancement in gaining more knowledge to reduce uncertainty. Lessons Learned The following lessons were learned during review of the Toxic Contaminant Research Strategy: • Lesson: Multiple contaminants and additional factors are causing the degradation (and mortality) of fish so trying to identify specific causes is extremely difficult. o Actions: Evolving towards a more geographic approach to focus in areas where fish health issues are most prevalent. Greater emphasis on linkage between factors affecting fish habitat and health, including toxic contaminants. • Lesson: There is a lack of data on the occurrence and trends of toxic contaminants. o Actions: Better utilize jurisdictions monitoring that is used for biannual integrated reports; design an integrated monitoring network to improve long-term information. • Lesson: Limited information of the practices to mitigate contaminants, and their potential co- benefits with nutrients and sediment reductions.
Assessing Progress. For type 1) progress monitoring as described above, the frequency of assessing progress will be at least annual so that adjustments to the biennial workplan can be made to accommodate changing circumstances and availability of resources. Formal review of type 1) progress data will be completed through the update of the biennial workplan. Progress assessment based on type 2) and 3) monitoring will be conducted on an as-available basis. These types of monitoring generally will involve measurements of environmental response and environmental condition, which do not necessarily occur at regular intervals and will be contingent on availability of data and/or monitoring funds. Adaptively Manage Adaptive management will focus foremost on monitoring information described under type 2) above where there will be assessment of whether management actions are having the expected results in terms of PCB reductions. Over time, it is expected we will learn which loading mechanisms and sources provide the greatest opportunities for continued reductions. Other adaptations to the strategy will result from assessing the long term response of the system (type 3 monitoring above) and, in the short term, whether the TCW and other entities are completing work as planned (type 1 monitoring above). Biennial Workplan summarize the commitments, actions and resources that each jurisdiction, federal agency and partner will take to help achieve each of the outcomes Biennial workplan to be developed Appendix A - Overview of PCB TMDL Activities in the Chesapeake Watershed TMDL Development in Maryland 1. Characterization of NPDES regulated and unregulated stormwater PCB loads.
Assessing Progress. Assessing programmatic progress (making sure planned activities are completed) will be at least annual so that adjustments to the biennial workplan can be made to accommodate changing circumstances and availability of resources. Formal review of programmatic progress will be completed through the update of the biennial workplan. Assessment of environmental conditions and change will be done less frequently (every 2 to 5 years) depending on availability of contaminant monitoring results. We will utilize the biannual reporting for impaired waters (305b) done by each state and DC to assess conditions for selected contaminants that monitored for these efforts. Monitoring for additional contaminants will be done less frequently due to efforts needed to collect, compile, and analyze information. The planning, completion and publishing of research is usually a multi-year process which affects the advancement in gaining more knowledge to reduce uncertainty.
Assessing Progress. The CBP accountability framework provides the foundation to assess performance toward the TMDL and associated water quality standards. The CBP partnership would be consulted on any proposed changes to the WIP Planning Targets, which provide for the watershed-wide distribution of load reductions. This is separate from any nitrogen-phosphorus and/or cross-basin exchanges within a state, which are the responsibility of that jurisdiction. Enhanced knowledge of management practices and their effects will be used primarily to refine individual jurisdiction strategies to achieve the 2017 and 2025 goals.
Assessing Progress. Assessing progress on the actions is the LAP will be done at least annually under the TCW. The reviews will provide opportunities to make adjustments to the biennial workplan can be made to accommodate changing circumstances and availability of resources. Formal review of programmatic progress will be completed through the update of the biennial workplan. For the previous two year period the qualitative assessment by the TCW was: • Further characterize the occurrence, concentrations, sources and effects of mercury, PCBs, and other contaminants of emerging and widespread concern. Progress: Good, progress has been made on mercury across the watershed and contaminants in local areas, but ability characterize more regional occurrence and concentrations of contaminants has been limited. • Identify which best management practices might provide multiple benefits of reducing nutrient and sediment pollution as well as toxic contaminants in waterways. Progress: Fair. A STAC workshop provided insights of a limited number of BMPs to have co-benefits between nutrient, sediment, and contaminant reductions. However, getting information into CBP decision tools, such as CAST, does not have a clear path forward. Additionally, jurisdictions WIPs don’t have much emphasis on addressing co- benefits for contaminant reduction A similar assessment is expected at the end of 2022.
Assessing Progress. For type 1) progress monitoring as described above, the frequency of assessing progress will be at least annual so that adjustments to the biennial workplan can be made to accommodate changing circumstances and availability of resources. Formal review of type 1) progress data will be completed through the update of the biennial workplan. Progress assessment based on type 2) monitoring will be conducted at a similar frequency as type 1) recognizing that the planning, completion and publishing of research is usually a multi-year process. Therefore, it is not expected that there will be rapid advancement in gaining more knowledge to reduce uncertainty. Adaptively Manage Adaptive management will focus on whether planned research is on schedule and is being completed (type 1 monitoring above) and whether new information is attained that shifts the TCW’s view on priorities. It is also possible that the needs of the kind of information to use in the policy and prevention outcome will influence adaptation of the research agenda. New technologies to be utilized in research may prompt adaptions to the research agenda. Biennial Workplan summarize the commitments, actions and resources that each jurisdiction, federal agency and partner will take to help achieve each of the outcomes.
Assessing Progress immediate results and long-term capacities Assessing progress on XXXXX’s driving goal requires looking at each of these eight targets. Most are represented in the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of the ARF, but some are not. Furthermore, no dimension is fully captured by the KPIs. Evaluating the extent to which there has been sustained improvement in S&T research, for example, requires not only counting the publications already produced, but also what foundation has been laid for more to be published in the future. SHERA is about capacity- building which requires identifying what resources and supports have been created that were not there before, and how widely these resources and supports have been spread, in terms of both geography and gender. While the KPIs greatly inform this evaluation, they are thus not its organizing principle. The eight targets identified above provide a better structure for assessing how well SHERA has performed on its overarching goal – with KPIs from across the ARF brought into the discussion when relevant, and still other material and analyses used to identify what capacity for the future has been built.
Assessing Progress. For type 1) progress monitoring as described above, the frequency of assessing progress will be at least annual so that adjustments to the biennial workplan can be made to accommodate changing circumstances and availability of resources. Formal review of type 1) progress data will be completed through the update of the biennial workplan. Progress assessment based on type 2) and 3) monitoring will be conducted on an as-available basis. These types of monitoring generally will involve measurements of environmental response and environmental condition, which do not necessarily occur at regular intervals and will be contingent on availability of data and/or monitoring funds.
Assessing Progress. The CBP accountability framework provides the foundation to assess performance toward the TMDL and associated water-quality standards. To ensure that tidal water quality goals are realized, stability of the accountability framework is a priority and follow-ups to CBP partnership commitments must be assured. The partnership would be consulted on any potential, proposed changes to the Phase II WIP Planning Targets, which would provide for the watershed-wide distribution of load reductions (separate from any nitrogen-phosphorus and/or cross-basin exchanges within a state which are the responsibility of that jurisdiction) that would achieve the same Chesapeake Bay water quality response. Enhanced knowledge of management practices and their effects will be used primarily to refine individual jurisdiction strategies to achieve the targets. EPA will measure the jurisdictions’ progress toward reaching the Bay TMDL’s ultimate nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction goals against 2-year milestones by which the jurisdictions are expected to identify and commit to implement specific pollutant-reduction controls and actions in each of their successive 2-year milestone periods. The federal government also will be providing 2-year milestones. When assessing 2-year milestone commitments, EPA will evaluate whether proposed actions, controls, and practices would result in estimated loads at the jurisdiction scale that meet the jurisdiction’s 2-year milestone targets. At the end of a milestone period, EPA expects that model-estimated nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads resulting from reported implementation would be at or below target loads at the jurisdiction scale. To determine whether sufficient progress is being made toward meeting the TMDL allocations and interim milestones, EPA will rely on the jurisdictions to monitor, verify, and report their progress. EPA will use the reported tracking data and the Phase 5.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model along with Chesapeake Bay tidal and watershed water quality monitoring data (including contributions from other federal agencies including NOAA, USGS, USACE, and USDA) to assess the jurisdictions’ progress.
