Significant progress has been made in reducing pollution flows to waters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Many of the indicators we use to measure the health and restoration of this important ecosystem have improved steadily over the past several years. In addition to an expansion of bay grasses measured in increased acreage, we are also witnessing an increase in diversity of grass species and the density of grass beds. This recovery is rebuilding the balance and resilience of this complex and productive ecological gem.

However, the president proposed to eliminate funding for the Chesapeake Program under the premise that environmental programs in the six bay states and the District of Columbia have matured and they are capable of managing this effort on their own. In fact, these governments rely heavily on funding via EPA and other federal agency budgets.

Approximately two-thirds of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s budget goes out to the jurisdictions to help them implement the Chesapeake Bay water quality program known as the Total Maximum Daily Load or, alternatively, Pollution Diet or Blueprint. Without this funding or with significantly reduced funding, the jurisdictions would find it extremely difficult to maintain the level of effort necessary to achieve water quality standards in the bay and its tidal waters.

EPA also provides an important coordinating function for the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership effort. It provides funding and management for the watershed’s water quality monitoring network and handles the data that determine whether progress is being made. It serves as the primary convener and facilitator for discussing issues and making decisions on a vast array of important problems that arise in this environmentally complex and economically important watershed.

The agency supports a consensus-based decisionmaking governance system that ensures equity and fairness among its participants. In the District Court decision on the challenge to the bay TMDL, Judge Sylvia Rambo found that EPA’s efforts in the development and issuance were collaborative and consistent with the concept of cooperative federalism as embodied in the Clean Water Act.

Midway through the implementation of the bay TMDL, we find ourselves at an ecological tipping point at which a change in the ecosystem sets in motion mutually reinforcing feedback loops that can propel the system toward balance and stability or degradation and instability. Should we back off of our efforts to increase implementation of pollution-control measures, the investments we have made, and the progress we have achieved, will be lost. The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is under an ever increasing set of new threats and challenges, from forces associated with climate change and ongoing development to the presence of pharmaceutical byproducts, micro-plastics, and agricultural chemicals.

Rather than reducing or eliminating funding for this program, Congress and the president should be supporting increased funding. The single largest source of pollution loadings to the watershed comes from agricultural runoff. Discharges from major wastewater treatment plants already have met their 2025 reduction goals. But support for cost-share programs in the Farm Bill for agricultural conservation measures has been reduced over the past several years and is proposed to be reduced even further in the president’s budget.

Pennsylvania, the state with the largest agricultural sector, is significantly behind in achieving its pollution-reduction goals. Its support for state agricultural cost-share program funding is substantially less than that of Maryland and Virginia. Since 50 percent of Pennsylvania drains to the Chesapeake Bay and almost half of the freshwater flow to the bay comes through the Susquehanna River, if we are unable to achieve the necessary reductions of nutrient and sediment pollution from Pennsylvania, we will not be successful in meeting water quality standards for the bay and its tidal waters, nor will Pennsylvania improve local water quality in its own streams and rivers.

Lastly, more support needs to be provided to local governments that are responsible for operating wastewater treatments plants, managing stormwater, and making land use decisions, which all have an impact on local water quality. As Congress and the administration debate an infrastructure bill, they should use it as an opportunity to ensure that funding is made available to support environmentally sound infrastructure projects for road and bridge construction, wastewater treatment plants, drinking water systems, and energy development and distribution.

It has long been recognized that restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed is important for both ecological and economic reasons. A number of published studies and reports have placed the economic value of the bay and its watershed at well over $1 trillion. A considerable investment has been made in this important asset over the past 35 years. It would be bad business to walk away from that investment now.

For over seven years, ELI’s Gulf of Mexico team has been working to provide information to stakeholders about the restoration and recovery processes put in place after the oil spill. This includes the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council founded by the RESTORE Act, which is set to receive almost $1.6 billion.

Last fall, the council announced that it was seeking public comment on a proposal to “approve implementation funding for the Robinson Preserve Wetlands Restoration project” in Florida. If approved, the council will allocate $1.8 million in RESTORE Act funds to implement the project, including a “reallocat[ion of] $470,910 from planning [funds] to implementation.” The project will restore 118 acres of habitat, including coastal upland, wetland, and open water habitats in the Tampa Bay Watershed.

How is the council able to reallocate nearly a half-million dollars in planning costs to implementation activities? The answer lies, in part, in its use of a mechanism intended to make environmental compliance more efficient: “adoption” of an existing environmental review document. When planning funds for the Robinson Preserve project were first allocated in 2015, it was expected that part of those funds would be used for “any needed environmental compliance activities,” including conformity with the National Environmental Policy Act. Since then, the council has identified and is proposing to adopt an existing NEPA document prepared by the project’s sponsor, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in 2015: a programmatic environmental impact statement addressing a range of restoration types. If the council’s current proposal is approved, the funds that were originally allocated for planning will be reallocated to implementation.

There are mechanisms available under NEPA to help make the process more efficient, including the adoption of an existing EA or EIS. NEPA allows a federal agency to adopt an existing document (or portion of it), even if prepared by a different agency, “provided that the statement or portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement.” In cases where “the actions covered by the original [EIS or EA] and the proposed action are substantially the same,” the agency is not required to recirculate the document for comment prior to adopting it as final. 

Here, the council notes that “NOAA has determined that the specific implementation activities for which funding is being sought [for the Robinson Preserve project] are fully covered by [the existing] programmatic EIS, and therefore no further NEPA review would be needed.” If the current proposal is approved, the project can be implemented on an expedited basis and there will be additional money available for on-the-ground restoration activities.

This is not the first time the council has adopted existing NEPA documents to expedite implementation of a restoration project. Earlier this year, the council announced that it approved implementation funding for the Palm River Restoration Project in Florida, including the reallocation of $87,750 from planning to implementation. To do so, council staff worked with EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and the state of Florida “to identify an existing EA and associated environmental compliance documentation that could be used to support council approval of implementation funding for Palm River.” 

The corps had prepared the existing documentation when it issued a general permit for aquatic habitat restoration, establishment, and enhancement activities. The council similarly adopted an existing EA to expedite and increase implementation funding for its 2016 Apalachicola Bay Oyster Project.

As the pace of restoration in the gulf increases in the coming years, there are likely to be further opportunities for the council and other restoration programs (e.g., the natural resource damage assessment process) to identify existing NEPA documents that satisfy compliance requirements in whole or in part. This could lead to expediting restoration projects and possibly directing more funds to restoration implementation. 

ELI’s Gulf of Mexico team has released two papers related to expediting restoration projects: “Fast-Tracking ‘Good’ Restoration Projects in the Gulf of Mexico” (February 2017) and “Fast-Tracking Restoration: Addressing Resource Constraints in Federal Agencies” (December 2017). We are continuing to work on this issue in 2018 and hope to further contribute to the dialogue on this important topic.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program announced in December that almost 40 percent of the bay meets standards for oxygen, water clarity, and algae growth. Progress toward restoration is impressive, but getting the remaining 60 percent of the waters into alignment will be difficult.

In 2010, after years of halting restoration efforts, EPA established enforceable pollution limits for the Chesapeake — known as the Total Maximum Daily Load — covering nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution. The six bay states — Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia — and the District of Columbia later released their plans to meet those limits by 2025. This ambitious Clean Water Blueprint survived a legal challenge, and in recent years federal, state, and local governments have pressed ahead with their plans to achieve pollution reductions. 

As we reach the midway point for the 2025 deadline, it is clear that progress is being made across the watershed. Water quality and clarity have improved, the acreage of underwater bay grasses has increased, crab harvests are rebounding, and efforts to restore oyster populations are accelerating. Just as important, an outdoor recreational economy (exclusive of recreational fishing) is valued at as much as a quarter billion dollars per year and is growing. 

But despite recent progress, most notably in reducing pollution from wastewater treatment plants, significant challenges remain across the watershed in meeting nonpoint source pollution reductions from agriculture and urban and suburban runoff whose controls are more difficult. 

This Debate in Print occurs as there is a standoff in Washington about future funding for bay restoration, a minor item in the struggle to pass a measure funding the government. The Trump administration has proposed dramatic funding cuts for the Chesapeake Bay Program and other federal initiatives that support restoration efforts. The House is considering less severe cuts, but so far the Senate recommends full funding. Without adequate federal funding, the initiative to save the bay is in jeopardy. 

Recognizing the significant progress that has been made and the important challenges that remain, the Forum asks our panel for their views on what must happen in the years ahead if the goal of restoring the Chesapeake is to succeed.